A formal approach to exploring the interrogator's perspective in the Turing test
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2011.007Keywords
Turing test, Inferential Erotetic Logic, erotetic search scenarios, game, strategyAbstract
My aim in this paper is to use a formal approach to the Turing test. This approach is based on a tool developed within Inferential Erotetic Logic, so called erotetic search scenarios. First, I reconstruct the setting of the Turing test proposed by A.M. Turing. On this basis, I build a model of the test using erotetic search scenarios framework. I use the model to investigate one of the most interesting issues of the TT setting – the interrogator’s perspective and role in the test.References
Block, N., “The Mind as the Software of the Brain”, pages 377–425 in E.E. Smith and D.N. Osherson, editors, An Invitation to Cognitive Science – Thinking, The MIT Press, London, 1995.
Bradford, P.G., and M. Wollowski, “A formalization of the Turing Test”, ACM SIGART Bulletin 6, 4 (1995): 3–10.
Copeland, J., and D. Proudfoot, “Turing’s test: A philosophical and historical guide”, pages 119–138 in [4].
Epstein, R., G. Roberts, and G. Beber (eds.) Parsing the Turing Test: Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2009.
French, R., “Subcogniton and the limits of the Turing test”, Mind, 99, 393 (1990): 53–65. Reprinted in [21], pp. 183–197.
French, R., “The inverted Turing test: How a mindless program could pass it”, Psycholoquy 7, 39 (1996).
Garner, R., ‘The Turing hub as a standard for Turing test interfaces”, pages 319–324 in [4].
Harnish, R.M., Minds, Brains, Computers. An Historical Introduction to the foundations of Cognitive Science, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 2002.
Hernandez-Orallo, J., “Beyond the Turing test”, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 9 (2000): 447–466.
Humphrys, M., “How my program passed the Turing test”, pages 237–260 in [4].
Konar, A., Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. Behavioral and Cognitive Modeling of the Human Brain, CRC Press, Boca Raton – London – N.Y. – Washington, 2000.
Loebner, H., “How to hold a Turing test contest”, pages 173–180 in [4].
Łupkowski, P., “Erotetic search scenarios and problem decomposition”, pages 202–214 in D. Rutkowska, J. Kacprzyk, A. Cader, and K. Przybyszewski (eds.), Some New Ideas and Research Results in Computer Science, EXIT, Warsaw, 2010.
Mauldin, M.L., “Chatterbots, tinymuds, and the Turing test: entering the Loebner Prize competition”, pages 16–21 in: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-04), Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1994, American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
McKinstry, Ch., “Minimum intelligence signal test: an objective Turing test”, Canadian Artificial Intelligence, pp. 17–18, Spring/Summer 1997.
McKinstry, Ch., “Mind as space: Toward the automatic discovery of a universal human semantic effective hyperspace – A possible subcognitive foundation of a computer program able to pass the Turing test”, pages 283–300 in [4].
Moor, J., “An analysis of the Turing test”, Philosophical Studies 30 (1976): 249–257. Reprinted in [21], pp. 297–306.
Newman, A.H., A.M. Turing, G. Jefferson, and R.B. Braithwaite, “Canautomatic calculating machines be said to think?”, broadcast discussion transmited on BBC (14 and 23 Jan. 1952). The Turing Digital Archive (www.turingarchive.org), Contents of AMT/B/6, 1952.
Sato, Y., and T. Ikegami, “Undecidability in the imitation game”, Minds and Machines 14 (2004): 133–143.
Saygin, A.P., I. Cicekli, and V. Akman, “Turing test: 50 years later”, Minds and Machines 10 (2001): 463–518.
Shieber, S. (ed.) The Turing Test. Verbal Behavior as the Hallmark of Intelligence, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachutetts, London, 2004.
Shieber, S.M., “Does the Turing test demonstrate intelligence or not?”, pages 1539–1542 in: Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-06), 16–20 July 2006.
Shieber, S.M., “The Turing test as interactive proof”, Noûs, 4, 41 (2007): 686–713.
Stalker, D.F., “Why machines can’t think: A reply to James Moor”, Philosophical Studies 34 (1976): 317–320. Reprinted in [21], pp. 307–310.
Turing, A.M., “Computing machinery and intelligence”, Mind, LIX, 236 (1950): 443–455.
Turing, A.M., “Can digital computers think?” The Turing Digital Archive (www.turingarchive.org), Contents of AMT/B/5, 1951.
Turing, A.M., “Intelligent machinery, a heretical theory”, The Turing Digital Archive (www.turingarchive.org), Contents of AMT/B/4, 1951.
Urbański, M., “Synthetic tableaux and erotetic search scenarios: Extension and extraction”, Logique & Analyse 173–174–175 (2001): 69–91.
Urbański, M., and P. Łupkowski, “Erotetic search scenarios: Revealing interrogator’s hidden agenda”, pages 67–74 in: P. Łupkowski and M. Purver (eds.), Aspects of Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. SemDial 2010, 14th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Polish Society for Cognitive Science, Poznań, 2010.
Watt, S., “Can people think? Or machines? A unified protocol for Turing testing”, pages 301–318 in [4].
Wiśniewski, A., The Posing of Questions: Logical Foundations of Erotetic Inferences, Kluwer AP, Dodrecht, Boston, London, 1995.
Wiśniewski, A., “Questions and inferences”, Logique & Analyse, 173–175 (2001): 5–43.
Wiśniewski, A., “Erotetic search scenarios”, Synthese 134 (2003): 389–427.
Wiśniewski, A., “Erotetic search scenarios, problem-solving, and deduction”, Logique & Analyse 185–188 (2004): 139–166.
Wiśniewski, A., “Questions, inferences, and dialogues”, 2008. Presentation for LONDIAL. SemDial Workshop Series on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, London, 2–4 June 2008.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 593
Number of citations: 8
