The man receives a string of Chinese characters that, unbeknownst to him, means, let's say, "What is your favorite color?" His manual tells him that when he receives these symbols, he should respond with another string of symbols that, again unbeknownst to him, means "blue." In the same way, Searle contended, computers mindlessly manipulate symbols without understanding their meaning; computers are not really thinking as we humans do.The situation could be regarded as analogous to that which would occur if the interrogator were talking to himself and one of the competitors was listening with his ear to the wall.
Likewise according to this view the only way to know that a man thinks is to be that particular man. It may be the most logical view to hold but it makes communication of ideas difficult."Although I reject Searle's objection to the Turing test, I have an objection—or reservation--of my own, which comes from my observation that we humans are awfully prone to anthropomorphism, the projection of human characteristics onto non-human and even inanimate things. ELIZA's responses involved simply turning statements of the human patient back into leading questions.
This tendency stems from what psychologists call our theory-of-mind capacity, our innate ability—which manifests itself in most of us by the age of three or so--to intuit the states of mind of others. For example, if you said, "I'm feeling a little anxious lately," ELIZA would ask, "Why are you feeling a little anxious lately?
I can't be sure that you, reader, or any other human, let alone a bat or cat or i Phone or toaster oven, is truly conscious.
All I can do is make reasonable assumptions based on the behavior of such entities. To the extent that their behavior resembles mine, I grant that they're probably conscious, because I know I'm conscious.
"We watched in painful embarrassment," Mc Corduck wrote, "trying hard not to look, yet mesmerized all the same." The Turing test, in other words, says more about our minds than it does about the mind—or lack thereof—of a computer. It is only to say that, no matter how far machines progress, we may never know what, if anything, it is like to be a machine. Check out in particular the section in which Turing discussed how extrasensory perception might complicate the Turing test.
The evidence for ESP, Turing asserted, is "overwhelming." "If telepathy is admitted," he wrote, "it will be necessary to tighten our test up.
The theory of mind is vital for our social development; autistics are believed to lack the capacity. Our theory-of-mind capacities are so strong that we impute human intelligence, intentions and emotions even to non-human things, like cats, cars and computers. "The exchange at Stanford began with ELIZA asking the Russian, "What brought you here to see me today?
This phenomenon provides the subtext of the i Phone ads showing the actor John Malkovich flirting with Siri, the i Phone program. " The Russian replied, "Oh, nothing much, I'm feeling a little tired, that's all." Before long, as Mc Corduck and several other scientists watched, the Russian began pouring out his heart to ELIZA, confessing his concerns for his wife and children.
But now, apparently, in addition to everything else freelance journalists have to worry about these days—cranking out more and more words for less and less moola, as my pal Robert Wright points out--they also have to fear being accused of "self-plagiarism" by self-appointed ethics cops. on how AI has progressed by adopting a brute-force approach to solving problems like language-recognition and abandoning the goal of replicating human cognition.
On June 8, 2014, The University of Reading announced that a computer program “has passed the Turing test for the first time.” University of Reading professor Kevin Warwick, Ph D, described it this way: “Some will claim that the test has already been passed.