Some Implications of a Sample of Practical Turing Tests

Authors:
Kevin Warwick;Huma Shah;James Moor
Affiliations:
School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading, Reading, UK RG6 6AY;School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading, Reading, UK RG6 6AY;Department of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA 03755
Venue:
Minds and Machines
Year:
2013

Citing 6
Cited 0

The Turing Test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a scientific criterion

ACM SIGART Bulletin
Turing's Imitation Game: Still an Impossible Challenge for All Machines and Some Judges------An Evaluation of the 2008 Loebner Contest

Minds and Machines
Turing test considered harmful

IJCAI'95 Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1
Is it enough to get the behaviour right?

IJCAI'09 Proceedings of the 21st international jont conference on Artifical intelligence
Hidden Interlocutor Misidentification in Practical Turing Tests

Minds and Machines
Artificial Intelligence: The Basics

Artificial Intelligence: The Basics

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

A series of imitation games involving 3-participant (simultaneous comparison of two hidden entities) and 2-participant (direct interrogation of a hidden entity) were conducted at Bletchley Park on the 100th anniversary of Alan Turing's birth: 23 June 2012. From the ongoing analysis of over 150 games involving (expert and non-expert, males and females, adults and child) judges, machines and hidden humans (foils for the machines), we present six particular conversations that took place between human judges and a hidden entity that produced unexpected results. From this sample we focus on features of Turing's machine intelligence test that the mathematician/code breaker did not consider in his examination for machine thinking: the subjective nature of attributing intelligence to another mind.