The Controversy Surrounding Turing's Imitation Game

Kevin Warwick; Huma Shah

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107297234.005

4 - The Controversy Surrounding Turing's Imitation Game

from PART ONE

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 October 2016

Kevin Warwick and

Huma Shah

Show author details

Kevin Warwick: Affiliation:
Coventry University
Huma Shah: Affiliation:
Coventry University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In Chapter 2 we saw that Turing described a number of scenarios featuring a machine being interrogated by a human. In that pre-Internet era Turing's foresaw a way his game could be played across two rooms with the participants, human interrogator and machine, hidden from each other and communicating by typing.

Turing's imitation game is less concerned with actually deceiving a naïve human interrogator and more about a machine's ability to provide satisfactory answers to any questions a human might put to it (see Chapter 2), and that the machine's satisfactory answers must be sustained. In order that the machine is not judged on its beauty or its tone of voice it must be out of sight and hearing of the interrogator who is tasked with focussing on the answers to any questions they might want to ask – we contend five minutes is adequate for a first impression. Why should the machines be able to do this? More and more robots are being developed to interact with humans, such as Hector, a care robot built to look after the elderly isolated in their own home. Future machines should be able talk to us just as we talk with others.

Since publication of Computing machinery and intelligence (CMI) (Turing, 1950) and his proposed imitation game for investigating machine thinking through two different tests, both pivoting on linguistic inputs and outputs as criteria for intelligence (Schweizer, 2010), a whole industry has grown. According to Loebner (2010) the correct design for a Turing test involves three participants in which an interrogator questions a machine and human in parallel, an interpretation which Loebner claims he realised after implementing thirteen one-to-one tests in his annual Loebner Prize, “the oldest Turing test contest”.2 Loebner's interpretation overlooks Turing's own description for his imitation game and the two methods for realising it:

(i) a simultaneous comparison of a machine against a human, both questioned by a human interrogator (Turing, 1950); and
(ii) the direct machine examination by a human interrogator in a viva vocetype scenario (Turing, 1950; Braithwaite et al., 1952).

Turing's biographer Andrew Hodges tells us Turing was working at Manchester University at the time of CMI's publication in 1950.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Turing's Imitation Game
Conversations with the Unknown
, pp. 56 - 68

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107297234.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arifovic, J., McKelvey, R.D. and Pevnitskay, S. (2006). An initial implementation of the Turing tournament to learning in repeated two-person games. Games and Economic Behavior 57, 93–122.Google Scholar

Ariza, C. (2009). The interrogator as critic: the Turing test and the evaluation of generative music systems. Computer Music Journal 33 (2), 48–70.Google Scholar

Block, N. (1981). Psychologism and behaviorism. In The Turing Test: Verbal Behavior as the Hallmark of Intelligence, S., Shieber, (ed). MIT Press, pp. 229–266.

Braithwaite, R., Jefferson, G., Newman, M. and Turing, A.M. (1952). Can automatic calculating machines be said to think? Transcript of BBC radio broadcast reproduced in Alan Turing: His Work and Impact S.B., Cooper and Jan van, Leeuwen (eds), Elsevier, pp. 667–676.

Bringsjord, S., Bello, P. and Ferrucci, D. (2001). Creativity, the Turing test and the (better) Lovelace test. Minds and Machines 11 (1), 3–27.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2008). Turing on the ‘Imitation Game’. In Epstein et al. (2008), pp. 103–106.

Colby, K.M.,Weber, S., and Hilf, F.D. (1971). Artificial paranoia. Artificial Intelligence 2, 1–25.Google Scholar

Colby, K.M., Hilf, F.D., Weber, S., and Kraemer, H.C. (1972). Turing-like indistinguishability tests for the validation of a computer simulation of paranoid processes. Artificial Intelligence 3, 199–221.Google Scholar

Copeland, B.J. (2004). The Essential Turing: The Ideas That Gave Birth to the Computer Age. Oxford Univesity Press.

Copeland, J. and Proudfoot, D. (2008). Turing's test: a philosophical and historical guide. In Epstein et al. (2008), pp. 119–138.

Cowen, T. and Dawson, M. (2009). What does the Turing test really mean? And how many human beings (including Turing) could pass? http://www.gmu.edu/ centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/turingfinal.pdf.

Cullen, J. (2009). Imitation versus communication: testing for human-like intelligence. Minds and Machines 19 (2), 237–254.Google Scholar

Dennett, D.C. (1984). Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Wanting. Oxford University Press.

Egeth, M. (2008). A ‘Turing test’ and BCI for locked-in children and adults. Medical Hypotheses 70, 1067.Google Scholar

Epstein, R., Roberts, G. and Beber, G. Parsing the Turing Test: Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer. Springer.

Espejo-Serna, J.C. (2010). Connecting the dots in my own way: sphex-test and flexibility in artificial cognitive agents. In Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT): Reconsidering the Turing Test for the 21st Century, Proc. AISB 2010 Symposium, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

French, R. (1990). Subcognition and the limits of the Turing test. Mind 99 (393), 53–65.Google Scholar

Genova, J. (1994). Turing's sexual guessing game. Social Epistemology 8, 313–326.Google Scholar

Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech Acts, P., Cole and J.L., Morgan (eds). Academic Press, pp. 41–58.

Halpern, M. (2006). The trouble with the Turing test. The New Atlantis 11, Winter, 42–63.

Harnad, S. (1992). The Turing test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a scientific criterion. SIGART Bulletin 3 (4), 9–10.Google Scholar

Harnad, S. (2002). What's wrong and right about Searle's Chinese Room argument? In Views Into the Chinese Room, M., Bishop and J., Preston (eds). Oxford University Press.

Harnad, S. and Scherzer, P. (2008). First scale up to the robotic Turing test, then worry about feeling. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 44 (2), 83–89.Google Scholar

Hasanhodzic, J., Lo, A.W. and Viola, E. (2010). Is it real or is it randomised? A financial Turing test. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4592.pdf. date visited: 15.3.16.

Hayes, P. and Ford, K. (1995). Turing test considered harmful. In Proc. 14th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Vol. 1. pp. 972–7.Google Scholar

Heiser, J.F., Colby, K.M., Fraught, W.S. and Parkison, R.C. (1979). Can psychiatrists distinguish a computer simulation of paranoia from the real thing? The limitation of Turing-like tests as measures of the adequacy of simulations. Journal of Psychiatric Research 15, 149–162.Google Scholar

Hodges, A. (2008). Alan Turing and the Turing test. In Epstein et al. (2008), pp. 13–22.

Kurzweil, R. (2006). Why we can be confident of Turing test capability within a quarter century. http://www.jayurbain.com/msoe/cs4881/ WhyWeCanBeConfident.pdf.

Lasségue, J. (1996). What kind of Turing test did Turing have in mind? Tekhnema 3/ “A touch of memory”. http://tekhnema.free.fr/3Lasseguearticle.htm accessed: 15.3.16.

Lenat, D. (2001). Artificial intelligence – battle of the brains. Wired. http://www. wired.com/2001/11/battle-of-the-brains/ accessed: 15.3.16.

Loebner, H.G. (2010). Some misconceptions regarding the Turing test. In Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT): Reconsidering the Turing Test for the 21st Century, Proc. AISB 2010 Symposium, pp. 50–51.Google Scholar

McDermott, D. (2014). On the claim that a table-lookup program could pass the Turing test. Minds and Machines 24 (2), 143–188.Google Scholar

Moor, J.H. (1976). An analysis of Turing's test. Philosophical Studies 30, 249–257.Google Scholar

Moor, J.H. (2003). The status and future of the Turing test. In The Turing Test – the Elusive Standard of Artificial Intelligence, J.H., Moor (ed). Springer, pp. 197–214.

Owen, A.M., Coleman, M.R., Boly, M., Davis, M.H., Laureys, S., and Pickard, J.D. (2006). Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science 313, 1402.Google Scholar

Pinsky, L. (1951). Do machines think about machines thinking? Mind, LX, 397–398.Google Scholar

Plebe, A., and Perconti, P. (2010). Qualia Turing test – designing a test for the phenomenal mind. In Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT): Reconsidering the Turing Test for the 21st Century, Proc. AISB 2010 Symposium.

Purtill, R.L. (1971). Beating the imitation game. Mind 80, 290–294.Google Scholar

Robinson, G. (1972). How to tell your friends from your machines. Mind 81 (234), 504–518.Google Scholar

Sampson, G. (1973). In defence of Turing. Mind 82 (328), 592–594.Google Scholar

Savova, V. and Peshkin, L. (2007). Is the Turing test good enough? The fallacy of resource-unbounded intelligence. In Proc. IJCAI-07, Hyderabad, pp. 545–550.Google Scholar

Schröder, M. and McKeown, G. (2010). Considering social and emotional artificial intelligence. In Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT): Reconsidering the Turing Test for the 21st Century, Proc. AISB 2010 Symposium.

Schweizer, P. (2010). Causal and communal factors in a comprehensive test of intelligence. In Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT): Reconsidering the Turing Test for the 21st Century, Proc. AISB 2010 Symposium, pp. 7–11.Google Scholar

Shah, H., and Warwick, K. (2010). From the buzzing in Turing's head to machine intelligence contests. In Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT): Reconsidering the Turing Test for the 21st Century, Proc. AISB 2010 Symposium.

Shieber, S.M. (2004). The Turing Test: Verbal Behavior as the Hallmark of Intelligence. MIT Press.

Solon, O. (2013). Rencon: a Turing test for musical expression. Wired, September; http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/02/ rencon-turing-test-for-music accessed 15.3.16

Sperber, D and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance, Communication and Cognition. Harvard University Press.

Sterrett, S.G. (2000). Turing's two tests for intelligence. Minds and Machines 10 (4), 541–559.Google Scholar

Stevenson, R. (1993). Language, Thought and Representation. Wiley.

Stins, J.F. (2008). Establishing consciousness in non-communicative patients: a modern-day version of the Turing test. Consciousness and Cognition 18, 87–192.Google Scholar

Stins, J.F. and Laureys, S. (2009). Thought translation, tennis and Turing tests in the vegetative state. Phenom. Cogn Sci. 8, 361–370.Google Scholar

Turin, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind LIX (236), 433–460.Google Scholar

Warwick, K. and Shah, H. (2014c). The Turing test – a new appraisal. International Journal of Synthetic Emotions 5 (1), 31–45.Google Scholar

Warwick, K. and Shah, H. (2014d) Human misidentification in Turing tests. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 27 (2), 123–135.

Wilks, Y. (1974). Your friends and your machines. Mind 83 (332), 583–585.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.