These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. I’ll also discuss how some of the various games he suggested humans might play with machines are related to this approach. In this paper, I’ll discuss Turing’s child-machine, what he said about different ways of educating it, and what impact the “bringing up” of a child-machine has on its ability to behave in ways that might be taken for intelligent. ![]() The two tests yield different results, and the first provides a more appropriate measure of intelligence.Turing wrote that the “guiding principle” of his investigation into the possibility of intelligent machinery was “The analogy with the human brain.” In his discussion of the investigations that Turing said were guided by this analogy, however, he employs a more far-reaching analogy: he eventually expands the analogy from the human brain out to “the human community as a whole.” Along the way, he takes note of an obvious fact in the bigger scheme of things regarding human intelligence: grownups were once children this leads him to imagine what a machine analogue of childhood might be. Although the first, neglected, test uses a human’s linguistic performance in setting an empirical test of intelligence, it does not make behavioral similarity to that performance the criterion 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’. In ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Alan Turing actually proposed not one, but two, practical tests for deciding the question ‘Can a machine think?’ He presented them as equivalent. ![]() SterrettApril1999TuringsTwoTestsForIntelligenceBJPS.docx Microsoft Word (Turing's Two Tests for Intelligence - April '99 Draft)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |