5, I consider four possible objections to the QTT.
4, I introduce the QTT, describe my study, and show the results gained. 3, I discuss two problems with the TT: (i) Artificial Stupidity and (ii) Blockhead. In the next section, I review two interpretations of the TT: the Original Imitation Game (OIG), advocated by Sterrett ( 2000) and the Standard Turing Test (STT), advocated by Moor ( 2001). The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Footnote 2 My claim is that the QTT (i) improves the experimental design of the TT, by minimising both the Eliza Effect Footnote 3 and the Confederate Effect Footnote 4 and (ii) prevents both Artificial Stupidity Footnote 5 and Blockhead Footnote 6 from passing. In the QTT, the entity Footnote 1 must accomplish a yes/no enquiry in a humanlike and strategic way, where ‘strategic’ means with as few questions as possible. To show this, I propose a new version of the TT, called QTT. My view is that the fault of the TT is one of interpretation and experimental design rather than experimental concept. Even if judges can give scores, in the end any score of humanness is meaningless. the Turing test aims at a quality and not a quantity.
The standard Turing test is not a valid and reliable test for HLMI.
0 kommentar(er)
