Abstract
The standard interpretation of the imitation game is defended over the rival gender interpretation though it is noted that Turing himself proposed several variations of his imitation game. The Turing test is then justified as an inductive test not as an operational definition as commonly suggested. Turing’s famous prediction about his test being passed at the 70% level is disconfirmed by the results of the Loebner 2000 contest and the absence of any serious Turing test competitors from AI on the horizon. But, reports of the death of the Turing test and AI are premature. AI continues to flourish and the test continues to play an important philosophical role in AI. Intelligence attribution, methodological, and visionary arguments are given in defense of a continuing role for the Turing test. With regard to Turing’s predictions one is disconfirmed, one is confirmed, but another is still outstanding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
Block, N. (1981), ‘Psychologism and behaviorism’, Philosophical Review 90, pp. 5–43.
Block, N. (1990), The Computer Model of the Mind’,in D.N. Osherson, E.E. Smith, eds.,Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 247–289.
Bringsjord, S., Bello, P. and Ferrucci, D. (2001), ‘Creativity, the Turing test and the (better) Lovelace test’, Minds and Machines 11, pp. 3–27.
Colby, K.M. (1981), ‘Modeling a paranoid mind’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4, pp. 515–560.
Colby, K.M., Hilf, F.D., Weber, S. and Kraemer, H.C. (1972). ‘Turing-like indistinguishability tests for the validation of a computer simulation of paranoid processes’, Artificial Intelligence 3, pp. 199–221.
Copeland, B.J. (1999), ‘A Lecture and Two Radio Broadcasts on Machine Intelligence by Alan Turing’, in K. Furukawa, D. Michie, S. Mugglegton, eds., Machine Intelligence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 445–476.
Copeland, B.J. (2000), ‘The Turing test’, Minds and Machines 10, pp. 519–539.
Erion, G.J. (2001), ‘The Cartesian test for automatism’, Minds and Machines 11, pp. 29–39.
Ford, K.M. and Hayes, P.J. (1998), ‘On Computational Wings: Rethinking the Goals of Artificial Intelligence’, Scientific American Presents 9, pp. 78–83.
French, R.M. (1990), ‘Subcognition and the limits of the Turing test’, Mind 99, pp. 53–65.
Genova, J. (1994), ‘Turing’s Sexual Guessing Gaine’, Social Epistemology 8, pp. 313–326.
Guha, R.V., and Lenat, D.B. (1994), ‘Enabling agents to work together’, Communications of the ACM 37, pp. 127–142.
Harnard, S. (1991), ‘Other Bodies, Other Minds: A Machine Incarnation of an Old Philosophical Problem’, Minds and Machines 1, pp. 43–54.
Hauser, L. (2001), ‘Look who’s moving the goal posts now’, Minds and Machines 11, pp. 41–51.
Hayes, P.J. and Ford, K.M. (1995), ‘Turing Test Considered Harmful’, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 972–977.
Ince, D.C., ed. (1992), Collected Works ofA.M. Turing: Mechanical Intelligence, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Lenat, D.B. (1990), ‘CYC: Toward Programs with Common Sense’, Communications of the ACM 33, pp. 30–49.
Lenat, D.B. (1995), ‘Artificial Intelligence’, Scientific American, pp. 80–82.
Lenat, D.B. (1995), ‘CYC: A large-scale investment in Knowledge infrastructure’, Communications of the ACM38, pp. 33–38.
Lenat, D.B. (1995), ‘Steps to Sharing Knowledge’, in N.J.I. Mars, ed., Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases. IOS Press, pp. 3–6.
Meltzer, B. and Michie, D., eds. (1969), Machine Intelligence, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Michie, D. (1996), ‘Turing’s Test and Conscious Thought’, in P. Millican, A. Clark, eds., Machines and Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 27–51.
Millar, P.H. (1973), ‘On the Point of the Imitation Game’, Mind 82, pp. 595–597.
Moor, J.H. (1976), ‘An Analysis of the Turing test’, Philosophical Studies 30, pp. 249–257.
Moor, J.H. (1978), ‘Explaining Computer Behavior’, Philosophical Studies 34, pp. 325–327.
Moor, J.H. (1987), ‘Turing Test’ in S.C. Shapiro, ed., Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1126–1130.
Moor, J.H. (1988), ‘The Pseudorealization fallacy and the Chinese Room Argument’, in J.H. Fetzer, ed., Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, pp. 35–53.
Moor, J.H. (1998), ‘Assessing Artificial Intelligence and its Critics’, in T.W. Bynum, J.H. Moor, eds., The Digital Phoenix: How Computers Are Changing Philosophy, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers, pp. 213–230.
Moor, J.H. (2000a), ‘Turing Test’, in A. Ralston, E.D. Reilly, D. Hemmendinger, eds., Encyclopedia of Computer Science, 4th edition, London: Nature Publishing Group, pp. 1801–1802.
Moor, J.H. (2000b), ‘Thinking Must be Computation of the Right Kind’, Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 9, Bowling Green, OH: Philosophy Documentation Center, Bowling Green State University, pp. 115–122.
Narayaman, A. (1996), ‘The intentional stance and the imitation game’, in P. Millican, A. Clark, eds., Machines and Thought, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Piccinini, G. (2000), ‘Turing’s rules for the imitation game’, Minds and Machines 10, pp. 573–582.
Searle, J.R. (1980), ‘Minds, brains and programs’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417–457.
Stalker, D.F. (1978), ‘Why Machines Can’t Think: A Reply to James Moor’, Philosophical Studies 34, pp. 317–320.
Sterrett, S.G. (2000), ‘Turing’s two tests for intelligence’, Minds and Machines 10, pp. 541–559.
Traiger, S. (2000), ‘Making the right identification in the Turing test’, Minds and Machines 10, pp. 561–572.
Turing, A.M. (1945), ‘Proposal for Development in the Mathematics Division of an Automatic Computing Engine (ACE)’, in D.C. Ince, ed., Collected Works of A.M. Turing: Mechanical Intelligence, Amsterdam: North Holland (1992), pp. 1–86
Turing, A.M. (1947), ‘Lecture to the London Mathematical Society on 20 February 1947’, in D.C. Ince, ed., Collected Works of A.M. Turing: Mechanical Intelligence, Amsterdam: North Holland (1992), pp. 87–105.
Turing, A.M. (1948), ‘Intelligent Machinery’, National Physical Laboratory Report, in Meltzer and Michie (1969).
Turing, A.M. (1950), ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Mind 59, pp. 433–460.
Turing, A.M. (1951a), ‘Can Digital Computers Think?’, BBC Third Programme, in Copeland (1999).
Turing, A.M. (1951b), ‘Intelligent Machinery, A Heretical Theory’, Manchester University Lecture, in Copeland (1999).
Turing, A.M. (1952), ‘Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said to Think?’, BBC Third Programme, in Copeland (1999).
Whitby, B. (1996), ‘The Turing Test: AI’s Biggest Blind Alley?’ in P. Millican, A. Clark, eds., Machines and Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 53–62.
Zdenek, S. (2001), ‘Passing Loebner’s Turing Test: A Case of Conflicting Discourse Functions’, Minds and Machines 11, pp. 53–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moor, J.H. (2003). The Status and Future of the Turing Test. In: Moor, J.H. (eds) The Turing Test. Studies in Cognitive Systems, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0105-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0105-2_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1205-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0105-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive