A Tale of Two Turing Machines

Eric Hehner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1610.09235

2016-10-29

Abstract:Two Turing Machines may be able to answer questions about each other that they cannot answer about themselves.

Logic in Computer Science

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Hard to Cheat: A Turing Test based on Answering Questions about Images

Mateusz Malinowski,Mario Fritz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1501.03302

2015-01-15

Abstract:Progress in language and image understanding by machines has sparkled the interest of the research community in more open-ended, holistic tasks, and refueled an old AI dream of building intelligent machines. We discuss a few prominent challenges that characterize such holistic tasks and argue for "question answering about images" as a particular appealing instance of such a holistic task. In particular, we point out that it is a version of a Turing Test that is likely to be more robust to over-interpretations and contrast it with tasks like grounding and generation of descriptions. Finally, we discuss tools to measure progress in this field.

Artificial Intelligence,Computation and Language,Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,Machine Learning
Teaching Machines to Converse

Li Jiwei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2001.11701

2020-01-01

Abstract: The ability of a machine to communicate with humans has long been associated with the general success of AI. This dates back to Alan Turing's epoch-making work in the early 1950s, which proposes that a machine's intelligence can be tested by how well it, the machine, can fool a human into believing that the machine is a human through dialogue conversations. Many systems learn generation rules from a minimal set of authored rules or labels on top of hand-coded rules or templates, and thus are both expensive and difficult to extend to open-domain scenarios. Recently, the emergence of neural network models the potential to solve many of the problems in dialogue learning that earlier systems cannot tackle: the end-to-end neural frameworks offer the promise of scalability and language-independence, together with the ability to track the dialogue state and then mapping between states and dialogue actions in a way not possible with conventional systems. On the other hand, neural systems bring about new challenges: they tend to output dull and generic responses; they lack a consistent or a coherent persona; they are usually optimized through single-turn conversations and are incapable of handling the long-term success of a conversation; and they are not able to take the advantage of the interactions with humans. This dissertation attempts to tackle these challenges: Contributions are two-fold: (1) we address new challenges presented by neural network models in open-domain dialogue generation systems; (2) we develop interactive question-answering dialogue systems by (a) giving the agent the ability to ask questions and (b) training a conversation agent through interactions with humans in an online fashion, where a bot improves through communicating with humans and learning from the mistakes that it makes.
The Human-or-Machine Matter: Turing-Inspired Reflections on an Everyday Issue

David Harel,Assaf Marron

2023-08-02

Abstract:In his seminal paper ``Computing Machinery and Intelligence'', Alan Turing introduced the ``imitation game'' as part of exploring the concept of machine intelligence. The Turing Test has since been the subject of much analysis, debate, refinement and extension. Here we sidestep the question of whether a particular machine can be labeled intelligent, or can be said to match human capabilities in a given context. Instead, we first draw attention to the seemingly simpler question a person may ask themselves in an everyday interaction: ``Am I interacting with a human or with a machine?''. We then shift the focus from seeking a method for eliciting the answer, and, rather, reflect upon the importance and significance of this Human-or-Machine question and the use one may make of a reliable answer thereto. Whereas Turing's original test is widely considered to be more of a thought experiment, the Human-or-Machine matter as discussed here has obvious practical relevance. While it is still unclear if and when machines will be able to mimic human behavior with high fidelity in everyday contexts, we argue that near-term exploration of the issues raised here can contribute to refinement of methods for developing computerized systems, and may also lead to new insights into fundamental characteristics of human behavior.

Artificial Intelligence,Human-Computer Interaction
The Turing Test and our shifting conceptions of intelligence

Melanie Mitchell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq9356

IF: 56.9

2024-08-16

Science

Abstract:"Can machines think?" So asked Alan Turing in his 1950 paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." Turing quickly noted that, given the difficulty of defining thinking, the question is "too meaningless to deserve discussion." As is often done in philosophical debates, he proposed replacing it with a different question. Turing imagined an "imitation game," in which a human judge converses with both a computer and a human (a "foil"), each of which vies to convince the judge that they are the human. Importantly, the computer, foil, and judge do not see one another; they communicate entirely through text. After conversing with each candidate, the judge guesses which one is the real human. Turing's new question was, "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"
Two heads are better than two tapes

