Content deleted Content added
Dartmouth workshop, not conference |
m Open access bot: url-access updated in citation with #oabot. |
||
Line 22:
* {{Citation |last1=Evans |first1=A. D. J. |title=Cybernetics: Key Papers |year=1968 |publisher=University Park Press |last2=Robertson}}</ref>
As [[Stevan Harnad]] notes,<ref>{{Citation |chapter-url=http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12954/ |first=Stevan |last=Harnad |year=2008 |chapter=The Annotation Game: On Turing (1950) on Computing, Machinery, and Intelligence |editor1-last=Epstein |editor1-first=Robert |editor2-last=Peters |editor2-first=Grace |title=The Turing Test Sourcebook: Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer |publisher=Kluwer }}</ref> the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can ''act'' indistinguishably<ref>{{Citation |url=http://cogprints.org/2615/ |first=Stevan |last=Harnad |year=2001 |title=Minds, Machines, and Turing: The Indistinguishability of Indistinguishables |journal=Journal of Logic, Language and Information |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=425–445 |postscript=. |doi=10.1023/A:1008315308862 |s2cid=1911720 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them.
Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the [[philosophy of artificial intelligence]].<ref>{{cite conference |last=Swiechowski |first=Maciej |year=2020 |title=Game AI Competitions: Motivation for the Imitation Game-Playing Competition |url=https://annals-csis.org/proceedings/2020/pliks/126.pdf |publisher=IEEE Publishing |pages=155–160 |doi=10.15439/2020F126 |isbn=978-83-955416-7-4 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126184536/https://annals-csis.org/proceedings/2020/pliks/126.pdf |archive-date=26 January 2021 |access-date=8 September 2020 |ref=ieee_fedcsis |doi-access=free |book-title=Proceedings of the 2020 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems |s2cid=222296354 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Withers |first=Steven |title=Flirty Bot Passes for Human |date=11 December 2007 |url=http://www.itwire.com/your-it-news/home-it/15748-flirty-bot-passes-for-human |work=iTWire |access-date=10 February 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171004140133/https://www.itwire.com/your-it-news/home-it/15748-flirty-bot-passes-for-human |url-status=live |archive-date=4 October 2017}}</ref> Some of its criticisms, such as [[John Searle]]'s [[Chinese room]], are themselves controversial.<ref>{{Citation |last=Williams |first=Ian |title=Online Love Seerkers Warned Flirt Bots |date=10 December 2007 |url=http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2205441/online-love-seekers-warned-flirt-bots |work=V3 |access-date=10 February 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100424101329/http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2205441/online-love-seekers-warned-flirt-bots |url-status=live |archive-date=24 April 2010}}</ref><ref name="fortune lambda">{{cite news |author=Jeremy Kahn |date=June 13, 2022 |title=A.I. experts say the Google researcher's claim that his chatbot became 'sentient' is ridiculous—but also highlights big problems in the field |work=Fortune |url=https://fortune.com/2022/06/13/google-ai-researchers-sentient-chatbot-claims-ridiculed-by-experts/ |url-status=live |access-date=13 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220613132958/https://fortune.com/2022/06/13/google-ai-researchers-sentient-chatbot-claims-ridiculed-by-experts/ |archive-date=13 June 2022}}</ref> Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?"<ref name="NMR">Wardrip-Fruin, Noah and Nick Montfort, ed (2003). The New Media Reader. The MIT Press. {{ISBN|0-262-23227-8}}.</ref> but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity.<ref>{{Citation |url=http://cogprints.org/1584/ |first=Stevan |last=Harnad |title=The Turing Test Is Not A Trick: Turing Indistinguishability Is A Scientific Criterion |journal=ACM SIGART Bulletin |volume=3 |issue=4 |year=1992 |pages=9–10 |postscript=. |doi=10.1145/141420.141422 |s2cid=36356326 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>
==Digital machines==
Line 55:
#''Argument from continuity in the nervous system'': Modern [[neurological]] research has shown that the brain is not digital. Even though [[neuron]]s fire in an all-or-nothing pulse, both the exact timing of the pulse and the probability of the pulse occurring have analog components. Turing acknowledges this, but argues that any analog system can be simulated to a reasonable degree of accuracy given enough computing power. ([[Philosopher]] [[Hubert Dreyfus]] would make this argument against "the biological assumption" in 1972.)<ref>{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|1979|p=156}}</ref>
#''Argument from the informality of behaviour'': This argument states that any system governed by laws will be predictable and therefore not truly intelligent. Turing replies by stating that this is confusing laws of behaviour with general rules of conduct, and that if on a broad enough scale (such as is evident in man) machine behaviour would become increasingly difficult to predict. He argues that, just because we can't immediately see what the laws are, does not mean that no such laws exist. He writes "we certainly know of no circumstances under which we could say, 'we have searched enough. There are no such laws.'". ([[Hubert Dreyfus]] would argue in 1972 that human reason and problem solving was not based on formal rules, but instead relied on instincts and awareness that would never be captured in rules. More recent AI research in [[robotics]] and [[computational intelligence]] attempts to find the complex rules that govern our "informal" and unconscious skills of perception, mobility and pattern matching. See [[Dreyfus' critique of AI]]).<ref>{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|1972}}, {{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|1986}}, {{Harvnb|Moravec|1988}} and {{Harvnb|Russell|Norvig|2003|pp=51–52}}, who identify Dreyfus' argument with the one Turing answers.</ref> This rejoinder also includes the [[Turing's Wager]] argument.
#''[[Extra-sensory perception]]'': In 1950, extra-sensory perception was an active area of research and Turing chooses to give ESP the benefit of the doubt, arguing that conditions could be created in which [[Telepathy|mind-reading]] would not affect the test. Turing admitted to "overwhelming statistical evidence" for telepathy, likely referring to early 1940s experiments by [[Samuel Soal]], a member of the [[Society for Psychical Research]].<ref>{{Citation |last=Leavitt |first=David |title=Turing and the paranormal |date=2017-01-26 |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/40646/chapter/348321617 |work=The Turing Guide |access-date=2023-07-23 |publisher=Oxford University Press |language=en |doi=10.1093/oso/9780198747826.003.0042 |isbn=978-0-19-874782-6|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
==Learning machines==
| |||