FREE THE TURING TEST PDF

Chris Beckett | 200 pages | 29 Jul 2008 | Elastic Press | 9780955318184 | English | Norwich, United Kingdom Scrapbook - Turing Test

The Turing testoriginally called by Alan Turing in[2] is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the The Turing Test partners in conversation is a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech. The test results do not depend on the machine's ability to give correct answers to questionsonly how closely its answers resemble those a human would give. The test was introduced by Turing in his paper " Computing Machinery and " while working at the . Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game? In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think". Since Turing first introduced his test, The Turing Test has proven to be both highly influential and widely criticised, and it has become an important concept in the philosophy of . Some of these criticisms, such as 's Chinese roomare themselves controversial. The question of whether it is possible for machines The Turing Test think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the . For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in The Turing Test particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can The Turing Test. Here Descartes notes that automata are capable of responding The Turing Test human interactions but argues that such automata cannot respond appropriately to The Turing Test said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the Turing test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual The Turing Test and criterion. This does not mean he agrees The Turing Test this, but that it was already a common argument of materialists at that time. According to dualism, the mind is non-physical or, at the very least, has non-physical properties [12] and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to , the mind can The Turing Test explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of that are produced artificially. Inphilosopher Alfred Ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds : how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, Language, Truth and LogicAyer suggested The Turing Test protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for The Turing Test that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of is determined. Moreover, it is not certain that Ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to Turing. The Turing Test other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test. Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence AI research in Turing, in particular, had been tackling the notion of machine intelligence since at least [17] and one The Turing Test the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in It is not difficult to devise a paper machine which will play The Turing Test not very bad game of The Turing Test. A, B and C. A and C are to be rather poor chess players, B is the operator who works the paper machine. Two rooms are used with some arrangement for communicating moves, and a game is played between C and either A or the paper machine. C may find it quite difficult to tell which he is playing. Turing begins the paper with the claim, "I propose to consider the question 'Can machines think? Turing chooses not to do so; instead he replaces the question with a new one, "which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. To demonstrate The Turing Test approach Turing proposes a test inspired by a party The Turing Testknown as the "imitation game", in which a man and a woman go into separate rooms and guests try to tell them apart by writing a series of questions and reading the typewritten answers sent back. In this game both the man and the woman aim to convince the The Turing Test that they are the other. Huma Shah argues that this two-human version of the game was presented by Turing only to introduce the The Turing Test to the machine-human question-answer test. We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think? Later in the paper The Turing Test suggests an "equivalent" alternative formulation involving a judge conversing only with a computer and a man. In this version, which Turing discussed in a BBC radio broadcast, a jury asks questions of a computer and the role of the computer is to make a significant proportion of the jury believe that it is really a man. Turing's paper considered nine putative objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence that have been raised in the years since the paper was published see " Computing Machinery and Intelligence ". InJoseph Weizenbaum The Turing Test a program which appeared to pass the Turing test. If a keyword is found, a rule that transforms the user's comments is applied, and the resulting sentence is returned. The Turing Test a keyword is not found, ELIZA responds either with a generic riposte or by repeating one of the earlier comments. A group of experienced psychiatrists analysed a combination of real patients and computers running PARRY through teleprinters. Another group of 33 psychiatrists were shown transcripts of the conversations. The two groups were then asked to identify which of the "patients" were human and which were computer programs. In the 21st century, versions of these programs now known as " chatterbots " continue to fool people. The Turing Test Searle 's paper Minds, Brains, and Programs proposed the " " thought experiment and argued that the Turing test could not be used to determine if a machine can think. Searle noted that software such as ELIZA could pass the Turing test simply by manipulating symbols of which they had no . Without understanding, they could not be described as "thinking" in the same sense people are. Therefore, Searle concludes, the Turing test cannot prove that a machine can think. Arguments such as Searle's