In Jennifer McWeeny & Keya Maitra (eds.), Feminist Philosophy of Mind (forthcoming)

Authors
Amy Kind
Claremont McKenna College
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
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test.Saul Traiger - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
The Imitation Game.John Mark Bishop - 2010 - Kybernetes 39 (3):398-402.
The Status and Future of the Turing Test.James H. Moor - 2001 - Minds and Machines 11 (1):77-93.
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.
The Turing Test.B. Jack Copeland - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):519-539.
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 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes