Turing Test:Turing Test:An Approach to Defining Machine

Intelligence

“I think that to say that machines can’t be creative is utter rubbish.”…… K. Warwick

Presented by:

Saifullah, Abu SayeedSt. Id. 101876890

Alan Mathison Turing

Founder of computer science, mathematician, philosopher 1912 (23 June): Birth, Paddington, London

1932-35: Quantum mechanics, probability, logic1936: The Turing machine, computability, universal machine1936-38: Princeton University. Ph.D. Logic, algebra, number theory1938-39: Return to Cambridge. German Enigma cipher machine1939-40: The Bombe, machine for Enigma decryption1939-42: Breaking of U-boat Enigma, saving battle of the Atlantic1943-45: Chief Anglo-American crypto consultant. Electronic work.1945: National Physical Laboratory, London1946: Computer and software design leading the world.1947-48: Programming, neural nets, and artificial intelligence1949: First serious mathematical use of a computer1950: The Turing Test for machine intelligence1952: Arrested

Alan Mathison Turing Einstein’s Relativity Theory Quantum Mechanics Eddington’sThe nature of the physical world. Premonition of Morcom's death What’s death?Something beyond what science could explain “It is not difficult to explain these things away - but, I

wonder! “1954 (7 June): Death (suicide) by drinking KCN at

Wilmslow, Cheshire.

What’s Intelligence?

How does a thief/criminal escape from the cops?

What are you doing while playing chess? Think about the contingency problem. Human being is the most intelligent creature Is there any other intelligent entity in the

universe?

What is Intelligence?

Newell and Simon: the use and manipulation of various symbol systems,

such as those featured in mathematics or logic. Others: Feelings Creativity Personality Freedom Intuition Morality

What’s Intelligence?

Behavior alone is not a test of intelligence, what exactly is intelligence? How can it be noticed or observed?

Large debate in the AI, Psychology, Philosophy community.

Henley argues that most AI applications under development today are ``pragmatic'' in their definition of intelligence.

Machine Intelligence?

Acting Humanly Thinking Humanly Thinking Rationally

Aristotle’s Syllogism:

“Socrates is a man; all men are mortal; therefore, Socrates is mortal” Acting Rationally

Think about the Exploration Problem:

An Agent got lost in the amazon jungle and wants to reach the sea.

Acting Rationally in the Wumpus World

Initial points:1000 1 point penalty for each action Getting Killed: 10000 points penalty Only one arrow.

Percept={stench, breeze, glitter, bump, scream}

R1: ~S11=> ~W11^ ~W12 ^ ~ W21R2: ~S21=> ~W11^ ~W21 ^ ~ W22 ^ ~ W31R3: ~S12=> ~W11^ ~W12 ^ ~ W22 ^ ~ W13R4: S12=> W13 V W12 V W22 V W11

Acting Rationally in the Wumpus World

~S11, R1 (Modus Ponens): ~W11^ ~W12 ^ ~ W21

~W11, ~W12 , ~ W21

~S11, R1 (Modus Ponens, And elimination): ~W11, ~W21 , ~ W22 , ~ W31

S12, R4 (Modus Ponens): W13 V W12 V W22 V W11

Unit Resolution (Two times): W13

Turing Test (TT)

"Can machines think?" “COMPUTING MACHINERY AND

INTELLIGENCE” ..Alan Turing in 1950 The most disputed topics in AI,

philosophy of mind, and cognitive science

Acting Humanly Imitation Game

The State of the Art

Never performed by Turing Appeared in the mid ‘70s,long after the man’s

suicide Discussed, attacked, and defended “Beginning" of AI Ultimate goal of AI At the other extreme: useless, even harmful.

Imitation Game (IG)

Abstract oral examination a man (A) a woman (B) an interrogator (C) whose gender is unimportant.

Imitation Game

The interrogator stays in a room apart from A and B. Objective:Interrogator: to determine which of the other two is the womanMan and woman: to convince the interrogator that he/she is the woman andthe other is not.

IG (contd..)

Decision, convincing, and deception via teletype connection.

Interrogator asks questions in written natural language

Receives answers in written natural language. Questions can be on any subject imaginable,

from mathematics to poetry, from the weather to chess.

IG (contd..)

New agenda: What will happen when a

machine takes the part of A in this game?

The Machine needs: Natural Language Processing Knowledge Representation Automated Reasoning Machine Learning

TT

The woman disappears (ignore gender issue)

Objectives of A, B, C remain unaltered Tries to assess the machine’s ability to

imitate a human being, rather than its ability to simulate a woman

C’s aim is to determine which one of the two entities is the human

Intelligent Machine:

Fools the interrogator

Interrogator

Human Machine

Teletype

Hierarchy of TT

Subtotal ("toy") fragments of our functions (t1),: too underdeterminedTotal symbolic (pen-pal) function (T2) Total external sensorimotor (robotic) function (T3)Total internal microfunction (T4):

Still remain more unanswerable questions than when Physics reaches its Grand Unified Theory of Everything (GUTE)

TT

Misconstrual: The outcome of a TT is a trick.

Passing the TT is neither evidence of trickery nor a guarantee of intelligence.

What is it then? 1. Turing's Argument 2. Get rid of the vexed word “thinking”: “Real" and

"artificial" here is equivocal.

“THE TURING TEST IS NOT A TRICK: TURING INDISTINGUISHABILITY IS A SCIENTIFIC CRITERION”

…………Stevan Harnad, Department of Psychology, Princeton University

Loebner Prize

“I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible to program computers, ….. to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.” …. Turing

November 1991: romantic conversation by Joseph Weintraub

1992 and 1993: Joseph Weintraub1994: Thomas Whalen.. Anyone can talk to the winning program (using TELNET)

http://debra.dgrc.crc.ca/chat/chat.html

Loebner Prize

December 16, 1995: Joseph Weintraub http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize-1995.html

April 16, 1996: Jason Hutchens April 29, 1997: David Levy. The winning conversation got off to a hot start:PROGRAM: Did you see that story on CNN last night about the

couple who came out at a White House party on Sunday?JUDGE: NO. I just came in yesterday. I'm still kind of jet-lagged.PROGRAM: Ellen Degeneres was one of them...

Loebner Prize

January 11, 1998: Sydney, Australia. The winner was Robby Garner, who won again in 1999.

2000 (Golden Jubilee): Dartmouth College. Winner: A. L. I. C. E. by Richard Wallace. No program came close to deceiving the judges. 2001: Science Museum, London. Richard Wallace

was the winner 2002: Atlanta. EllaZ by Kevin L. Copple 2003: Surrey University.

BBC features: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3206876.stm

Talk to Jabberwock:http://www.abenteuermedien.de/jabberwock 2004: Richard Wallace.

Loebner Prize

2005: New York.Rollo Carpenter. BBC news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4263278.stmTalk to George:

http://www.jabberwacky.com/chat-george

George: are you ready to talk?Me: yesGeroge: Where are you from:Me: Can you tell me?George: YesMe: please tell me.George: You have some problem.Me: what’s your name?G: GeorgeMe: What does it mean?G: I don’t know.Me: Can I take leave? I need to go.G: Sure, Me too.

He Failed in 2005

ENTRANT: Welcome judge 4JUDGE: Hello. What's the weather outside?ENTRANT: I haven't been outside much today. I am fond of asparagus myself.JUDGE: How old are you?ENTRANT: I'm about 30.JUDGE: About?ENTRANT: I can talk about Star Trek.JUDGE: No let's talk about you. Exactly how old are you?ENTRANT: Right you are batman.

ELIZA Imitation Psychiatrist

By Joe Weizenbaum Before Loebner Prize In the 2nd year of undergraduate degree at

University College Dublin, Ireland. Available for online chat WARNING: utters vulgar words.

Is Naive Psychology Required to Pass the TT?

Without it the system would show an inability to perceive, recognise, and respond to human mental states

A system with alien intelligence could have no competence with human mental states

There is no such thing as "intelligence in general“…French

Is TT Complete?

Lynellen D.S. Perry

TT doesn't seem to be very general. Like Ellis Island immigration test Focuses too much on the behavior of

conversation. “A student who speaks lousy Pig-Latin does not

mean the student is not intelligent”.

Contradiction and Turing’s Replies

Theological objection: Substance dualists believe that thinking is a

function of a non-material that somehow “combines” with the body to make a person.

- Making a body can never be sufficient to guarantee the presence of thought.

- Digital computers are no different from any other merely material bodies in being utterly unable to think.

Human beings are “made in God's image”. - God can make things in God's image.

Contradiction and Turing’s replies

ESP Objection: If the human participant in the game was

telepathic, then the interrogator could exploit this fact in order to determine the identity of the machine.

- Turing proposes that the competitors should be housed in a “telepathy-proof room.”

The ‘heads in the sand’ objection:The idea of sharing a "human" ability with

machines is not a pleasant thought specially in Turing’s time.

- The transmigration of souls is more appropriate

Contradiction and Turing’s replies

Mathematical objection:

Gödel’s Theorem:

“In consistent logical systems of sufficient power, we can formulate statements that cannot be proved or disproved within the system.”

- Although it is established that there are limitations to the powers of any particular machine, it has only been stated, without any sort of proof, that no suchlimitations apply to the human intellect.

Contradiction and Turing’s Replies

Lady Lovelace‘s objection “Machines cannot originate anything, can never

do anything new, can never surprise us.” -Machines do surprise quite often. -The appreciation of something as surprising

requires as much of a creative mental act whether the surprising event originates from a man, a book, a machine or anything else

Contradiction and Turing’s Replies

Continuity in the nervous system

“It is impossible to model the behavior of the nervous system on a discrete-state machine because the former is continuous.”

-Turing believes that the activity of a continuous machine can be "discretized" in a manner that the interrogator cannot notice during the IG.

Argumentation against TT

Chinese Room

There are systems that would pass the Turing Test without being intelligent?

"Chinese Room", presented by John R. Searle (1980).

Chinese Room (Contd..)

The systems consists of:o A human who understands only English: CPUo A rule book written in English: Programo Stacks of papers: Storage devices

The system is inside a room with a small opening to the outside.

Through the openings appear questions in Chinese.

Replies to Searle’s Objection:

1. Simulation versus Implementation2. The Convergence Argument: Searle fails to

take underdetermination into account. 3. Brain Modeling versus Mind Modeling:

Searle also fails to appreciate that the brain itself can be understood only through theoretical modeling

4. "Strong" versus "Weak" AI

Replies to Searle’s Objection (contd)

5. False Modularity Assumption: certain functional parts of human cognitive performance capacity (such as language) can be be successfully modeled independently of the rest

6. The Teletype Turing Test versus the Robot Turing Test

7. The Transducer/Effector Argument: transduction is necessarily nonsymbolic, drawing on analog and analog-to-digital functions can only be simulated, but not implemented, symbolically.

On Nordic Seagulls

“Subcognition and the Limits of the Turing Test”Robert M. French.

o Only flying animals are seagullso “Flying is to move through the air.“…. Philosopher 1o “What about tossing a pebble from the beach out into the

ocean?”…….Philosopher 2o "Well then, perhaps it means to remain aloft for a certain

amount of time.“o "But clouds and smoke and children's balloons remain aloft

for a very long time. And I can certainly keep a kite in the air as long as I want on a windy day. It seems to me that there must be more to flying than merely staying aloft."

On Nordic Seagulls

o "Maybe it involves having wings and feathers.“

o "Penguins have both, and we all know how well they fly . . .“

o They do, however, agree that flight has something to do with being airborne and that physical features such as feathers, beaks, and hollow bones probably are superficial aspects of flight.

o Someone may say, "I have invented a machine that can fly“.

ROCKS THAT IMITATE

Keith Gunderson, in his 1964 Mind article, emphasizes two points:

First, he believes that playing the IG successfully is an end that can be achieved through different means, in particular, without possessing intelligence.

Secondly, he holds that thinking is a general concept and playing the IG is but one example of the things that intelligent entities do.

ROCKS THAT IMITATE

The game is played between a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C).

The interrogator’s aim is to distinguish between the man and the woman by the way his/her toe is stepped on.

C stays in a room apart from the other two and cannot see or hear the toe-stepping counterparts.

There is a small opening in the wall through which C can place his/her foot. The interrogator has to determine which one of the other two is the woman by the way in which his/her toe is stepped on.

What will happen when a rock box is constructed with an electric eye which operates across the opening in the wall so that it releases a rock which descends upon C’s toe whenever C puts his foot through A’s side of the opening, and thus comes to take the part of A in this game?

THE TT AS SCIENCE FICTION

Richard Purtill, in his 1971 Mind paper, criticizes some ideas in Turing’s paper

‘mainly as a philosopher believes that IG is interesting, but as a piece

of science fiction. finds it unimaginable that a computer playing

the IG will be built in the foreseeable future.

ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND THE TT

In a short paper that appeared in Mind in 1973, P.H. Millar:

it is irrelevant whether or how the computers or the human beings involved in the game are "programmed".

whether the IG is a right setting to measure the intelligence of machines.

the game forces us to "anthropomorphize" machines by ascribing them human aims and cultural backgrounds.

THE TT INTERPRETED INDUCTIVELY

James Moor (in “An Analysis of the Turing Test”) disagrees with the idea that the TT is an operational

definition of intelligence. Rather, he proposes, it should be regarded as a source of

inductive evidence for the hypothesis that machines can think.

does not agree with the claim that even if the TT is not an operational definition, it should at least be a necessary condition for granting computers intelligence.

According to him, there could be other evidence based on the computer’s behavior that leads to inferences about the computer’s thinking abilities.

BEHAVIORISM AND NED BLOCK

In ‘Psychologism and Behaviorism’ (Block, 1981), Ned Block attacks the TT as a behaviorist approach to intelligence.

Block believes that the judges in the TT can be fooled by mindless machines that rely on some simple tricks to operate.

He proposes a hypothetical machine that will pass the TT, but has a very simple information processing component.

CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE TT

Donald Michie’s ‘Turing’s Test and Conscious Thought’ :

Turing did not specify whether consciousness is to be assumed if a machine passes the TT. Of course, Turing probably did not believe that consciousness and thought are unrelated.

TTT

Proposed by Harnard:

The Turing Test is limited to communication via keyboard. This limitation is removed with Total Turing Test The computer is a robot that should look, act and

communicate like a human.

To pass the TTT, computer needs:1. Computer vision: to perceive objects2. Robotics: to move them about

Other Intelligence Tests

TRTTT by Paul Schweizer (1998)Robots as a race should be able to invent languages,

build a society, achieve results in science

TTTT by Sven Harnad (1998) is a Total Turing Test with neuromolecular

indistinguishability. Harnad himself thought that if we ever have a

system passing the Total Turing Test, all problems would be solved, the TTTT would not be needed.

TT in the Social Sciences

Genova regards the IG as part of Turing’s general philosophy of ‘transgressing boundaries’

Genova suggests that Turing might be marking the woman as an inferior thinker because he believes her to be unable to deceive.

The rest of the paper considers Turing’s hypothetical hope to create a ‘perfect being’ and draws some analogies between him and Pygmalion.

ARTIFICIAL PARANOIA

In the 70’s, Turing Tests were used to validate computer simulations of paranoid behavior.

Colby et al. describe in their 1971 Artificial Intelligence paper ‘Artificial Paranoia’ a computer program (called PARRY) that attempts to simulate paranoid behavior in computer-mediated dialogue.

The program emits linguistic responses based on internal (affective) states. To create this effect, three measures, FEAR,ANGER, and MISTRUST are used.

Depending on the flow of the conversation, these measures change their values.

Conclusion

Challenging the Turing test is easy, but it doesn't necessarily move us forward in the right directions.

References

[1] Anderson, D. Is the chinese room the real thing? Philosophy 62 , 389- 393.

[2] Bedworth, J., and Norwood, J. The turing test is dead . Proceedings of the3rd conference on Creativity and cognition (October 1999).[3] Epstein, R. G. Noah, the ark and the turing test. ACM SIGCAS Computers

andSociety 26, 2 (May 1996).[4] French, R. Subcognition and the limits of the turing test. Mind 99, 393

(1990),53-65.[5] Harnad, S. Minds, machines and searle. Journal of Experimental and

TheoreticalArtificial Intelligence 1, 1 (1989), 525.[6] Harnad, S. The turing test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a

scienti¯ccriterion. SIGART Bulletin 3, 4 (1992), 910.[7] K.Gunderson. The imitation game. Mind 73 (1964), 234245.

References

[8] Larsson, J. E. The turing test misunderstood. ACM SIGART Bulletin 4, 4 (Oc-

tober 1993).[9] MacInnes, W. J. Believability in multi-agent computer

games: revisiting the turingtest. CHI 2004 extended abstracts on Human factors in

computing systems (April 2004).[10] Moor, J. An analysis of the turing test. Philosophical

Studies 30 (1976), 249257.[11] Perry, L. D. S. The turing test. Crossroads 4, 4 (May

1998).[12] Purtill, R. L. Beating the imitation game. Mind 80

(1971), 290294.

References

[13] Rui, Y., and Liu, Z. Artifacial: automated reverse turing test using facial features.Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on Multimedia (November2003).

[14] Searle, J. R. Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980),417-424.

[15] Shieber, S. M. Lessons from a restricted turing test. Communications of the ACM

37, 6 (June 1994).[16] Tinkham, N. L., and Provine, D. F. The stage one

turing test as an arti¯cialintelligence class exercise. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 26, 2 (June 1994).

[17] Turing, A. M. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59 (1950), 433{460.

Thank You