Minds and Machines

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 541–559 | Cite as

Turing's Two Tests for Intelligence*

  • Susan G. Sterrett
Article

Abstract

On a literal reading of `Computing Machinery and Intelligence', Alan Turing presented not one, but two, practical tests to replace the question `Can machines think?' He presented them as equivalent. I show here that the first test described in that much-discussed paper is in fact not equivalent to the second one, which has since become known as `the Turing Test'. The two tests can yield different results; it is the first, neglected test that provides the more appropriate indication of intelligence. This is because the features of intelligence upon which it relies are resourcefulness and a critical attitude to one's habitual responses; thus the test's applicablity is not restricted to any particular species, nor does it presume any particular capacities. This is more appropriate because the question under consideration is what would count as machine intelligence. The first test realizes a possibility that philosophers have overlooked: a test that uses a human's linguistic performance in setting an empirical test of intelligence, but does not make behavioral similarity to that performance the criterion of intelligence. Consequently, the first test is immune to many of the philosophical criticisms on the basis of which the (so-called) `Turing Test' has been dismissed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Churchland, P.A. (1996), 'Learning and Conceptual Change: The View from the Neurons', in A. Clark and P.J.R. Millican, eds., Connectionism, Concepts and Folk Psychology: The Legacy of Alan Turing, Vol. 2, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Dennett, D.C. (1998), 'Can Machines Think?' in Brainchildren, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Descartes, R. (1987), Discourse on Method, Cottingham, J. (Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dick, P.K. (1982), Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  5. Dreyfus, H.L. (1979) What Computers Can't Do, Revised Edition. New York: Harper Colophon Books.Google Scholar
  6. French, R.M. (1990). 'Subcognition and the Limits of the Turing Test', Mind 99.Google Scholar
  7. Genova, J. (1994), 'Turing's Sexual Guessing Game', Social Epistemology 8(4), pp. 313-326.Google Scholar
  8. Gunderson, K. (1964), 'Descartes, LaMettrie, Language, and Machines', Philosophy 39, pp. 193-222.Google Scholar
  9. Haugeland, J. (1985), Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hayes, P. and Ford, K. (1995), 'Turing Test Considered Harmful', Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCA195-1). Montreal, Quebec, Canada. pp. 972-997.Google Scholar
  11. Heil, J. (1998), Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hodges, A. (1983), Alan Turing: The Enigma, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  13. Hofstadter, D.R. (1981), 'A Coffeehouse Conversation', Scientific Americans, May 1981, pp. 15-36.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstadter, D.R. (1985), Metamagical Themas, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Hofstadter, D.R. (1996), 'Analogy-Making, Fluid Concepts, and Brain Mechanisms', Connectionism, Concepts, and Folk Psychology: The Legacy of Alan Turing. Vol. II, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 195-247.Google Scholar
  16. Leiber, J. (1991), An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Massey, G.J. and Boyle, D.A. (1999), 'Descartes's Tests for (Animal) Mind' (forthcoming, Philosophical Topics 27, Special Issue on Zoological Philosophy and Philosophical Ethology).Google Scholar
  18. Michie, D. (1993), 'Turing's Test and Conscious Thought', Artificial Intelligence 60, pp. 1-22.Google Scholar
  19. Moor, J.H. (1992), 'Turing Test', Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1625-1627.Google Scholar
  20. Moor, J.H. (1976), 'An Analysis of the Turing Test', Philosophical Studies 30, pp. 249-257.Google Scholar
  21. Piccinini, G. (2000), 'Turing's Rules for the Imitation Game', Minds and Machines 10, pp. 573-582.Google Scholar
  22. Ryle, G. (1949), The Concent of Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schank, R. (1984), The Cognitive Computer, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Shieber, S.M. (1994), 'Lessons From a Restricted Turing Test', Communications of the ACM; 37(6).Google Scholar
  25. Traiger, S. (2000), 'Making the Right Identification', Minds and Machines (this volume).Google Scholar
  26. Turing, A.M. (1950), 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence', Mind, 59, pp. 433-460.Google Scholar
  27. Turing, A.M. (1996), 'Intelligent Machinery, A Heretical Theory', Philosophia Mathematica, (3) 4, pp. 256-260.Google Scholar
  28. Wallace, R. (1997), 'The Lying Game', Wired, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 1997.Google Scholar
  29. Whitby, B. (1996), 'The Turing Test: Al's Biggest Blind Alley?' in P.J.R. Milllican and A. Clark, eds., Machines and Thought: The Legacy of Alan Turing. Vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan G. Sterrett

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations