You are on page 1of 4

..

HOME | MODULE | CURRICLUM

Turing Test and Machine Intelligence

Author: Peter Bradley

Prev
[Turing Machines and Natural Language]

In 1950, Turing published "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in the Philosophic


Journal Mind. In it, he proposed a method by which we might answer the question 'Can
Machines Think?'. His idea which he calls the 'imitation game' is really quite
simple.
The Imitation Game is played by three participants: the interrogator, a human subject,
and an artificially intelligent machine. The three are in separate rooms, and can only
communicate via teletype. The goal of the interrogator is to determine which participant
is the machine. They are allowed to ask questions of any sort. Turing hypothesizes that
by the end of the century (the 20th, that is), computers will exist that can play the
machine so well that "the average interrogator will not have more than a 70% chance
of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning." (442) He does not
suggest that this test definitively settles the matter, but he does claim that if these
conditions obtain, one could speak of machines thinking "without expecting to be
contradicted".
He then lays out nine possible objections to the view that machines may be intelligent.

Turing's Objection's and Replies:

Theology

Heads in the

The objection claims that thinking is a function of the humans'


immortal soul. Machines have no souls; therefore, they cannot
think. Turing responds in two ways: first to note that if God is
omnipotent, he could give souls to machines. Second, and more
importantly, Turing's notes that a very similar argument was made
against the Copernican theory of the movement of the planets. We
rejected that argument in light of empirical evidence, and we
should do the same in this case.

This objection claims that the consequences of a machine thinking


is too dreadful to contemplate; therefore, we should hope and
believe that they can never do so. Turing's reply is simply to note
Sand that this objection, like the objection from Theology, is based on
the idea that Humans are necessarily superior to everything else.
And that is an empirical thesis, subject to test.

Mathematics

This objection turns on results, due to Gdel and Turing, that no


formal system or (fixed, i.e. unchanging) machine can generate all
arithmetical truths. Take, for example, the statement 'This
statement cannot be generated by a fixed machine'. If the
statement can be generated, the statement is false, and the Turing
machine has proven a false statement. If the statement cannot be
generated, the statement is true, but therefore escapes the scope
of that Turing machine. The objection continues: human
intelligence is not so limited; therefore, logical systems and
machines cannot be intelligent. In response, Turing makes two
points: the first is to question the premise that human intelligence
is not limited in this way. According to Turing, we do not know if
human intelligence is limited or not, and one way to determine if
the machine is limited in precisely the same way as human
intelligence is the already proposed Turing Test. The second is to
note that a machine that is capable of inventing its own method of
proof, or its own rules of syntactic processing, would be capable of
generating all the arithmetic truths. Of course, it would also be
capable of making mistakes. But, of course, so are we.

Consciousness

The argument from consciousness proceeds as follows: No machine


can have emotions, feel pleasure, grief, depression, etc. Intelligent
humans clearly do. Therefore, machines cannot be intelligent.
Turing's response is to claim that this argument is a denial of the
validity of the Turing test itself. If a machine can talk intelligently
about, say, a sonnet that it has composed, that that machine would
be intelligent. After all, discussion about such feelings with other
humans is the only evidence we have that they feel in the same
way we do. If we are unwilling to attribute consciousness to a
machine in such a scenario, we must also be unwilling to attribute
consciousness to other humans.
Turing's response here is interesting, but somewhat unsatisfying.
The argument from consciousness has become one of the central
problems in the philosophy of mind in recent years, and
philosophers like David Chalmers are perfectly willing to allow that
there may be people who look and act just as we do, but have no
conscious states. These 'zombies', as Chalmers calls them, might
be equivalent to any machine that can pass the Turing test.

Various
Disabilities

This argument takes the form 'Not until a machine can do X, can it
be said to be intelligent', where X is one of 'be kind, have a sense
of humor, fall in love, enjoy strawberries, make mistakes, etc.
Turing responds that none of these argument have any support,
and all seem to be grounded in mere induction. In certain cases
(like 'enjoying strawberries'), the objection is really a version of the
argument from consciousness. The 'make mistakes' disability is of
particular interest. Why should a machine be punished because it
might be better at Math than a human?

Lady Lovelace

Lady Lovelace, who, with Charles Babbage, invented the first


mechanistic calculator made the following claim: "The Analytic
Engine has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do
whatever we know how to order it to perform". Intelligent humans

perform original actions, and create original objects. Therefore,


machines cannot be intelligent. Turing's response is that machines
often do take their creators by surprise, and this surprising result
can be analogous to original thinking.
Later thinkers have been unconvinced by Turing's response. Many
more recent AI theorist have argued that an intelligent machine's
machines tables should include some sort of probabilistic
calculation, thereby allowing for original, unexpected results.

Continuity of the
Nervous System

This argument claims that there is a disanalogy between Turing


machines and the Nervous system, and that this disanalogy is so
great, that no intelligent machine would ever be possible. Turing's
response is simple: yes, that's true, but if the machine passed the
Turing test, would it matter? Turing is arguing here for a kind of
primitive thesis of multiple-realizability. According to the thesis of
multiple-realizability, or, at least a functionalist version of the
multiple realizability thesis, what matters for intelligence is not the
physical make up of the intelligent thing, but rather the fact that
the thing functions in much the same way we do: including acting a
certain way given a certain condition, having internal states in
response to a certain input condition, etc. Turing's point is simply
to press on the fact that the way in which the intelligent machine is
physically put together should not change our intuitions regarding
machines that can pass the test.

Informality of
Behavior

This argument claims that we do not know of a set of rules that will
govern all human behavior, but in order to create an intelligent
machine, you must create just such a set of rules. Turing's
response is to note the difference between knowing about such a
set of rules and there actually being such rules. There may be such
rules, even if they are outside of the realm of current
understanding.
Again, it is worth noting that this objection is part of what inspired
the neural network modelers to seek an alternate way of modeling
intelligence.

ESP

This argument is simple: intelligent humans possess ESP, machines


do not. Therefore, machines can't be intelligent. Surprisingly,
Turing takes this argument quite seriously. But, he notes, the only
way to prove ESP would be by empirical test, and any such test
could be given to an artificial intelligence as well.

Which of the objections do you find the strongest? The weakest? Are Turing's responses
satisfactory?
Alan Turing is easily one of the most fascinating people in the history of Computer
Science. In addition to developing the Turing machine and proposing the Turing test, he
was largely responsible for breaking the Nazi's code during WWII. In 1954, he
committed suicide after being convicted of committing homosexual acts and sentenced
to not only lose his military clearance, but also to undergo a course of estrogen
injections. There is some controversy over his death - Turing's mother always
contended that his death was not suicide, but rather an accidental overdose due to poor

laboratory techniques. And there is some evidence that she might have been right.
Click here to learn more about Alan Turing.
There have been a number of different programs that attempt to pass the Turing test.
Take a moment to try some of these out, and see if you can determine if the
respondent is a human or a computer.

Copyright: 2002

Prev
[Turing Machines and Natural Language]

You've reached the end of this component.


[Explore Complete Module]

You might also like