Minds and Machines

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 3–27 | Cite as

Creativity, the Turing Test, and the (Better) Lovelace Test

  • Selmer Bringsjord
  • Paul Bello
  • David Ferrucci


The Turing Test (TT) is claimed by many to be a way to test for the presence, in computers, of such ``deep'' phenomena as thought and consciousness. Unfortunately, attempts to build computational systems able to pass TT (or at least restricted versions of this test) have devolved into shallow symbol manipulation designed to, by hook or by crook, trick. The human creators of such systems know all too well that they have merely tried to fool those people who interact with their systems into believing that these systems really have minds. And the problem is fundamental: the structure of the TT is such as to cultivate tricksters. A better test is one that insists on a certain restrictive epistemic relation between an artificial agent (or system) A, its output o, and the human architect H of A – a relation which, roughly speaking, obtains when H cannot account for how A produced o. We call this test the ``Lovelace Test'' in honor of Lady Lovelace, who believed that only when computers originate things should they be believed to have minds.


Artificial Intelligence System Theory Good Test Computational System Artificial Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boolos, G.S. and Jeffrey, R.C. (1989), Computability and Logic, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bringsjord, S. (1991), 'Is the connectionist-logicist clash one of ai's wonderful red herrings?', Journal of Experimental & Theoretical AI 3(4), pp. 319–349.Google Scholar
  3. Bringsjord, S. (1992), What Robots Can and Can't Be, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Dordrecht, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Bringsjord, S. (1995), 'Could, how could we tell if, and why should-androids have inner lives?', in K. Ford, C. Glymour and P. Hayes, eds., Android Epistemology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 93–122.Google Scholar
  5. Bringsjord, S. (1998a), 'Chess is too easy', Technology Review 101(2), pp. 23–28.Google Scholar
  6. Bringsjord, S. (1998b), Philosophy and 'super' computation, in J. Moor and T. Bynam, eds., The Digital Phoenix: How Computers are Changing Philosophy, Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 231–252.Google Scholar
  7. Bringsjord, S. and Ferrucci, D. (2000), Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity: Inside the Mind of Brutus, a Storytelling Machine, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Bringsjord, S. and Zenzen, M. (2001), SuperMinds: A Defence of Uncomputable Cognition, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Copeland, B.J. (1998), 'Turing's O-machines, searle, penrose and the brain', Analysis 58(2), pp. 128–138.Google Scholar
  10. Ebbinghaus, H.D., Flum, J. and Thomas, W. (1984), Mathematical Logic, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Gold, M. (1994), 'Limiting recursion', Journal of Symbolic Logic 30(1), pp. 28–47.Google Scholar
  12. Harnad, S. (1991), 'Other bodies, other minds: A machine incarnation of an old philosophical problem', Minds and Machines 1(1), pp. 43–54. This paper is available online at Scholar
  13. Hofstadter, D. (1982), 'Metafont, metamathematics, and metaphysics', Visible Language 14(4), pp. 309–338.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstadter, D. (1995), Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought, New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Hofstadter, D. and McGraw, G. (1995), Letter spirit: Esthetic perception and creative play in the rich microcosm of the roman alphabet, in Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought, New York, NY: Basic Books, pp. 407–488.Google Scholar
  16. Kafka, F. (1948), The metamorphosis, in F. Kafka, T.W. Muir and E. Muir, eds., The Penal Colony, New York, NY: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  17. Kugel, P. (1986), 'Thinking may be more than computing', Cognition 18, pp. 128–149.Google Scholar
  18. Moor, J.H. (1976), 'An analysis of turing's test', Philosophical Studies 30, pp. 249–257.Google Scholar
  19. Moravec, H. (1999), Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendant Mind, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Pollock, J. (1995), Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Putnam, H. (1994), 'Trial and error predicates and a solution to a problem of mostowski', Journal of Symbolic Logic 30(1), pp. 49–57.Google Scholar
  22. Russell, B. (1936), 'The limits of empiricism', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 36, 131–150.Google Scholar
  23. Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (1994), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Searle, J. (1980), 'Minds, brains and programs', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417–424. This paper is available online at Scholar
  25. Siegelmann, H. (1995), 'Computation beyond the turing limit', Science 268, pp. 545–548.Google Scholar
  26. Siegelmann, H. and Sontag, E. (1994), 'Analog computation via neural nets', Theoretical Computer Science 131 pp. 331–360.Google Scholar
  27. Turing, A. (1964), Computing machinery and intelligence, in A.R. Anderson, ed., Minds and Machines, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 4–30.Google Scholar
  28. Weyl, H. (1949), Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wos, L. (1996), The Automation of Reasoning: An Experimenter's Notebook with OTTER Tutorial, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Selmer Bringsjord
    • 1
  • Paul Bello
    • 1
  • David Ferrucci
    • 2
  1. 1.The Minds & Machines Laboratory, Department of Philosophy, Psychology & Cognitive Science, Department of Computer ScienceRensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)TroyUSA
  2. 2.T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations