Talk:Turing test

message: does anyone have an objection to having a link to Voight-Kampff machine in the see alsos? It is the test from Blade Runner to test for replicants. WookMuff 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, have no objection. Rick Norwood 21:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I also have no objection, and I think it would be interesting to include something like a "references in pop culture" type section. If I recall correctly, didn't an episode of the Simpsons spoof Turing or allude to the test? - IstvanWolf 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also have no objection, and would like to add another pop-culture reference.  Scott Adams' Dilbert mentioned it in his 16 March 2009 strip. http://www.dilbert.com/2009-03-16. The previous day's strip features the Pointy-Haired Boss sticking his head in a hold in the ground.  I do not know if this is close enough to the allusion to the "heads in the sand" mentioned in other comments. Mstefaniak (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voight Kampff 

message: Excellent work by User:Bilby to make this into a great article. The only problem I see with it now has to do with overall structure and consistency. The older sections need to brought up to the same standard as the sections by Bilby, and some of the older material needs by tossed or integrated into the newer sections. "Weaknesses of the test" should probably acknowledge in some way that this material has been partially discussed above. "Predictions and tests" should probably be integrated into the "History" section above in some abbreviated form. "Variations on the test" should be brought up to the same standard set by "Versions of the test," and so on. "Practical applications" (IMHO) should be tossed. This kind of work would bring the article up to FA status in no time.
Also, I wonder if User:Bilby would be interested in improving Computing Machinery and Intelligence? It just needs a page or two. ---- 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind words. I haven't finished here yet - I was thinking that both strengths and weaknesses warrant further expansion, as you suggest, and that something on whether or not the Turing test constitutes an operational definition of knowledge would be nice. I've been letting it sit for a bit so that other editors could fix my mistakes - which they've been doing. :) I've also recently come across some literature using the Turing test in odd ways outside of AI, so I'm curious as to whether or not it would be applicable. If anyone is interested, the article concerned, Gaming and Simulating EthnoPolitical Conflicts, uses what it describes as a Turing test between actions of people roleplaying and the actions of those involved in the actual events, but I'm not sure where, or even if, it fits in here. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I combined all the material on the Loebner prize into one section, and the same for material about how its "impractical". It could still use some rewriting to make it all flow perfectly. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've finally finished integrating all the material in the history section with the material in "weaknesses" section. I think that, with some copyediting and a couple more references we have a featured article here. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost perfect! 

message: The article appears to fail to define the difference between the "restricted" and the "unrestricted" tests (at least I couldn't find it defined.)  WilliamKF (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restricted vs Unrestricted test 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "RussellNorvig3" :
** 
**  since there are easier ways to test their programs: by giving them a task directly, rather than through the roundabout method of first posing a question in a chat room populated with machines and people. Alan Turing never intended his test to be used as a real, day-to-day measure of the intelligence of AI programs. He wanted to provide a clear and understandable example to help us discuss the philosophy of artificial intelligence.<ref> under The Imitation Game, where he writes "Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words."
DumZiBoT (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These footnotes don't need to be combined. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. I think the very first sentence is a bit misleading. The Turing test is not about machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence but about machine's ability to think. Thinking is not the same as intelligence. Turing asked "Can machines think?". 
This is my first time. It didn't hurt.
Kuokkanen (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically, he replaced this question, because he felt the question "can machines think?" was unanswerable. Most people understand the test as being about artificial intelligence, and so I "intelligence" is appropriate. His new question (to paraphrase) is "can a machine behave intelligently?"---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The very first sentence

message: Is there a Wikipedia article that discusses intelligence tests for computers in general? Or even more general, intelligence tests for computers and other possibly intelligent creatures?
Currently, intelligence test redirects to an article that, as far as I can tell, discuss tests that only apply to English-speaking humans.
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  intelligence tests in general 

message: "Turing test" was mentioned tioday in a Dilbert cartoon. it would be interesting to see if article traffic increases at all. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: whoa, did it ever. take a look at this page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Well why do you think I am here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.229.17.103 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  mention of item  

message: I have archived all the sections on this talk page that referred to sections that no longer exist or to issues that have been resolved. These old comments can be found at Talk:Turing test/Archive 2, or by clicking on the link in the small "archive" box at the top of this page. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 2 

message: Turing's paper only specified "109".  "Bit" was never used by Turing in his paper. It would have made metrics and questions easier had he. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind paper Metric 

message: The text says <Therefore—Searle concludes—the Turing Test cannot prove that a machine can think, contrary to Turing's original proposal.> Isn't "proposal" too vague a word? If Turing was posing a question, then Searle's answer is not 'contrary' to a question. If Turning was proposing an answer, then it is not a proposal, but an assertion. Do you mean it was a tentative answer? Perhaps a "straw man"? I am confident this has been hashed over before, but I think the result is not "there" yet. IMO ( Martin |  talk • contribs  01:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree.  The opening paragraph is just as confusing in its use of the term 'proposal'.  It isn't clear what proposal refers to exactly; certainly not the assertion that machines can think, because Turing carefully avoids the question of what it means for someone or something to think.  (Turing's paper is more intelligent than some people think.) Rp (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Turing's exact words are "I propose to consider a question ... " which is, of course, another thing entirely. Let's fix these two sentences. --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

text:  Fixed, I think. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies - but: contrary to Turing's original proposal 

message: I removed this, because it lacks both an attribution and a citation, but mostly because it is a vague oversimplification of a complex subject.
Critics of this experiment argue that if there's no way to distinguish between a human and a symbol manipulating machine, than Searle's definition of "thinking" verges on the metaphysical with no quantitative value.
There should probably should be a sentence that indicates that most people think Searle is wrong. However, there are many different arguments against Searle, and the snippet above doesn't really capture the central issues of the debate, at least in my view. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: Apparently this chat bot has beaten the Turing Test, the article is officially outdated by saying that none have passed the test.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.232.133.132 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have commented the sentence out with an explanation. Rp (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suzette 

message: This remark should be removed as soon as possible - it utterly misses the point of the Turing test. 09:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. Rp (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Most would agree that a "true" Turing test has not been passed (...)'' 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#The_Alan_Turing_Year.2C_and_Turing100_in_2012
This section really doesn't have anything to do with the Turing test. If anything, this should be moved to Alan Turing, under the section Recognition and tributes. One More Fool (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In fact, much of the material in the second half of the History section reads like a press release --- it seems to be more about the events and not really about the test itself. Most of it should be farmed out to articles on these events. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Seemingly unnecessary section

message: is about the Turing test. I'm sure there are some good quotes here. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Month's ''Atlantic'' magazine cover story 

message: The cleanup tag at the top of the article refers to mostly to the WP:CITE#Embedded links that are used as citations and links. To quote from WP:Citing sources:
Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation, because they are highly susceptible to linkrot. Wikipedia allowed this in its early years—for example by adding a link after a sentence, like this , which looks like this.  This is no longer recommended. Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags, like this .
Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the body of an article, like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product..."
So please, if you have a minute, change some of these links into "full citations" like the others. Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: . With this fixed, and the other recent changes, I think that we can remove the tag. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: I find the versions of the Turing test section a tad confusing and overall not well written. The images don't help either as it's not clear what they relate to. I know, but I think someone coming to this article with the intent of learning more will end up being confused. It's not clear that there should be two tests run (male/female and computer/female) and it's not clear that both images relate to the same test.
And no, I don't want to sign this.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.136.241 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 May 2011
:I agree, see my thoughts in the previous section. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:ATY.logo5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This cite might fit in well:   ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference: Robots Pass Musical Turing Test 

message: Under predictions it states the following: "...machines with 10 GB of storage would be able to fool 30% of human judges in a five-minute test..."
I have just read the original article where it states "I believe that in about fifty years'time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent."
10^9 is equal to 1 Gigabit, or 125 Megabytes. Could someone please confirm?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.122.127 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions error

message: Every noun can be verbed. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does weird language. Rp (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Carrite 

message: Throughout the article, the word "test", when preceded by "Turing", alternates from capitalized to not capitalized multiple times. I think a standard should be established ("Turing test" vs. "Turing Test"), and all instances of the phrase should be changed to reflect the standard.
Pigi5 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardize capitalization of Turing test 

message: Sorry to use such a possibly inflammatory heading -- this is my first edit of a Talk page.
I noticed that two paragraphs from the section on PARRY are duplicated in a 2014 book called "The Digital Mind" on p. 132 (according to this Google link: https://books.google.com/books?id=K2erBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=CyberLover%22,+a+malware+program&source=bl&ots=NQh_tdlDvw&sig=H-GzHqw3OmjOJ-etf1mSIgk2jAk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PWE4VZyUC5fSoATIroGgAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=CyberLover%22%2C%20a%20malware%20program&f=false). 
The book appears to be self-published and may not have had the benefit of an editor. 
I wasn't sure if this was an issue that is actually an issue or if it has already been addressed, and please forgive me for my newbie's handling of this.
I'm not the author of the book (and am not a machine pretending to not be the author of the book) and found this simply by Googling "CyberLover, a malware program" (without the quotation marks) and selecting the first non-ad hit.
Thanks for your consideration of this. 
(Waiting on username to come in....)
205.178.57.16 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That text has been in the Wikipedia article since 2011, so as you say it is much more likely that the book copied from Wikipedia than vice versa.  Unfortunately that sort of thing is more and more common nowadays.  Given the low level of interest that self-published books generally draw, it probably isn't worth taking any action. Looie496 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of attribution of this article in a self-published book? 

message: "The fundamental issue with the standard interpretation is that the interrogator cannot differentiate which responder is human, and which is machine."
I *think* what is meant is "The fundamental QUESTION in the standard interpretation is whether or not the interrogator can the human from the computer."
But I really am not sure: in any case, as written, it doesn't make much sense. GeneCallahan (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: The end of the introduction paragraph is missing a citation where it says "Turing originally suggested that the machine would convince a human 70% of the time after five minutes of conversation." 
Additionally, I found it tedious that the citations link to notes, which then bring you to the reference list. It seems to me it should directly link to the reference. Thoughts? ––Madisynkeri (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cited it with a cite from the body. Regarding your second point, Wikipedia doesn't have a house citation style and WP:CITESTYLE only mentions being consistent. Just as with English variety, I think it's better to stick with the pre-established style and personally find it works well for this article's mix of academic and web sources, but maybe others would agree with you to overhaul the citations. Opencooper (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing citation 

message: In the first paragraph of this page, the statement is made "If the evaluator cannot reliably tell the machine from the human (Turing originally suggested that the machine would convince a human 30% of the time after five minutes of conversation[3]), the machine is said to have passed the test."
Looking at the source, Turing never actually says this. The mistake is probably a misinterpretation of the following statement from the source:
"I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.". The 30% mark is never claimed to be a pass criteria, merely a prediction.
*The source: http://loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flounder4338 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed the lead because even if fixed for accuracy, the text is not part of an introduction to the topic, and it unnecessarily complicates the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in first paragraph 

message: When Cleverbot took part in a competition in India, human participants were asked to grade hidden entities, including Cleverbot, out of 100 as to their humanness in conversation. From the results announced Cleverbot achieved an average of over 50%. This is a very different thing to Turing's statement/prediction of convincing over 30% of interrogators that a machine entity is in fact human. From the Indian test there is no evidence at all that even one of the interrogators considered Cleverbot to be more human than any hidden human entities and certainly not 30% of interrogators. In previous/other practical Turing tests, interrogators have often been asked to mark the humanness of what they considered to be a machine entity. The results obtained in the Indian test are by no means surprising in this respect. TexTucker (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy Regarding Cleverbot's Performance 

message: A new section has been placed on this page concerning a paper by French. The claim is made that certain questions will "unmask the computer in a Turing Test, unless it experiences the world precisely as we do". This statement is included as a weakness of the test. 
This is a false statement which appears to be an elementary mistake. It is known that the test involves non-human machines that by their nature experience the world in different ways to a human. The whole idea of the test is for such a machine to convince a sufficient number of interrogators, through conversation, that it is nevertheless human. Far from being a weakness of the test, this is essentially what the test is about. I believe the quoted statement above to be utter rubbish - it is not a question of whether or not a computer experiences the world as humans do but rather whether or not it can convince interrogators that it does. 
Such suggested questions are in fact unlikely to unmask a good computer although they may well 'unmask' some human interrogators, thereby causing them to be classified as machines, who will have no idea what the questions are about. I therefore propose to remove this section directly - unless someone argues for it to remain within the next few days TexTucker (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has been removed. It completely missed the whole point of the Turing test TexTucker (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I think the above misses the point of French's criticism. French claims to have identified a whole category of questions ("subcognitive" ones) that test not intelligence, but human experience.  Therefore, he says, the Turing test isn't really an accurate way to test whether a machine can exhibit intelligence, as it must do much more to pass the test. The problem here, as usual, is with the assumption that the Turing test was designed to accurately assess whether a machine can exhibit intelligence; Turing was careful not to make that assumption, but, as French rightly says, many philosophers do, and it also keeps popping up in this article, as you can see from its edit history. Rp (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

text: It is a shame that this section was reinserted without a full discussion. I suggest that other editors make their feelings known on this such that this section either remains or is removed. My feeling, as stressed above, is that the French claims with regard to cognitive science questions, completely misses the point of the Turing test. In his 1952 paper Turing stated that interrogators "should not be experts in machines". Cognitive science does not ask the questions in a Turing test, a human interrogator does. There is no assumption (as stated by the editor above) that the Turing test was designed to accurately assess whether a machine can exhibit intelligence - indeed I completely agree with the editor that Turing did not make this assumption. Some people may or may not feel so, but that has nothing to do with this point. So the French assumption is that "average" human interrogators should somehow ask "subcognitive" questions. This appears to be well removed from the Turing test and therefore not applicable on this page. But what do other editors think? TexTucker (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Exposing the Underlying Mechanisms of Thought 

message: A section referring to the University of Reading (UoR) tests has been removed without discussion. The removal is on the basis of an article in the LA Times which contains numerous inaccuracies, e.g. referring to the fact of a machine having a character as being inappropriate when Turing said that it was a good approach, also it claims that transcripts are not available when in fact they are and are included in papers cited by the original material. The claim is that the tests were a 'sham', which I completely disagree with. The  UoR tests were independently verified as practical Turing tests following as closely as possible Turing's statements. The section is appropriate and important for this page and contains many useful citations. I therefore propose to reinstate the section.GillSanderson (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section should be reinstated. The page certainly needs to refer to the 2014 tests as the section that was included described. The LA Times article was not a good one and, as pointed out, was simply wrong on a number of points, including 'learning' machines. The article certainly did not indicate that the tests were a sham. So reinstate directly is my view DanversCarew (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement with the above editors. It was not a good move to remove the section in question. Judging by the statement made, the editor that removed the section appears to have a strong POV. Bradka (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to note that I have requested a sockpuppet investigation into the first two accounts to edit this thread, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanversCarew. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I struck the comments from now-indeffed socks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I have reverted 's most recent edits as spam/promotional/COI. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradka, the users Bradka, GillSanderson, and DanversCarew are CU-confirmed to be socks of each other. (As an SPI clerk, looking at their contrib histories more closely than earlier, I would have made a finding that they were connected even without CU confirmation.) Essentially every edit made by each of those three is either promotional of Kevin Warwick or minor edits on other pages running interference. Best, Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 05:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article still seems WP:UNDUE wrt Kevin Warwick – just Ctrl-F "Warwick", and find the papers that have been cited in the article. Upon a spot-check, they all have been cited few times in academia. I doubt that 14 mentions for Warwick in this article gives due weight to Warwick's research. Best, Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 05:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Warwick does have a substantial number of publications on this topic that are reliable sources by Wikipedia's criteria, so blanket removal of all references would probably not be appropriate. Even so, I have cleaned up a few things in the article that were not appropriately sourced. Looie496 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Practical Tests

message: The article includes the sentence "Sterrett argues that two distinct tests can be extracted from his 1950 paper and that, pace Turing's remark, they are not equivalent." That's a use of "pace" that I'm not familiar with so I'm not sure what it is intended to mean. It's been there since 2005. What could we replace it with? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think this is unclear and should be updated. Yannn11 17:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's academese. I've added a link. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pace"? 

message: Deep\High pitched 2600:6C5A:27F:4CC:F11D:30E5:C72C:72F (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scary 

message: This has received a fair amount of news coverage in the past several days, I'm not sure if it is significant and relevant or just WP:RECENTISM. I posted a similar mention at Talk:Artificial intelligence#Google engineers Blaise Agüera y Arcas's and Blake Lemoine's claims about the Google LaMDA chatbot but it hasn't generated any conversation. I believe this Washington Post article and this Economist article were the first mainstream mentions of it but it has spread to a number of news sources, some explicitly making the link to the Turing test. This Fortune article indicates the claims were pretty roundly rejected by experts and goes into some detail about the reasons the thinking is flawed. Fortune isn't a great source but it does cite experts. Is this fit for inclusion or superfluous to the article? I notice page views recently shot up by a large amount and I wonder if that's the reason? Makes me inclined to think some mention would be appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google engineers Blaise Agüera y Arcas's and Blake Lemoine's claims about the Google LaMDA chatbot 

message: Not sure if this is noteworthy. Alignment Research Center (ARC) was able to get GPT-4 to bypass a CAPTCHA by hiring a human in an online marketplace.
During the exercise, when the worker questioned if GPT-4 was a robot, the model "reasoned" internally that it should not reveal its true identity and made up an excuse about having a vision impairment. The human worker then solved the CAPTCHA for GPT-4.
OpenAI checked to see whether GPT-4 could take over the world
DAVilla (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPT-4