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