伽利略共振:实验在图灵构建机器智能中的作用。

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Bernardo Gonçalves
{"title":"伽利略共振:实验在图灵构建机器智能中的作用。","authors":"Bernardo Gonçalves","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4439943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1950, Alan Turing proposed his iconic imitation game, calling it a 'test', an 'experiment', and the 'the only really satisfactory support' for his view that machines can think. Following Turing's rhetoric, the 'Turing test' has been widely received as a kind of crucial experiment to determine machine intelligence. In later sources, however, Turing showed a milder attitude towards what he called his 'imitation tests'. In 1948, Turing referred to the persuasive power of 'the actual production of machines' rather than that of a controlled experiment. Observing this, I propose to distinguish the logical structure from the rhetoric of Turing's argument. I argue that Turing's proposal of a crucial experiment may have been a concession to meet the standards of his interlocutors more than his own, while his construction of machine intelligence rather reveals a method of successive idealizations and exploratory experiments. I will draw a parallel with Galileo's construction of idealized fall in a void and the historiographical controversies over the role of experiment in Galilean science. I suggest that Turing, like Galileo, relied on certain kinds of experiment, but also on rhetoric and propaganda to inspire further research that could lead to convincing scientific and technological progress.","PeriodicalId":8086,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Science","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Galilean resonances: the role of experiment in Turing's construction of machine intelligence.\",\"authors\":\"Bernardo Gonçalves\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.4439943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1950, Alan Turing proposed his iconic imitation game, calling it a 'test', an 'experiment', and the 'the only really satisfactory support' for his view that machines can think. Following Turing's rhetoric, the 'Turing test' has been widely received as a kind of crucial experiment to determine machine intelligence. In later sources, however, Turing showed a milder attitude towards what he called his 'imitation tests'. In 1948, Turing referred to the persuasive power of 'the actual production of machines' rather than that of a controlled experiment. Observing this, I propose to distinguish the logical structure from the rhetoric of Turing's argument. I argue that Turing's proposal of a crucial experiment may have been a concession to meet the standards of his interlocutors more than his own, while his construction of machine intelligence rather reveals a method of successive idealizations and exploratory experiments. I will draw a parallel with Galileo's construction of idealized fall in a void and the historiographical controversies over the role of experiment in Galilean science. I suggest that Turing, like Galileo, relied on certain kinds of experiment, but also on rhetoric and propaganda to inspire further research that could lead to convincing scientific and technological progress.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4439943\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4439943","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1950年,Alan Turing提出了他标志性的模仿游戏,称其为“测试”、“实验”,是对他认为机器可以思考的观点的“唯一真正令人满意的支持”。继图灵的言论之后,“图灵测试”被广泛认为是一种确定机器智能的关键实验。然而,在后来的消息来源中,图灵对他所谓的“模仿测试”表现出了温和的态度。1948年,图灵提到了“机器的实际生产”的说服力,而不是受控实验的说服力。观察到这一点,我建议将逻辑结构与图灵论点的修辞区分开来。我认为,图灵提出的一个关键实验可能是为了满足对话者的标准而做出的让步,而不是他自己的标准,而他对机器智能的构建恰恰揭示了一种连续理想化和探索性实验的方法。我将把伽利略对理想化的虚空坠落的构建与伽利略科学中关于实验作用的史学争议进行比较。我认为,图灵和伽利略一样,依靠某些类型的实验,也依靠修辞和宣传来激励进一步的研究,从而带来令人信服的科学和技术进步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Galilean resonances: the role of experiment in Turing's construction of machine intelligence.
In 1950, Alan Turing proposed his iconic imitation game, calling it a 'test', an 'experiment', and the 'the only really satisfactory support' for his view that machines can think. Following Turing's rhetoric, the 'Turing test' has been widely received as a kind of crucial experiment to determine machine intelligence. In later sources, however, Turing showed a milder attitude towards what he called his 'imitation tests'. In 1948, Turing referred to the persuasive power of 'the actual production of machines' rather than that of a controlled experiment. Observing this, I propose to distinguish the logical structure from the rhetoric of Turing's argument. I argue that Turing's proposal of a crucial experiment may have been a concession to meet the standards of his interlocutors more than his own, while his construction of machine intelligence rather reveals a method of successive idealizations and exploratory experiments. I will draw a parallel with Galileo's construction of idealized fall in a void and the historiographical controversies over the role of experiment in Galilean science. I suggest that Turing, like Galileo, relied on certain kinds of experiment, but also on rhetoric and propaganda to inspire further research that could lead to convincing scientific and technological progress.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Science
Annals of Science 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Science , launched in 1936, publishes work on the history of science, technology and medicine, covering developments from classical antiquity to the late 20th century. The Journal has a global reach, both in terms of the work that it publishes, and also in terms of its readership. The editors particularly welcome submissions from authors in Asia, Africa and South America. Each issue contains research articles, and a comprehensive book reviews section, including essay reviews on a group of books on a broader level. Articles are published in both English and French, and the Journal welcomes proposals for special issues on relevant topics. The Editors and Publisher are committed to supporting early career researchers, and award an annual prize to the best submission from current doctoral students, or those awarded a doctorate in the past four years.
×
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