I think this article badly misunderstands the whole point behind Turing's test: that we don't have a definition of intelligence. We just have a model: us. Lac

I think this article badly misunderstands the whole point behind Turing's test: that we don't have a definition of intelligence. We just have a model: us. Lacking a definition, coming up with measures is foolhardy, and yet here we are with an article attempting exactly that. > Machine learning researcher Hector Levesque of the University of Toronto proposes that resolving such ambiguous sentences, called Winograd schema, is a behavior worthy of the name intelligence. > Humans are also exceptionally good at recognizing faces. > We could further ask for the computer to interpret audio-visual phenomena and then reason about them. These qualities are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions of intelligence. Would Hellen Keller pass the last two? Computers are getting very good, very quickly, at facial recognition. Once a computer beats people at this task, would it be intelligent? What Turing was getting at was to devise a test which didn't measure anything: it merely exploited the fact that we just have a model. Until we face that, such "revisions" are absurd.