Kenneth M. Ford and Patrick J. Hayes (1996) The Turing Test is Just as bad When Inverted
. Psycoloquy: 7(43) Turing Test (7)
Versions: ASCII formatted
Psycoloquy 7(43): The Turing Test is Just as bad When Inverted
THE TURING TEST IS JUST AS BAD WHEN INVERTED
Commentary on Watt on Turing-Test
Kenneth M. Ford and Patrick J. Hayes
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
University of West Florida
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~kford/
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/
kford@ai.uwf.edu
phayes@cs.uiuc.edu
Abstract
Watt discusses some of the problems with the original
Turing Test (Watt, 1996), but he misses the central ones. His
"inverted" test (where the machine plays the role of the judge) is
even more vulnerable to all the criticisms of the original Test,
and provides no clear conceptual advantage or insight. Similarity
to human behavior is not a sensible criterion for intelligence. As
we have argued elsewhere in some detail (Hayes & Ford, 1995),
although the Turing Test had a historical role in getting our
subject started, it is now a burden, damaging AI's public
reputation and its own intellectual coherence. It is time for AI to
consciously reject the naive anthropomorphism implicit in all such
"imitation games," and adopt a more mature description of its aims.
Keywords
False belief tests, folk psychology, naive psychology,
the "other minds" problem, theory of mind, the Turing test.
References
- Hayes, P.J. & Ford, K.M. (1995) Turing Test Considered Harmful, Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pp. 972-977, Montreal.
- Popple, A.V. (1996) The Turing Test as a Scientific Experiment. PSYCOLOQUY 7(15) turing-test.2.popple.
- Turing, A.M. (1950) Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59: 433-460.
- Watt, S.N.K. (1996) Naive Psychology and the Inverted Turing Test. PSYCOLOQUY 7(14) turing-test.1.watt.