Consequently, the first test is immune to many of the philosophical criticisms on the basis of which the (so-called) `Turing Test' has been dismissed. ![]() The first test realizes a possibility that philosophers have overlooked: a test that uses a human's linguistic performance in setting an empirical test of intelligence, but does not make behavioral similarity to that performance the criterion of intelligence. The Turing Test has been passed, the headlines report this week, after a computer program mimicked a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy called Eugene Goostman, fooling 33 of its interrogators into. This is more appropriate because the question under consideration is what would count as machine intelligence. What happens if the reader of such po-etry is no longer human butamachine Inmy essayIaimto look at AI-generatedpoetry in order to poselargerquestionsabout. This is because the features of intelligence upon which it relies are resourcefulness and a critical attitude to one's habitual responses thus the test's applicablity is not restricted to any particular species, nor does it presume any particular capacities. ![]() Members of the Institute of Physics can enjoy the full issue via the Physics World app. The two tests can yield different results it is the first, neglected test that provides the more appropriate indication of intelligence. The Turing Test 2.0 Physics World Mathematics and computation Mathematics and computation Feature The Turing Test 2.0 (Courtesy: iStock/DrAfter123) Taken from the May 2021 issue of Physics World. 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'. ![]() ![]() On a literal reading of `Computing Machinery and Intelligence', Alan Turing presented not one, but two, practical tests to replace the question `Can machines think?' He presented them as equivalent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |