Nested algorithms and "the original imitation game test": a reply to James Moor

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Authors
Sterrett, Susan G.
Issue Date
2002
Type
Article
Postprint
Language
en_US
Keywords
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Alternative Title
Abstract

In "The Status and Future of the Turing Test" (Moor, 2001), which appeared in an earlier issue of this journal, James Moor remarks on my paper "Turing's Two Tests for Intelligence." In my paper I had claimed that, whatever Turing may or may not have thought, the test described in the opening section of Turing's now legendary 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is not equivalent to, and in fact is superior to, the test described in a passage that occurs much later in Turing's paper (i.e., in Section 5 of Turing, 1950). I'm pleased Moor chose to give such prominence to my point, and very happy to see that he recognized that my claim was a normative one about the superiority of one test over another, rather than a claim about Turing's intentions. However, as I think the way he describes my point could lead to misunderstandings, I'd like to clarify the points I made. One major clarification is which two tests I am contrasting; another is that the difference in overall structure of the two tests is of philosophical significance.

Description
View/download or read postprint via a streaming viewer with the turning page feature in SOAR, or click on the DOI link to access the publisher's copy of this article (may not be free)
Citation
Susan G. Sterrett. Nested algorithms and "The Original Imitation Game Test": A Reply to James Moor. Minds and Machines v. 12, no. 1 (February 2002): pp 131-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013741418638
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
License
Journal
Volume
Issue
PubMed ID
DOI
ISSN
EISSN