Tao Jiang,Joel Seiferas,Paul Vitanyi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0110039

2001-10-18

Computational Complexity

Abstract:We show that a Turing machine with two single-head one-dimensional tapes cannot recognize the set {x2x'| x \in {0,1}^* and x' is a prefix of x} in real time, although it can do so with three tapes, two two-dimensional tapes, or one two-head tape, or in linear time with just one tape. In particular, this settles the longstanding conjecture that a two-head Turing machine can recognize more languages in real time if its heads are on the same one-dimensional tape than if they are on separate one-dimensional tapes.
The Turing Deception

David Noever,Matt Ciolino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.06721

2022-12-24

Abstract:This research revisits the classic Turing test and compares recent large language models such as ChatGPT for their abilities to reproduce human-level comprehension and compelling text generation. Two task challenges -- summarization, and question answering -- prompt ChatGPT to produce original content (98-99%) from a single text entry and also sequential questions originally posed by Turing in 1950. We score the original and generated content against the OpenAI GPT-2 Output Detector from 2019, and establish multiple cases where the generated content proves original and undetectable (98%). The question of a machine fooling a human judge recedes in this work relative to the question of "how would one prove it?" The original contribution of the work presents a metric and simple grammatical set for understanding the writing mechanics of chatbots in evaluating their readability and statistical clarity, engagement, delivery, and overall quality. While Turing's original prose scores at least 14% below the machine-generated output, the question of whether an algorithm displays hints of Turing's truly original thoughts (the "Lovelace 2.0" test) remains unanswered and potentially unanswerable for now.

Machine Learning,Artificial Intelligence,Computation and Language
Can machines think? The controversy that led to the Turing test

Bernardo Gonçalves

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01318-6

2022-01-11

Abstract:Turing’s much debated test has turned 70 and is still fairly controversial. His 1950 paper is seen as a complex and multilayered text, and key questions about it remain largely unanswered. Why did Turing select learning from experience as the best approach to achieve machine intelligence? Why did he spend several years working with chess playing as a task to illustrate and test for machine intelligence only to trade it out for conversational question-answering in 1950? Why did Turing refer to gender imitation in a test for machine intelligence? In this article, I shall address these questions by unveiling social, historical and epistemological roots of the so-called Turing test. I will draw attention to a historical fact that has been only scarcely observed in the secondary literature thus far, namely that Turing’s 1950 test emerged out of a controversy over the cognitive capabilities of digital computers, most notably out of debates with physicist and computer pioneer Douglas Hartree, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, and neurosurgeon Geoffrey Jefferson. Seen in its historical context, Turing’s 1950 paper can be understood as essentially a reply to a series of challenges posed to him by these thinkers arguing against his view that machines can think. Turing did propose gender learning and imitation as one of his various imitation tests for machine intelligence, and I argue here that this was done in response to Jefferson's suggestion that gendered behavior is causally related to the physiology of sex hormones.
Beyond Turing Machines

Kurt Ammon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0907.4100

2009-07-23

Abstract:This paper discusses "computational" systems capable of "computing" functions not computable by predefined Turing machines if the systems are not isolated from their environment. Roughly speaking, these systems can change their finite descriptions by interacting with their environment.

Artificial Intelligence
Interactive Machines and Its Implication in Scientific Realism

Shuai Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211220.485

2022-01-01

Abstract:Since the tech boom in the early 2000s, computer science, especially the study of algorithms and mathematics, has been prevalent to satisfy new needs for efficiency and convenience. The founding father of modern computer science, Alan Turing, proposes the foundation of modern computability theories known as the Turing Machine. This article is dedicated to exploring a variant of Turing’s mathematical model, where the inputs become infinite and empirical. In a way, it is also an exploration of whether theoretically a true interactive machine can be achieved through a finite number of noninteractive machines. To prove it possible, this article utilizes methods such as researching from established papers, proof by deduction, and mathematical induction. In terms of articles, the main source is JSTOR. As the proof goes, it is mathematically proven in this essay that in terms of generic case K, an Interactive Machine A(K) shares the same explanatory equivalence with a finite number of Turing Machines T(K). It is said that A maps onto T.
Multiway Turing Machines

Stephen Wolfram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.04961

2021-03-09

Abstract:Multiway Turing machines (also known as nondeterministic Turing machines or NDTMs) with explicit, simple rules are studied. Even very simple rules are found to generate complex behavior, characterized by complex multiway graphs, that can be visualized in multispace that combines "tape" and branchial space. The threshold for complex behavior appears to be machines with just s = 1 head states, k = 2 tape colors and p = 3 possible cases, and such machines may potentially be universal. Other characteristics of multiway Turing machines are also studied, including causal invariance, cyclic tapes and generalized busy beaver problems. Multiway Turing machines provide minimal examples of a variety of issues encountered in both concurrent computing and the theory of observers in quantum mechanics, especially in our recent models of physics.

Logic in Computer Science,Computational Complexity,Discrete Mathematics
Why I am not a Turing machine

Keith J. Holyoak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2024.2395573

2024-08-29

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Abstract:Recent advances in artificial intelligence have reinvigorated the longstanding debate regarding whether or not any aspects of human cognition—notably, high-level creativity—are beyond the reach of computer programs. Is human creativity entirely a computational process? Here I consider one general argument for a dissociation between human and artificial creativity, which hinges on the role of consciousness—inner experience—in human cognition. It appears unlikely that inner experience is itself a computational process, implying that it cannot be instantiated in an abstract Turing machine, nor in any current computer architecture. Psychological research strongly implies that inner experience integrates emotions with perception and with thoughts. This integrative function of consciousness likely plays a key role in mechanisms that support human creativity. This conclusion dovetails with the anecdotal reports of creative individuals, who have linked inner experience with intrinsic motivation to create, and with the ability to access novel connections between ideas.

psychology, experimental
Are there intelligent Turing machines?

Norbert Bátfai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1503.03787

2015-03-13

Abstract:This paper introduces a new computing model based on the cooperation among Turing machines called orchestrated machines. Like universal Turing machines, orchestrated machines are also designed to simulate Turing machines but they can also modify the original operation of the included Turing machines to create a new layer of some kind of collective behavior. Using this new model we can define some interested notions related to cooperation ability of Turing machines such as the intelligence quotient or the emotional intelligence quotient for Turing machines.

Artificial Intelligence
Alan Turing and Human-Like Intelligence

Peter Millican

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198862536.003.0002

2021-07-13

Abstract:Alan Turing’s model of computation (1936) is explicated in terms of the potential operations of a human “computer”, and his famous test for intelligence (1950) is based on indistinguishability from human verbal behaviour. But this chapter challenges the apparent human-centredness of the 1936 model, suggesting a focus instead on mathematical concepts, with human comparisons making an entrance only retrospectively. The 1950 account of intelligence also turns out to be far less human-centred than it initially appears to be, because the universality of computation makes human intelligence just one variety amongst many. It is only when Turing considers consciousness that he treats intelligence in a way that cannot properly be carried over to machines. But here he is mistaken, since his own work gave ample reason to reinterpret intelligence as sophisticated information processing for some purpose, and to divorce this from the subjective consciousness with which it is humanly associated.
Passed the Turing Test: Living in Turing Futures

Bernardo Gonçalves

2024-09-12

Abstract:The world has seen the emergence of machines based on pretrained models, transformers, also known as generative artificial intelligences for their ability to produce various types of content, including text, images, audio, and synthetic data. Without resorting to preprogramming or special tricks, their intelligence grows as they learn from experience, and to ordinary people, they can appear human-like in conversation. This means that they can pass the Turing test, and that we are now living in one of many possible Turing futures where machines can pass for what they are not. However, the learning machines that Turing imagined would pass his imitation tests were machines inspired by the natural development of the low-energy human cortex. They would be raised like human children and naturally learn the ability to deceive an observer. These ``child machines,'' Turing hoped, would be powerful enough to have an impact on society and nature.

