About: Turing test is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 881 publications have been published within this topic receiving 25272 citations. The topic is also known as: Imitation Game.
TL;DR: If the meaning of the words “machine” and “think” are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, “Can machines think?” is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll.
Abstract: I propose to consider the question, “Can machines think?”♣ This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms “machine” and “think”. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous. If the meaning of the words “machine” and “think” are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, “Can machines think?” is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll.
TL;DR: The nature of reversible and irreversible questions is discussed, that is, questions that may enable one to identify the nature of the source of their answers, and GPT-3, a third-generation, autoregressive language model that uses deep learning to produce human-like texts, is introduced.
Abstract: In this commentary, we discuss the nature of reversible and irreversible questions, that is, questions that may enable one to identify the nature of the source of their answers. We then introduce GPT-3, a third-generation, autoregressive language model that uses deep learning to produce human-like texts, and use the previous distinction to analyse it. We expand the analysis to present three tests based on mathematical, semantic (that is, the Turing Test), and ethical questions and show that GPT-3 is not designed to pass any of them. This is a reminder that GPT-3 does not do what it is not supposed to do, and that any interpretation of GPT-3 as the beginning of the emergence of a general form of artificial intelligence is merely uninformed science fiction. We conclude by outlining some of the significant consequences of the industrialisation of automatic and cheap production of good, semantic artefacts.
TL;DR: The paper argues that the development of distributed artificial intelligence should be based on a social metaphor, rather than a psychological one, and the Turing Test should be replaced by the Durkheim Test, that is, systems should be tested with respect to their ability to meet community goals.
Abstract: The paper argues that the development of distributed artificial intelligence should be based on a social metaphor, rather than a psychological one. The Turing Test should be replaced by the “Durkheim Test,” that is, systems should be tested with respect to their ability to meet community goals. Understanding community goals means analyzing the problem of due process in open systems. Due process means incorporating differing viewpoints for decision-making in a fair and flexible manner. It is the analog of the frame problem in artificial intelligence. From analyses of organizational problem solving in scientific communities, the paper derives the concept of boundary objects, and suggests that this concept would be an appropriate data structure for distributed artificial intelligence. Boundary objects are those objects that are plastic enough to be adaptable across multiple viewpoints, yet maintain continuity of identity. Four types of boundary object are identified: repositories, ideal types, terrain with coincident boundaries, and forms.
TL;DR: The Winograd Schema Challenge as mentioned in this paper is an alternative to the Turing Test that has some conceptual and practical advantages, such as the ability to be easily found using selectional restrictions or statistical techniques over text corpora.
Abstract: In this paper, we present an alternative to the Turing Test that has some conceptual and practical advantages. A Wino-grad schema is a pair of sentences that differ only in one or two words and that contain a referential ambiguity that is resolved in opposite directions in the two sentences. We have compiled a collection of Winograd schemas, designed so that the correct answer is obvious to the human reader, but cannot easily be found using selectional restrictions or statistical techniques over text corpora. A contestant in the Winograd Schema Challenge is presented with a collection of one sentence from each pair, and required to achieve human-level accuracy in choosing the correct disambiguation.
TL;DR: This work addresses a question answering task on real-world images that is set up as a Visual Turing Test by combining latest advances in image representation and natural language processing and proposes Neural-Image-QA, an end-to-end formulation to this problem for which all parts are trained jointly.
Abstract: We address a question answering task on real-world images that is set up as a Visual Turing Test. By combining latest advances in image representation and natural language processing, we propose Neural-Image-QA, an end-to-end formulation to this problem for which all parts are trained jointly. In contrast to previous efforts, we are facing a multi-modal problem where the language output (answer) is conditioned on visual and natural language input (image and question). Our approach Neural-Image-QA doubles the performance of the previous best approach on this problem. We provide additional insights into the problem by analyzing how much information is contained only in the language part for which we provide a new human baseline. To study human consensus, which is related to the ambiguities inherent in this challenging task, we propose two novel metrics and collect additional answers which extends the original DAQUAR dataset to DAQUAR-Consensus.