Minds and Machines

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 77–93 | Cite as

The Status and Future of the Turing Test

  • James H. Moor


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.

imitation game Loebner prize Turing test 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Block, N. (1981), 'Psychologism and behaviorism', Philosophical Review 90, pp. 5–43.Google Scholar
  2. Block, N. (1990), 'The Computer Model of the Mind', in D.N. Osherson and E.E. Smith, eds., Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 247–289.Google Scholar
  3. Bringsjord, S., Bello, P. and Ferrucci, D. (2001), 'Creativity, the Turing test and the (better) Lovelace test', Minds and Machines 11, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
  4. Colby, K.M. (1981), 'Modeling a paranoid mind', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4, pp. 515–560.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Copeland, B.J. (1999), 'A Lecture and Two Radio Broadcasts on Machine Intelligence by Alan Turing', in K. Furukawa, D. Michie and S. Mugglegton, eds., Machine Intelligence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 445–476.Google Scholar
  7. Copeland. B.J. (2000), 'The Turing test', Minds and Machines 10, pp. 519–539.Google Scholar
  8. Erion, G.J. (2001), 'The Cartesian test for automatism', Minds and Machines 11, pp. 29–39.Google Scholar
  9. Ford, K.M. and Hayes, P.J. (1998), 'On Computational Wings: Rethinking the Goals of Artificial Intelligence', Scientific American Presents 9, pp. 78–83.Google Scholar
  10. French, R.M. (1990), 'Subcognition and the limits of the Turing test', Mind 99, pp. 53–65.Google Scholar
  11. Genova, J. (1994), 'Turing's Sexual Guessing Game', Social Epistemology 8, pp. 313–326.Google Scholar
  12. Guha, R.V., and Lenat, D.B. (1994), 'Enabling agents to work together', Communications of the ACM 37, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
  13. Harnard, S. (1991), 'Other Bodies, Other Minds: A Machine Incarnation of an Old Philosophical Problem', Minds and Machines 1, pp. 43–54.Google Scholar
  14. Hauser, L. (2001), 'Look who's moving the goal posts now', Minds and Machines 11, pp. 41–51.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Ince, D.C., ed. (1992), Collected Works of A.M. Turing: Mechanical Intelligence, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  17. Lenat, D.B. (1990), 'CYC: Toward Programs with Common Sense', Communications of the ACM 33, pp. 30–49.Google Scholar
  18. Lenat, D.B. (1995), 'Artificial Intelligence', Scientific American, pp. 80–82.Google Scholar
  19. Lenat, D.B. (1995), 'CYC: A large-scale investment in Knowledge infrastructure', Communications of the ACM 38, pp. 33–38.Google Scholar
  20. Lenat, D.B. (1995), 'Steps to Sharing Knowledge', in N.J.I. Mars, ed., Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases. IOS Press, pp. 3–6.Google Scholar
  21. Meltzer, B. and Michie, D., eds. (1969), Machine Intelligence, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Michie, D. (1996), 'Turing's Test and Conscious Thought', in P. Millican and A. Clark, eds., Machines and Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 27–51.Google Scholar
  23. Millar, P.H. (1973), 'On the Point of the Imitation Game', Mind 82, pp. 595–597.Google Scholar
  24. Moor, J.H. (1976), 'An Analysis of the Turing test', Philosophical Studies 30, pp. 249–257.Google Scholar
  25. Moor, J.H. (1978), 'Explaining Computer Behavior', Philosophical Studies 34, pp. 325–327.Google Scholar
  26. Moor, J.H. (1987), 'Turing Test' in S.C. Shapiro, ed., Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1126–1130.Google Scholar
  27. Moor, J.H. (1988), 'The Pseudorealization fallacy and the Chinese Room Argument', in J.H. Fetzer, ed., Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 35–53.Google Scholar
  28. Moor, J.H. (1998), 'Assessing Artificial Intelligence and its Critics', in T.W. Bynum and J.H. Moor, eds., The Digital Phoenix: How Computers Are Changing Philosophy, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers, pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Narayaman, A. (1996), 'The intentional stance and the imitation game', in P. Millican and A. Clark, eds., Machines and Thought, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Piccinini, G. (2000), 'Turing's rules for the imitation game', Minds and Machines 10, pp. 573–582.Google Scholar
  33. Searle, J.R. (1980), 'Minds, brains and programs', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417–457.Google Scholar
  34. Stalker, D.F. (1978), 'Why Machines Can't Think: A Reply to James Moor', Philosophical Studies 34, pp. 317–320.Google Scholar
  35. Sterrett, S.G. (2000), 'Turing's two tests for intelligence', Minds and Machines 10, pp. 541–559.Google Scholar
  36. Traiger, S. (2000), 'Making the right identification in the Turing test', Minds and Machines 10, pp. 561–572.Google Scholar
  37. 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. 1–86Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Turing, A.M. (1948), 'Intelligent Machinery', National Physical Laboratory Report, in Meltzer and Michie (1969).Google Scholar
  40. Turing, A.M. (1950), 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence', Mind 59, pp. 433–460.Google Scholar
  41. Turing, A.M. (1951a), 'Can Digital Computers Think?', BBC Third Programme, in Copeland (1999).Google Scholar
  42. Turing, A.M. (1951b), 'Intelligent Machinery, A Heretical Theory', Manchester University Lecture, in Copeland (1999).Google Scholar
  43. Turing, A.M. (1952), 'Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said to Think?', BBC Third Programme, in Copeland (1999).Google Scholar
  44. Whitby, B. (1996), 'The Turing Test: AI's Biggest Blind Alley?' in P. Millican and A. Clark, eds., Machines and Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 53–62.Google Scholar
  45. Zdenek, S. (2001), 'Passing Loebner's Turing Test: A Case of Conflicting Discourse Functions', Minds and Machines 11, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. Moor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations