Advertisement

A Computational Behaviorist Takes Turing’s Test

  • Thomas E. Whalen

Abstract

Behaviorism is a school of thought in experimental psychology that has given rise to powerful techniques for managing behavior. Because the Turing Test is a test of linguistic behavior rather than mental processes, approaching the test from a behavioristic perspective is worth examining. A behavioral approach begins by observing the kinds of questions that judges ask, then links the invariant features of those questions to pre-written answers. Because this approach is simple and powerful, it has been more successful in Turing competitions than the more ambitious linguistic approaches. Computational behaviorism may prove successful in other areas of Artificial Intelligence.

Keywords

Behaviorism computational linguistics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Breland, K. and Breland, M., 1961, The misbehavior of organisms, American Psychologist 16: 681–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks, R. A., 2002, Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us, Pantheon Books, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N., 1959, A review of B.F. Skinner’s verbal behavior, Language 35(1): 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N., 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Cambridge, MIT Press, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Christensen, C. M., 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Cordea, M. D., Petriu, E. M., Georganas, N. D., Petriu, D. C., and Whalen, T. E., 2001, Real-time2½D head pose recovery for model-based video-coding, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 50(4): 1007–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harnad, S., 1992, The Turing Test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a scientific criterion, SIGART Bulletin 3(4): 9–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Minsky, M. L., ed., 1968, Semantic Information Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Norman, D. A., 1972, Cognitive Science Seminar, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  10. Patrick, A. S. and Whalen, T. E., 1992, Field testing a natural-language information system: usage characteristics and users’ comments, Interacting with Computers 4: 218–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pinker, S., 1994, The Language Instinct, HarperCollins, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Skinner, B. F., 1957, Verbal Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shieber, S. M., 1994, Lessons from a restricted Turing Test, Communications of the ACM 37(6): 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Swets, J. A., Tanner, W. P. and Birdsall, T. G., 1961, Decision processes in perception, Psychological Review 68: 301–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sternberg, R. J., 1990, Metaphors of Mind: Conceptions of the Nature of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Tinbergen, N., 1951, The Study of Instinct, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Watson, J. B., 1913, Psychology as the behaviorist views it, Psychological Review 20: 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weizenbaum, J., 1976, Computer Power and Human Reason, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Whalen, T. E., 1987, at>The feasibility of natural language interfaces for electronic database access, Department of Communications Technical Memorandum, IR0073/87.Google Scholar
  20. Whalen, T. E. and Patrick, A. S., 1989, Conversational hypertext: information access through natural language dialogues with computers, Proceedings of CHI’89, pp. 289–292.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas E. Whalen
    • 1
  1. 1.Communications Research CentreOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations