In Jennifer McWeeny & Keya Maitra (eds.), Feminist Philosophy of Mind (forthcoming)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
In his 1950 paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Alan Turing proposed that we can determine whether a machine thinks by considering whether it can win at a simple imitation game. A neutral questioner communicates with two different systems – one a machine and a human being – without knowing which is which. If after some reasonable amount of time the machine is able to fool the questioner into identifying it as the human, the machine wins the game, and we should conclude that it thinks. This imitation game, now known as the Turing Test, has been much discussed by philosophers of mind, and for more than half a century now there has been considerable debate about whether it is an adequate test for thinking. But what has not been much discussed are the sexed presuppositions underlying the test. Too often forgotten in the philosophical discussion is the fact that Turing’s imitation game is modeled on an imitation game in which a neutral questioner communicates with two different humans – one a man and one a woman – without knowing which is which. In this original imitation game, the man wins the game if he is able to fool the questioner into identifying him as the woman. In this paper, I explore the implications of this set-up. As I argue, the fact that the Turing test was modeled on a man/woman imitation game seems to have led us astray in various ways in our attempt to conduct an effective investigation and assessment of computer intelligence.
|
Keywords | Turing Test, Imitation Game, Sexual Difference, Feminist Philosophy of Mind |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Buy the book |
Find it on Amazon.com
|
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Nested Algorithms and the Original Imitation Game Test: A Reply to James Moor. [REVIEW]Susan G. Sterrett - 2002 - Minds and Machines 12 (1):131-136.
Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test.Saul Traiger - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
Undecidability in the Imitation Game.Y. Sato & T. Ikegami - 2004 - Minds and Machines 14 (2):133-43.
Turing and the Evaluation of Intelligence.Francesco Bianchini - 2014 - Isonomia: Online Philosophical Journal of the University of Urbino:1-18.
Rethinking Turing’s Test and the Philosophical Implications.Diane Proudfoot - 2020 - Minds and Machines 30 (4):487-512.
Imitation Versus Communication: Testing for Human-Like Intelligence.Jamie Cullen - 2009 - Minds and Machines 19 (2):237-254.
What Turing Himself Said About the Imitation Game.Diane Proudfoot - 2015 - IEEE Spectrum 52 (7):42-47.
The Computer, Artificial Intelligence, and the Turing Test.Diane Proudfoot & Jack Copeland - 2004 - In C. Teuscher (ed.), Alan Turing: Life and Legacy of a Great Thinker. pp. 317-351.
Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW]Ayse Pinar Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Turing’s Test: A Philosophical and Historical Guide.Diane Proudfoot & Jack Copeland - 2008 - In R. Epstein, G. Roberts & G. Beber (eds.), Parsing the Turing Test: Philosophical and Methodological Issues. pp. 119-138.
The Annotation Game: On Turing (1950) on Computing, Machinery, and Intelligence.Stevan Harnad - 2006 - In Robert Epstein & Grace Peters (eds.), [Book Chapter] (in Press). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
The Genius of the 'Original Imitation Game' Test.S. G. Sterrett - 2020 - Minds and Machines 30 (4):469-486.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2021-11-18
Total views
33 ( #343,595 of 2,499,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #26,467 of 2,499,700 )
2021-11-18
Total views
33 ( #343,595 of 2,499,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #26,467 of 2,499,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads