One also must take into account important aspects of human nature such as lying, misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, and humor, never mind stupidity. When comparing a machine’s ability to communicate with a human interrogator one immediately has to consider just who they are communicating with and the fallibility, biases, and preconceptions of that person. In considering the game in further depth, one is faced with numerous intriguing questions regarding human and machine communication and behavior. As indicated by Turing (1950), each discourse lasts for a period of five minutes only and at the end of that time the interrogator is charged with making the “right identification” by clearly identifying the nature of their hidden discourse partners by declaring which is the human and which is the machine. The game actually involves human interrogators attempting to ascertain the nature of hidden (human and computer) entities with whom/which they are communicating. What we look at here is the imitation game itself in terms of its practical instantiation with regard to human-machine interaction. As a result some researchers in the field regard the test as laying the foundations for what we now know as artificial intelligence (AI), even considering it to be AI’s ‘‘empirical goal’’ (Harnad, 1992). Turing suggested: “May not machines carry out something which ought to be described as thinking but which is very different from what a man does?” (Turing, 1950, p. Since that paper appeared, a lot of discussion has focused on the concept of machine thinking and whether it can be human-like at times or even whether it will ever be possible to copy human thinking in every aspect (Dennett, 1998 Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 2009 Minsky, 1982 Shah, 2010). Turing’s imitation game, commonly known as the Turing test, was originally posed as an alternative to the question of whether or not a machine could be said to think (Turing, 1950).
0 kommentar(er)
