[mod.ai] The Turing Test - A Third Quantisation?

gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@CS.UCL.AC.UK (03/03/86)

The original basis  for the Turing test was to  see if it was possible
to distinguish, purely from a text,  whether you were talking to a man
or woman. The extension of this, the Turing test itself, seeks to give
a criterion  for deciding  on whether or not  a intelligent system  is 
"truly intelligent".  A human  asks questions and receives  answers in
textual form.  (S)he then has to decide  if it is a machine behind the 
screen or not.
Now,  supposing a system  has been built which  "passes" the test. Why
not take  the process  one stage  further?  Why not  try to design  an 
intelligent system which can decide whether *it* is talking to machine 
or not?

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

eugene@AURORA.UUCP (Eugene miya) (03/08/86)

Turing in fact did propose that in his paper: that a machine could
try a discrimination of two players.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

johnson@DEWEY.UDEL.EDU (johnson) (03/21/86)

|Now,  supposing a system  has been built which  "passes" the test. Why
|not take  the process  one stage  further?  Why not  try to design  an
|intelligent system which can decide whether *it* is talking to machine
|or not?
|
|Gordon Joly
|ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
|UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj


Let me get this straight, a human cannot distinguish machine M1 from another
human, but machine M2 *can* distinguish M1 from a human. Will machines of type
M2 then debate about whether it is possible for a human to be modified to pass
the M2turing test?  Alternatively, perhaps M2s should try to create M3 s.t.
an M3 cannot be distinguished from a human by an M2, or how about an M4, which
is a machine that an M2 cannot distinguish from an M1?  But wait, how can an
M2 be sure that an M4 is not simply a copy of an M1?  Is some descendent of the
turing test a test that which tries to infer the nature of the designer from
the design?

-johnson@UDEL.EDU