4 ms·
I think the point of the man/woman version of the game is that it lets Turing propose his question in relative terms. He doesn't ask "can the machine fool someb
by fenomas 2y ago
I think the point of the man/woman version of the game is that it lets Turing propose his question in relative terms. He doesn't ask "can the machine fool somebody N% of the time?" (as several in this thread imagine), but rather "can the machine fool somebody as often as one person fools another under similar conditions?".
> Your interpretation of it hadn’t occurred to me before,
The idea of a Turing Test is pretty widely understood to mean a test where a person guesses which responses come from a machine, not where they guess someone's gender. So my interpretation here is just that the paper says what most people think it says.
- foldr 2y agoSorry, I am being ambiguous myself. I meant that your interpretation of this specific sentence had not occurred to me: > We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" I think you are right about what Turing meant. But it had honestly never occurred to me before that this description of the game could be understood as a description of the standard 'Turing test'. So, for this reason, I had always been sympathetic to the point that the standard Turing test does not appear to be the test that Turing describes in the original paper. Here is a paper that makes your case, in case anyone finds it interesting. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gualtiero-Piccinini/publication/251383110_Turing's_Rules_for_the_Imitation_Game/links/59342fabaca272fc5541fb7f/Turings-Rules-for-the-Imitation-Game.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gualtiero-Piccinini/pub...
- fenomas 2y agoThanks for the paper! I wasn't aware of it but it's very much what I wanted to say. The bit about Turing's other test involving chess was particularly interesting.