![]() Consequently, the first test is immune to many of the philosophical criticisms on the basis of which the (so-called) `Turing Test' has been dismissed. ![]() The first test realizes a possibility that philosophers have overlooked: a test that uses a human's linguistic performance in setting an empirical test of intelligence, but does not make behavioral similarity to that performance the criterion of intelligence. This is more appropriate because the question under consideration is what would count as machine intelligence. ![]() This eagerly awaited anthology, while surely not the last word. Rapaport State University of New York at Buffalo. Stuart Shieber (editor) (Harvard University) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004, xiii+346 pp paperbound, ISBN 3-7, 30.00, 19.95. This is because the features of intelligence upon which it relies are resourcefulness and a critical attitude to one's habitual responses thus the test's applicablity is not restricted to any particular species, nor does it presume any particular capacities. The Turing Test: Verbal Behavior as the Hallmark of Intelligence. The two tests can yield different results it is the first, neglected test that provides the more appropriate indication of intelligence. I show here that the first test described in that much-discussed paper is in fact not equivalent to the second one, which has since become known as `the Turing Test'. On a literal reading of `Computing Machinery and Intelligence', Alan Turing presented not one, but two, practical tests to replace the question `Can machines think?' He presented them as equivalent. The Turing Test is part of the vocabulary of popular culture - it has appeared in works ranging from the Broadway play 'Breaking the Code' to the comic strip 'Robotman'.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |