What Should Replace the Turing Test?

IF 2.2 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS
Philip N Johnson-Laird, Marco Ragni
{"title":"What Should Replace the Turing Test?","authors":"Philip N Johnson-Laird, Marco Ragni","doi":"10.34133/icomputing.0064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, chatbots and other artificial intelligence tools pass the Turing test, which was Turing’s alternative to trying to answer the question: can a machine think? Despite their success in passing the Turing test, these machines do not think. We therefore propose a test of a more focused question: does a program reason in the way that humans reason? This test treats an “intelligent” program as though it were a participant in a psychological study and has 3 steps: (a) test the program in a set of experiments examining its inferences, (b) test its understanding of its own way of reasoning, and (c) examine, if possible, the cognitive adequacy of the source code for the program.","PeriodicalId":45291,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34133/icomputing.0064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Today, chatbots and other artificial intelligence tools pass the Turing test, which was Turing’s alternative to trying to answer the question: can a machine think? Despite their success in passing the Turing test, these machines do not think. We therefore propose a test of a more focused question: does a program reason in the way that humans reason? This test treats an “intelligent” program as though it were a participant in a psychological study and has 3 steps: (a) test the program in a set of experiments examining its inferences, (b) test its understanding of its own way of reasoning, and (c) examine, if possible, the cognitive adequacy of the source code for the program.
什么应该取代图灵测试?
今天,聊天机器人和其他人工智能工具通过了图灵测试,这是图灵试图回答这个问题的另一种选择:机器能思考吗?尽管这些机器成功地通过了图灵测试,但它们不会思考。因此,我们提出了一个更集中的问题的测试:程序是否以人类推理的方式进行推理?这个测试把一个“智能”程序当作一个心理学研究的参与者,有三个步骤:(a)在一组实验中测试程序,检查它的推论,(b)测试它对自己推理方式的理解,(c)检查,如果可能的话,程序源代码的认知充分性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
4.70%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信