3, I discuss two problems with the TT: (i) Artificial Stupidity and (ii) Blockhead. In the next section, I review two interpretations of the TT: the Original Imitation Game (OIG), advocated by Sterrett ( 2000) and the Standard Turing Test (STT), advocated by Moor ( 2001). The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Footnote 2 My claim is that the QTT (i) improves the experimental design of the TT, by minimising both the Eliza Effect Footnote 3 and the Confederate Effect Footnote 4 and (ii) prevents both Artificial Stupidity Footnote 5 and Blockhead Footnote 6 from passing. In the QTT, the entity Footnote 1 must accomplish a yes/no enquiry in a humanlike and strategic way, where ‘strategic’ means with as few questions as possible. To show this, I propose a new version of the TT, called QTT. My view is that the fault of the TT is one of interpretation and experimental design rather than experimental concept. ![]() ![]() Even if judges can give scores, in the end any score of humanness is meaningless. the Turing test aims at a quality and not a quantity. The standard Turing test is not a valid and reliable test for HLMI.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |