Turing Test: 50 Years Later

@article{Saygin2004TuringT5,
  title={Turing Test: 50 Years Later},
  author={Ayse Pinar Saygin and Ilyas Çiçekli and Varol Akman},
  journal={Minds and Machines},
  year={2004},
  volume={10},
  pages={463-518}
}
The Turing Test is one of the most disputed topics in artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science. This paper is a review of the past 50 years of the Turing Test. Philosophical debates, practical developments and repercussions in related disciplines are all covered. We discuss Turing's ideas in detail and present the important comments that have been made on them. Within this context, behaviorism, consciousness, the `other minds' problem, and similar topics in philosophy… 

Turing Tests with Turing Machines

TLDR
This paper brings the Turing Test to the realm of Turing machines and discusses what it would be like to have a Turing Test where the reference and the interrogator subjects are replaced by Turing Machines.

Turing test does not work in theory but in practice

TLDR
An entirely new perspective is discussed on the limitations of formal concepts and theory languages, which argues that it is not possible to express relevance in formal concepts only, and the Turing test can therefore only work in specific tasks.

Can machines think? The controversy that led to the Turing test

Turing’s much debated test has turned 70 and is still fairly controversial. His 1950 paper is seen as a complex and multilayered text, and key questions about it remain largely unanswered. Why did

The Mythical Turing Test

TLDR
It is widely believed that Turing proposed a test for intelligence, but there is a more interesting and challenging type of test related to development of intelligence that was not mentioned by Turing.

Turing Test Considered Mostly Harmless

TLDR
In its interpretation as a test of machine intelligence, the Turing test may indeed be harmful for artificial intelligence (AI); in its wider interpretation, however, it remains an inspiring source for philosophy and AI alike.

Turing machines and recursive Turing Tests

TLDR
This paper links these two antagonistic views to the Turing test by bringing some of the ideas around the Turing Test to the realm of Turing machines.

Aaron Sloman Absolves Turing of THE MYTHICAL TURING TEST

In his 1950 paper, Turing described his famous ‘imitation game’, defining a test that he thought machines would pass by the end of the century. For useful surveys of views about the test, see Saygin

TESTING THE TURING TEST — DO MEN PASS IT?

TLDR
An experiment in which men consistently failed the Turing test is reported, which would mean for the understanding of human behavior and the design of tests of the success of artificial life.

Updating the Turing Test Wittgenstein, Turing and Symbol Manipulation

In this paper I present an argument against the feasibility of the Imitation Game as a test for thinking or language understanding. The argument is different from the five objections presented by
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 196 REFERENCES

The Turing test and the frame problem - AI's mistaken understanding of intelligence

  • L. Crockett
  • Computer Science
    Ablex series in artificial intelligence
  • 1994
TLDR
The view advanced here is that the future of AI depends on whether the frame problem eventually falls to computational techniques and an increasing number of experts in the field will reach the conclusion that AI embodies a fundamental misunderstanding of intelligence.

Turing's Test and the ideology of artificial intelligence

A close examination is offered of the Turing Test, whose lasting influence is ascribed to its power as a myth which is expressive of the ideology that underlies strong AI claims. Arguments are

Naive psychology and the inverted Turing test

This paper argues that the Turing test implicitly rests on a ‘naive psychology,’ a naturally evolved psychological faculty which is used to predict and understand the behaviour of others in complex

Subcognition and the Limits of the TuringTest

Alan Turing, in his original article' about an imitation-game definition of intelligence, seems to be making two separate claims. The first, the philosophical claim, is that if a machine could pass

The Truly Total Turing Test*

The paper examines the nature of the behavioral evidence underlying attributions of intelligence in the case of human beings, and how this might be extended to other kinds of cognitive system, in the

Turing's Test and Conscious Thought

Lessons from a restricted Turing test

TLDR
It is argued that the Loebner prize competition has no clear purpose, that its design prevents any useful outcome, and that such a competition is inappropriate given the current level of technology.

Is the brain's mind a computer program?

  • Searle
  • Computer Science
    Scientific American
  • 1990
TLDR
The goal is to design programs that will simulate human cognition in such a way as to pass the Turing test, and to distinguish these two approaches, the authors call the first strong AI and the second weak AI.

Turing's Test Revisited

  • S. GuccioneG. Tamburrini
  • Philosophy
    Proceedings of the 1988 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
  • 1988
TLDR
Whether the interrogator of the imitation game can discriminate between human beings and machines on the basis of questions concerning Goedel's incompleteness theorems is discussed.

Other bodies, other minds: A machine incarnation of an old philosophical problem

TLDR
The Total Turing Test (TTT) calls instead for all of the authors' linguistic and robotic capacities; immune to Searle's argument, it suggests how to ground a symbol manipulating system in the capacity to pick out the objects its symbols refer to.
...