comments

Vulnerable to counter-examples

Whether behaviorally or operationally interpreted, the Turing test is vulnerable to cases where unthinking machines pass the test or unthinking machines fail it.

But, if the Turing test is interpreted as a source of inductive evidence, then such counter-examples can be accommodated.

James Moor, 1976 and 1987.

Supported by "The Inductive Evidence Interpretation".

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can the Turing Test determine this? [2] 
⌃
Yes: defines intelligence operationally/behaviorally
■
Vulnerable to counter-examples
⇤
No: failing the Test is not decisive
⇤
No: passing the Test is not decisive
⇤
Can inductive evidence determine this?
⇥
James Moor
□
Behaviorial disposition interpretation
□
The operational interpretation
□
Philosophical (or logical) behaviorism
□
A Box of Rocks could pass the toe-stepping game
□
Overt behavior doesn't demonstrate understanding
□
The black box objection
□
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip