Choose the Right Synonym for question Verb askquestioninterrogatequeryinquire mean to address a person in order to gain information.
Turing and the Imitation Game Turing describes the following kind of game.
Suppose that we have a person, a machine, and an interrogator. The interrogator is in a room separated from the other person and the machine. The object of the game is for the interrogator to determine which of the other two is the person, and which is the machine.
The interrogator is allowed to put questions to the person and the machine of the following kind: The object of the machine is to try to cause the interrogator to mistakenly conclude that the machine is the other person; the object of the other person is to try to help the interrogator to correctly identify the machine.
About this game, Turing says: I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of aboutto make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.
There are at least two kinds of questions that can be raised about Turing's predictions concerning his Imitation Game.
First, there are empirical questions, e. Second, there are conceptual questions, e.
There is little doubt that Turing would have been disappointed by the state of play at the end of the twentieth century. Participants in the Loebner Prize Competition—an annual event in which computer programmes are submitted to the Turing Test— had come nowhere near the standard that Turing envisaged.
A quick look at the transcripts of the participants for the preceding decade reveals that the entered programs were all easily detected by a range of not-very-subtle lines of questioning. Moreover, major players in the field regularly claimed that the Loebner Prize Competition was an embarrassment precisely because we were still so far from having a computer programme that could carry out a decent conversation for a period of five minutes—see, for example, Shieber It was widely conceded on all sides that the programs entered in the Loebner Prize Competition were designed solely with the aim of winning the minor prize of best competitor for the year, with no thought that the embodied strategies would actually yield something capable of passing the Turing Test.
Midway through the second decade of the twenty-first century, little has changed. See, for example, Floridi But there have been other one-off competitions in which similar results have been achieved.
And, in a demonstration, Cleverbot had an even higher success rate. In all three of these cases, the size of the trial was very small, and the result was not reliably projectible: Moreover—and much more importantly—we must distinguish between the test the Turing proposed, and the particular prediction that he made about how things would be by the end of the twentieth century.
The percentage chance of making the correct identification, the time interval over which the test takes place, and the number of conversational exchanges required are all adjustable parameters in the Test, despite the fact that they are fixed in the particular prediction that Turing made.
Even if Turing was very far out in the prediction that he made about how things would be by the end of the twentieth century, it remains possible that the test that he proposes is a good one.
However, before one can endorse the suggestion that the Turing Test is good, there are various objections that ought to be addressed. Some people have suggested that the Turing Test is chauvinistic: Why couldn't it be the case that there are intelligent things that are unable to carry on a conversation, or, at any rate, unable to carry on a conversation with creatures like us?
See, for example, French Perhaps the intuition behind this question can be granted; perhaps it is unduly chauvinistic to insist that anything that is intelligent has to be capable of sustaining a conversation with us. On the other hand, one might think that, given the availability of suitably qualified translators, it ought to be possible for any two intelligent agents that speak different languages to carry on some kind of conversation.
But, in any case, the charge of chauvinism is completely beside the point.Is the brain a digital computer? 2. Is the mind a computer program? 3.
Can the operations of the brain be simulated on a digital computer? I will be addressing 1 and not 2 or 3. I think 2 can be decisively answered in the question whether the brain is a physical mechanism determining our mental states and. The mathematician Alan Turing once proposed a test which could be used to settle the question whether a computer met the criteria for being an 'artificial intelligence', that is to say, a test which would determine whether the computer was not only able to calculate but also to think, as we do.
The philosophy of artificial intelligence attempts to answer such questions as follows: Is the human brain essentially a computer? Can a machine have a mind, mental states, The question of whether the machine actually feels an emotion. To my mind, Searle has not rebutted the strong AI position with his thought experiment.
Instead, he has merely pointed out, implicitly, how difficult it would be for a computer to pass the Turing. The question of whether a mechanical device could ever be said to think–to experience feelings, or to have a mind–is not really new one.
But it has been given a new impetus, even an urgency, by the advent of modern computer technology. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a seminal paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence.
The paper, published in in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public.