Good machine performance in Turing’s imitation game

Lists

Tools

Warwick, K. and Shah, H. (2013) Good machine performance in Turing’s imitation game. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 6 (3). pp. 289-299. ISSN 1943-068X

Full text not archived in this repository.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1109/TCIAIG.2013.2283538

Abstract/Summary

In this paper we consider transcripts which originated from a practical series of Turing’s Imitation Game which was held on 23rd June 2012 at Bletchley Park, England. In some cases the tests involved a 3-participant simultaneous comparison of two hidden entities whereas others were the result of a direct 2-participant interaction. Each of the transcripts considered here resulted in a human interrogator being fooled, by a machine, into concluding that they had been conversing with a human. Particular features of the conversation are highlighted, successful ploys on the part of each machine discussed and likely reasons for the interrogator being fooled are considered. Subsequent feedback from the interrogators involved is also included

Item Type:	Article
Refereed:	Yes
Divisions:	Science
ID Code:	34438
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Deception Detection, Natural Language, Turing’s Imitation Game, Chatbots, Machine Misidentification
Publisher:	IEEE

Altmetric

Deposit Details

References

[1] Turing, A. M., “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”, Mind, Vol.LIX (236), pp.433–460, 1950. [2] Whitby, B., “The Turing Test: AI’s Biggest Blind Alley?”, In P. J. R. Millican & A. Clark (Eds.),Machine and thought: The legacy of Alan Turing (Vol. 1, pp. 53–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. [3] Hayes, P. and Ford, K., “Turing Test Considered Harmful”, Proc. Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Vol.1, pp.972-977, 1995. [4] Harnad, S., “The Turing test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a scientific criterion”, ACM SIGART Bulletin, Vol.3, Issue.4, pp.9–10, 1992. [5] Moor, J. H., “The status and future of the Turing test”, In J. H. Moor (Ed.), The Turing test–The Elusive standard of artificial intelligence (pp. 197–214). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2003. [6] Hingston, P., “A Turing Test for Computer Game Bots”, IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, Vol.1, Issue.3, pp.169-186, 2009. [7] Shah, H., & Warwick, K., “Testing Turing’s five minutes, parallel-paired imitation game”, Kybernetes, 39(3), pp.449–465, 2010. [8] Shah, H., & Warwick, K., “Hidden interlocutor misidentification in practical Turing tests”, Minds and Machines, 20, pp. 441- 454, 2010. [9] Can Machines Think? Results of the 18th Loebner Prize for Artificial Intelligence, Reading University, UK, 12 October 2008: http://www.reading.ac.uk/research/highlights-news/featuresnews/res-featureloebner.aspx acc: 4.3.13 [1] Turing, A. M., “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”, Mind, Vol.LIX (236), pp.433–460, 1950. [2] Whitby, B., “The Turing Test: AI’s Biggest Blind Alley?”, In P. J. R. Millican & A. Clark (Eds.),Machine and thought: The legacy of Alan Turing (Vol. 1, pp. 53–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. [3] Hayes, P. and Ford, K., “Turing Test Considered Harmful”, Proc. Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Vol.1, pp.972-977, 1995. [4] Harnad, S., “The Turing test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a scientific criterion”, ACM SIGART Bulletin, Vol.3, Issue.4, pp.9–10, 1992. [5] Moor, J. H., “The status and future of the Turing test”, In J. H. Moor (Ed.), The Turing test–The Elusive standard of artificial intelligence (pp. 197–214). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2003. [6] Hingston, P., “A Turing Test for Computer Game Bots”, IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, Vol.1, Issue.3, pp.169-186, 2009. [7] Shah, H., & Warwick, K., “Testing Turing’s five minutes, parallel-paired imitation game”, Kybernetes, 39(3), pp.449–465, 2010. [8] Shah, H., & Warwick, K., “Hidden interlocutor misidentification in practical Turing tests”, Minds and Machines, 20, pp. 441- 454, 2010. [9] Can Machines Think? Results of the 18th Loebner Prize for Artificial Intelligence, Reading University, UK, 12 October 2008: http://www.reading.ac.uk/research/highlights-news/featuresnews/res-featureloebner.aspx acc: 4.3.13 [25] Warwick, K., “Not Another Look at the Turing Test!”, In Proc. SOFSEM 2012: Theory and Practice of Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.7147, M.Bielikova, G.Friedrich, G.Gottlob, S.Katzenbeisser and G.Turan (eds.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 130-140, 2012. [26] French, R., “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...The Turing Test, Intelligence and Consciousness”, In P. Wilken, T. Bayne, A. Cleeremans (eds.). Oxford Companion to Consciousness, Oxford, UK, 2007.

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

University of Reading

CentAUR: Central Archive at the University of Reading

Accessibility navigation

Good machine performance in Turing’s imitation game

Abstract/Summary

Page navigation

See also

Footer navigation