and others working on the sparked off a more intense debate about the nature of intelligence, the possibility of intelligent machines and the value of the Turing test that continued through the s and s. The provides an annual platform for practical Turing tests with the first competition held in November The Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in MassachusettsUnited States, organised the prizes up to and including the contest. As Loebner described it, one reason the competition was created is to advance the state of AI research, at least in part, because no one had taken steps to implement the Turing test despite 40 years of discussing it. The first Loebner Prize competition in led to a renewed discussion of the viability of the Turing test and the The Turing Test of pursuing it, in both the popular press [42] and academia. This highlighted several of the shortcomings of the Turing test discussed below : The winner won, at least in part, because it was able to "imitate human typing errors"; The Turing Test the unsophisticated interrogators were easily fooled; [43] and some researchers in AI have been led to feel that the test is merely a distraction from more fruitful research. The silver text only and gold audio and visual prizes have never been won. However, the competition has awarded the bronze The Turing Test every year for the computer system that, in the judges' opinions, demonstrates the "most human" conversational behaviour among The Turing Test year's entries. The Turing Test AI Jabberwacky won in and Early Loebner Prize rules restricted conversations: Each entry and hidden-human conversed on a single topic, [45] thus The Turing Test interrogators were restricted to one line of questioning per entity interaction. The restricted conversation The Turing Test was lifted for the Loebner Prize. Interaction duration between judge and entity has varied in Loebner Prizes. In Loebnerat the , each interrogator was allowed five minutes to The Turing Test with an entity, machine or hidden-human. Between andthe interaction time allowed in Loebner The Turing Test was more than twenty minutes. Saul Traiger argues that there are at least three primary versions of the Turing test, two of which are offered in "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" and one that he describes as the "Standard Interpretation". Huma Shah points out that Turing himself was concerned with whether a machine could think and was providing a simple method to examine this: through human-machine question-answer sessions. Turing's original article describes a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C who plays the role of the interrogator is of either sex. In the imitation game, player C The Turing Test unable to see either player A or player B, and can communicate The Turing Test them only through written notes. By asking questions of player The Turing Test and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick The Turing Test interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? The second version appeared later in Turing's paper. Similar The Turing Test the original imitation game test, the role of The Turing Test A is performed by a computer. However, the role of player B is performed by a man rather than a woman. Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play The Turing Test the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man? In this version, both player A the computer and player B are trying to trick the interrogator into making an incorrect decision. Common understanding has it that the purpose of the Turing test is not specifically to determine whether a computer is able to fool an interrogator into believing that it is a human, but rather whether a computer could imitate a human. The role of the interrogator is not to determine which is male and which is female, The Turing Test which is a computer and which is a human. There are issues about duration, but the standard interpretation generally considers this limitation as something that should be reasonable. Controversy has arisen The Turing Test which of the alternative formulations of the test Turing intended. The test that employs the party game and compares frequencies of success is referred to as the "Original Imitation Game Test", whereas the test consisting of a human judge conversing with a The Turing Test and a machine is referred to as the "Standard Turing Test", noting that Sterrett equates this with the "standard interpretation" rather than the second version of the imitation game. Sterrett agrees that the standard Turing test The Turing Test has the problems that its critics cite but feels that, in contrast, the original imitation game test OIG test so defined The Turing Test immune to many of them, due to a crucial difference: Unlike the STT, it does not make similarity to human performance the criterion, even though it employs human performance in setting a criterion for machine intelligence. A man can fail the OIG test, but it is argued that it is a virtue of a test of intelligence that failure indicates a lack of resourcefulness: The OIG test requires the resourcefulness associated with intelligence and not merely "simulation of human conversational behaviour". The general structure of the OIG test could even be used with non-verbal versions of imitation games. Still other writers [53] have interpreted Turing as proposing that the imitation game itself is the test, without specifying how to take into account Turing's statement that the test that he proposed using the party version of the imitation game is based upon a criterion of comparative frequency of success in that imitation game, The Turing Test than a capacity to succeed at one The Turing Test of the game. Saygin has suggested that maybe the original game is a way of proposing a less biased experimental design as it hides the participation of the computer. A crucial piece of any laboratory test is that there should be a control. Turing never makes clear whether the interrogator in his tests is aware that one of the participants is a computer. However, if there were a machine that did have the potential to pass a Turing test, it would be safe to assume a double blind control The Turing Test be necessary. To return to the original imitation game, he states only that player A is to be replaced with a machine, not that player C is to be made aware of this replacement. The power and appeal of the Turing test derives from its simplicity. The philosophy of mindpsychologyand modern have been unable to provide definitions of "intelligence" and "thinking" that are sufficiently precise and general to be applied to machines. Without such definitions, the central questions of the philosophy of artificial intelligence cannot be answered. The Turing test, even if imperfect, at least provides something that can actually be measured. As such, it is a pragmatic attempt to answer a difficult philosophical question. What is Turing Test? A definition from

A Turing Test is a method of inquiry in artificial intelligence AI for determining whether or not a computer is capable The Turing Test thinking like a human being. The test is named after Alan Turing, the founder of the Turing Test and an English The Turing Test scientist, cryptanalyst, mathematician and theoretical biologist. Turing proposed that a computer can be said to possess artificial intelligence if it can mimic human responses under specific conditions. One terminal is operated by a computer, while the other two are operated by humans. During the test, one of the humans functions as the questioner, while the second human and the computer function as respondents. The questioner interrogates the respondents within a specific subject area, using a specified format and context. After a preset length of time or number of questions, the questioner is then asked to decide which respondent was human and which was a computer. The test is repeated many times. If the questioner The Turing Test the correct determination in half of the test runs or less, the computer is considered to have artificial intelligence because The Turing Test questioner regards it as "just as human" as the human respondent. The test is named after Alan Turing, who pioneered during the s and s. Each room is connected via a screen and keyboard, one containing a male, the other a female, and the other containing a male or female judge. The female tries to convince the judge that she is the male, and the judge tries to The Turing Test which is which. Turing changes the concept of this The Turing Test to include an AI, a human and a human questioner. The Turing Test has been criticized over the years, in particular because historically, the nature of the questioning had to be limited in order for a computer to exhibit human-like intelligence. For many years, a computer might only score high if the questioner formulated the queries, so they had "Yes" or "No" answers or pertained to a narrow field of knowledge. When questions were open-ended and required conversational answers, it was less likely that the computer program could successfully fool the questioner. John Searle argued that this does not determine intelligence comparable to humans. To many researchers, the question of whether or not a computer can pass a Turing Test has become irrelevant. For example, by using a conversational interface. There have been a number of The Turing Test to the Turing Test to make it more relevant. Such examples include:. Alternatives to Turing Tests were later developed because many see the Turing test to be flawed. These alternatives include tests such as:. Please check the box if you want to proceed. In an interview, Greene discusses his As organizations develop data-driven cultures, they need to implement programs to teach employees how to work with and make New application programming interfaces to help app designers build embedded BI apps are among more than 25 new features in the As companies prepare to migrate to the cloud, they need to review their IT governance strategy before making any decisions to Government antitrust The Turing Test are building against tech giants Amazon, Apple, Facebook and . They could lead to tighter While quantum computing is still under development, IT leaders should know how they can use it today to stay on the competitive Multi-cloud data portability comes to MongoDB Atlas with a new capability that will enable users to run a database application Enterprises benefit in many ways from AI data privacy tools that reduce the need for manual efforts from data professionals. Mastercard data exec highlights the foundational role of enterprise data governance during The Turing Test pandemic era with more people New SAP Logistics Business Network partnerships provide users with key logistics data on shipment location and estimated arrival Celonis released the Execution Management System, which enables companies to automate actions in operational processes, improving Unit4 said people-focused companies need people-centric ERP platforms. Unit4 ERPx, due out in March, aims to be just that. Related Terms artificial intelligence Artificial intelligence AI is the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. Login Forgot your password? Forgot your password? No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an email containing your password. Your The Turing Test has been sent to:. Please create a username to comment. Every incoming "computer assisted" marketing call is an opportunity to ask such questions as "How many legs does a dog have? You ask that question to determine whether you are speaking to a human or a ? Data literacy skills key to cost savings, revenue growth As organizations develop data-driven cultures, they need to implement programs The Turing Test teach employees how to work with and make Yellowfin 9. Government action on big tech monopoly power moving quickly Government antitrust actions are building against tech giants Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Quantum computing challenges and opportunities While quantum computing is still under development, IT leaders should know how they can use it today to The Turing Test on the competitive Search Data Management MongoDB Atlas now enables multi-cloud database clusters Multi-cloud data portability comes to MongoDB Atlas with a new capability that will enable users to run a database application How AI data privacy can help your enterprise Enterprises benefit in many ways from AI data privacy The Turing Test that reduce the need for manual efforts from data professionals. The new normal for enterprise data governance Mastercard data exec highlights the foundational role of enterprise data governance during the pandemic era with more people Celonis expands to action with Execution Management System Celonis released the Execution Management System, which enables companies to automate actions The Turing Test operational processes, improving What is the Turing test? And are we all doomed now? | Computing | The Guardian

Copeland finds an anticipation of the test in the writings of the Cartesian de Cordemoy. In the DiscourseDescartes says:. Although not everything about this passage is perfectly clear, it does seem that Descartes gives a negative answer to the question whether machines can think; and, moreover, it seems that his giving this negative answer is tied to his confidence that no mere The Turing Test could pass The Turing Test: no mere machine could talk and act in the way in which adult human beings do. Given the further assumption—which one suspects that Descartes would have been prepared to grant—that only things that think can produce different arrangements of words so as to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in their presence, it seems to follow that Descartes would have agreed that the Turing Test would be a good test of his confident assumption that there cannot be thinking machines. Given the knowledge that something is indeed a machine, evidence that that thing can produce different arrangements of words so The Turing Test to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in its presence is evidence that there can be thinking machines. Block contains a direct The Turing Test of The Turing Test in this context. Here, what a proponent of this view has in mind is the idea that it is logically possible for an entity to pass the kinds of tests that Descartes The Turing Test at least allegedly Turing have in mind—to use words The Turing Test, perhaps, to act in just the kind of way that human beings do— and yet to be entirely lacking in intelligence, not possessed of a mind, etc. The subsequent discussion takes up the preceding ideas in the order in which they have been introduced. Third, there is a brief discussion of some recent writings on The Turing Test, including some discussion of the question whether The Turing Test sets an appropriate goal for research into artificial intelligence. Turing describes the following kind of game. Suppose that we have a person, a machine, and an interrogator. The interrogator is in a room separated from the other person and the machine. The object of the game is for the interrogator to determine which of the other two is the person, and which is the machine. The object of the machine is to try to cause the interrogator to mistakenly conclude that the machine is the other person; the object of the other person is to try to help the interrogator to correctly identify the machine. About this game, Turing says:. First, there are empirical questions, e. Second, there are conceptual questions, e. There is little doubt that Turing would have been disappointed by the state of play at the end of the twentieth century. The Turing Test in the Loebner Prize Competition—an annual event in which computer programmes are submitted to the Turing Test— had come nowhere near the standard that Turing envisaged. A quick look at the transcripts of the participants for the preceding decade The Turing Test that the entered programs were all easily detected by a range of not-very-subtle lines of questioning. Moreover, major players in the field regularly claimed that the Loebner Prize Competition was an embarrassment precisely because we were still so far from having a computer programme that could carry out a decent conversation for a period of five minutes—see, for example, Shieber It was widely conceded on all sides that the programs entered in the Loebner The Turing Test Competition were designed solely with the aim The Turing Test winning the minor prize of best competitor for the year, with no thought that the embodied strategies would actually yield something capable of passing the Turing Test. At the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, it is unclear how much has changed. On the one hand, there have been interesting developments in language generators. GPT-3 is quite good at generating fiction, poetry, press releases, code, music, jokes, technical manuals, and news articles. But, of course, GPT-3 is not close to passing the Turing Test: GPT-3 neither perceives nor acts, and it is, at best, highly contentious whether it The Turing Test a site of understanding. What remains to be seen is whether, within the next couple of generations of language generators — GPT-4 or GPT-5 — we have something that can be linked to perceptual inputs and behavioural outputs in a way that does produce something capable of passing the Turing Test. On the other hand, as, for example, Floridi complains, there are other The Turing Test in which progress has been frustratingly slow. But there have been other one-off competitions in which similar results have been achieved. And, in a demonstration, Cleverbot had an even higher success rate. Moreover—and much more importantly—we must distinguish between the test the Turing proposed, and the particular prediction that he made about how things would be by the end of the twentieth century. The percentage chance of making the correct identification, the time interval over which the test takes place, and the number of conversational exchanges required are all adjustable parameters in the Test, despite the fact that they are fixed in the particular prediction that Turing made. Even if Turing was The Turing Test far out in the prediction that he made about how things would be by the end of the twentieth century, it remains possible that the test that he proposes is a good one. However, before one can endorse the suggestion that the Turing Test is good, there are various objections that ought to be addressed. Some people have suggested that the Turing Test is chauvinistic: it only recognizes intelligence in things that are able to sustain a conversation with us. See, for example, French Perhaps the intuition behind this question can be granted; perhaps it is unduly chauvinistic to insist that anything that is intelligent has to be capable of sustaining a conversation with us. On the other hand, one might think that, given the availability of suitably qualified translators, it ought to be possible for any two intelligent agents that speak different languages to carry on some kind The Turing Test conversation. But, in any case, the charge of chauvinism is completely beside the point. What Turing claims is only that, if something can carry out a conversation with us, then we have good grounds to suppose that that thing has intelligence of the kind that we possess; he does not claim that only something that can carry out a conversation with us can possess the kind of intelligence that we have. Other people have thought that the Turing Test is not sufficiently demanding: The Turing Test already have anecdotal evidence that quite unintelligent programs e. Moreover, over a short period of time—such as the five minutes that Turing mentions in his prediction about how things will be in the year —it might well be the case that almost all human observers could be taken in by cunningly designed but quite unintelligent programs. What the computer program has to be able to do is to survive interrogation by someone who knows that one of the other two participants in the conversation is a machine. Moreover, the computer program has to be able to survive such interrogation with a high degree of success over a repeated number of trials. Turing says nothing about how many trials he would require. If a computer program could do this quite demanding thing, then it does seem plausible to claim that we would have at least prima facie reason for thinking that we are in the presence of intelligence. Perhaps it is worth emphasizing again that there might be all kinds of intelligent things—including intelligent machines—that would not pass this test. It is conceivable, for example, that there might be machines that, as a result of moral considerations, refused to or to engage in pretence. Indeed, it seems that if the test that Turing proposes is a good one, then it will be a good test for any The Turing Test of entities, including, for example, animals, aliens, and analog computers. That is: if animals, aliens, analog computers, or any other kinds of things, pass the test that Turing proposes, then there will The Turing Test as much reason to think that these things exhibit intelligence as there is reason to think that digital computers that pass the test exhibit intelligence. In particular, it is worth noting that the seventh of the objections that Turing considers addresses the possibility of continuous state machines, which Turing explicitly acknowledges to be different from discrete state machines. Turing The Turing Test to claim that, even if we are continuous state machines, a discrete state machine would be able to imitate us sufficiently The Turing Test for the purposes of the Imitation Game. However, it seems doubtful that the considerations that he gives are sufficient to establish that, if there are continuous state machines that pass the Turing The Turing Test, then it is possible to make discrete state machines The Turing Test pass the test as well. We shall consider these objections in the corresponding subsections below. In some—but not all—cases, the counter-arguments to these objections that we discuss are also provided by Turing. So—the argument might go—making a body can never be sufficient to guarantee the presence of thought: in themselves, digital computers are no different The Turing Test any other merely material bodies in being The Turing Test unable to think. There are several different kinds of remarks to make here. First, there are many serious objections to substance dualism. Second, there are many serious objections to theism. Third, even if theism and substance dualism The Turing Test both allowed to pass, it remains quite unclear why thinking machines are supposed to be ruled out by this combination of views. Given that God can unite souls with human bodies, it is hard to see what reason there is for thinking that God could not unite souls with digital computers or rocks, for that matter! Perhaps, on this combination of views, there is no especially good reason why, amongst the things that we can make, certain kinds of digital computers turn out to be the only ones to which God gives souls—but it The Turing Test pretty clear that there is also no particularly good reason for ruling out the possibility that God would choose to give souls to certain kinds of digital computers. Evidence that God is dead set against the idea of giving souls to certain kinds of digital computers is not particularly thick on the ground. If there were thinking machines, then various consequences would follow. As The Turing Test stands, what we have here is not an argument against the claim that machines can think; rather, we have the expression of various fears about what might follow if there were thinking machines. Someone who took these worries seriously—and who was persuaded that it is indeed possible for us to construct thinking machines—might well think that we have here reasons for giving up on the project of attempting to construct thinking machines. However, it would be a major task— which we do not intend to pursue here—to determine whether there really are any good reasons for taking these worries seriously. Turing himself observes that these results from mathematical logic might have implications for the Turing test:. Once the argument is laid out as above, it becomes clear that premise 3 should be challenged. If humans are subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint then the constraint does not provide any basis for distinguishing humans from digital computers. If humans are free from the Lucas-Penrose constraint, then granting premise 3 it follows that digital computers may fail the Turing test and thus, it seems, cannot think. However, there remains a question as to whether being free from the constraint is necessary for the capacity to think. It may be that the Turing test is too strict. Since, by hypothesis, we are free from the Lucas-Penrose constraint, we are, in some sense, too good at asking and answering questions. Suppose there is a thinking entity that is subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint. By an argument analogous to the one above, it can fail the Turing test. Thus, an entity which can think would fail the Turing test. At the very least, much more argument is required to overthrow the view that the Turing Test could remain a very high quality statistical test for the presence of mind and intelligence even if digital computers differ from human beings in being subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint. There are several different ideas that are being run together here, and that it is profitable to disentangle. One idea—the one upon which Turing first focuses—is the idea that the only way in which one could be certain that a machine thinks The Turing Test to be the machine, and to feel oneself thinking. A third idea is that it is a The Turing Test to take a narrow view of the mind, i. Against the solipsistic line of thought, Turing makes the effective reply that he would be satisfied if he could secure agreement on the claim that we might each have just as much reason to suppose that machines think as we have reason to suppose that other people think. Given the right kinds of responses from the machine, we would naturally interpret its utterances as evidence of pleasure, grief, warmth, misery, The Turing Test, depression, etc. However, the important point is that if the claims about self-consciousness, desires, emotions, etc. An interesting question to ask, before we address these claims directly, is whether we should suppose that intelligent creatures The Turing Test some other part of the universe would necessarily be able to do these things. Why, for example, should we suppose that there must be something deficient The Turing Test a creature that does not enjoy—or that is not able to enjoy—strawberries and cream? True enough, we might suppose that an intelligent creature ought to have the capacity to enjoy some kinds of The Turing Test it seems unduly The Turing Test to insist that intelligent creatures must be able to enjoy just the kinds of things that we do. No doubt, similar considerations apply to the claim that an intelligent creature must be the kind of thing that can make a human being fall in love with it. Yes, perhaps, an intelligent creature should be the kind of thing that can love and be loved; but what is so special about us? The Turing Test aside The Turing Test tasks that we deem to be unduly chauvinistic, we should then ask what grounds there are for The Turing Test that no digital computing machine could do the other things on the list. Turing suggests that the most likely ground in our prior acquaintance with machines of all kinds: none of the machines that any of us has hitherto encountered has been able to do these things. In particular, the digital computers with which we are now familiar cannot do these The Turing Test. However, given the limitations of storage capacity and processing speed of even the most recent digital computers, there are obvious reasons for being cautious in assessing the merits of this inductive argument. There is at least room for debate about the extent to which current computers can: make mistakes, use words properly, learn from experience, be beautiful, etc. Moreover, there is also room for debate The Turing Test the extent to which recent advances in other areas may be expected to lead to further advancements in overcoming these alleged disabilities. Perhaps, for example, recent advances in work on artificial sensors may one day contribute to the production of machines that can The Turing Test strawberries and cream. Of course, if the intended objection The Turing Test to the notion that machines can experience any kind of feeling of enjoyment, then it is not clear that work on particular kinds of artificial sensors is to the point. The key idea is that machines can only do what we know how to order them to do or that machines can never do anything really new, or anything that would take us by surprise. Moreover—as Turing goes on to point out—there are many ways in which The Turing Test digital computers The Turing Test things that take us by surprise; more needs to be said to make clear exactly what the nature of this suggestion is.