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society
Learning, Social Intelligence and the Turing Test - why an "out-of-the-box" Turing Machine will not pass the Turing Test

Bruce Edmonds,Carlos Gershenson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1203.3376

IF: 14.4

2012-03-15

Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:The Turing Test (TT) checks for human intelligence, rather than any putative general intelligence. It involves repeated interaction requiring learning in the form of adaption to the human conversation partner. It is a macro-level post-hoc test in contrast to the definition of a Turing Machine (TM), which is a prior micro-level definition. This raises the question of whether learning is just another computational process, i.e. can be implemented as a TM. Here we argue that learning or adaption is fundamentally different from computation, though it does involve processes that can be seen as computations. To illustrate this difference we compare (a) designing a TM and (b) learning a TM, defining them for the purpose of the argument. We show that there is a well-defined sequence of problems which are not effectively designable but are learnable, in the form of the bounded halting problem. Some characteristics of human intelligence are reviewed including it's: interactive nature, learning abilities, imitative tendencies, linguistic ability and context-dependency. A story that explains some of these is the Social Intelligence Hypothesis. If this is broadly correct, this points to the necessity of a considerable period of acculturation (social learning in context) if an artificial intelligence is to pass the TT. Whilst it is always possible to 'compile' the results of learning into a TM, this would not be a designed TM and would not be able to continually adapt (pass future TTs). We conclude three things, namely that: a purely "designed" TM will never pass the TT; that there is no such thing as a general intelligence since it necessary involves learning; and that learning/adaption and computation should be clearly distinguished.
Between Turing and Kleene

Sam Sanders

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.05052

2021-11-09

Abstract:Turing's famous `machine' model constitutes the first intuitively convincing framework for computing with real numbers. Kleene's computation schemes S1-S9 extend Turing's approach to computing with objects of any finite type. Both frameworks have their pros and cons and it is a natural question if there is an approach that marries the best of both the Turing and Kleene worlds. In answer to this question, we propose a considerable extension of the scope of Turing's approach. Central is a fragment of the Axiom of Choice involving continuous choice functions, going back to Kreisel-Troelstra and intuitionistic analysis. Put another way, we formulate a relation `is computationally stronger than' involving third-order objects that overcomes (many of) the pitfalls of the Turing and Kleene frameworks.

Logic
Alan Turing and the "Hard" and "Easy" Problem of Cognition: Doing and Feeling

Stevan Harnad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1206.3658

IF: 14.4

2012-06-16

Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:The "easy" problem of cognitive science is explaining how and why we can do what we can do. The "hard" problem is explaining how and why we feel. Turing's methodology for cognitive science (the Turing Test) is based on doing: Design a model that can do anything a human can do, indistinguishably from a human, to a human, and you have explained cognition. Searle has shown that the successful model cannot be solely computational. Sensory-motor robotic capacities are necessary to ground some, at least, of the model's words, in what the robot can do with the things in the world that the words are about. But even grounding is not enough to guarantee that -- nor to explain how and why -- the model feels (if it does). That problem is much harder to solve (and perhaps insoluble).
Alan Turing and the Other Theory of Computation

Lenore Blum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325299

2012-01-01

Abstract:The two major traditions of the Theory of Computation, each asking claim to similar motivations and aspirations, have for the most part run a parallel non-intersecting course. On one hand, we have the tradition arising from logic and computer science addressing problems with more recent origins, using tools of combinatorics and discrete mathematics. On the other hand, we have numerical analysis and scientific computation emanating from the classical tradition of equation solving and the continuous mathematics of calculus. Both traditions are motivated by a desire to understand the essence of computation, of algorithm; both aspire to discover useful, even profound, consequences. While the logic and computer science communities are keenly aware of Alan Turing's seminal role in the former (discrete) tradition of the theory of computation, most remain unaware of Alan Turing's role in the latter (continuous) tradition, this notwithstanding the many references to Turing in the modern numerical analysis/computational mathematics literature. In this talk I recognize Turing's work in the foundations of numerical computation. I also indicate its role in complexity theory today, and how it provides a unifying concept for the two major traditions in the Theory of Computation.
In the Craftsman's Garden: AI, Alan Turing, and Stanley Cavell

O'Connor, Marie Theresa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09676-y

IF: 5.339

2024-06-15

Minds and Machines

Abstract:There is rising skepticism within public discourse about the nature of AI. By skepticism, I mean doubt about what we know about AI. At the same time, some AI speakers are raising the kinds of issues that usually really matter in analysis, such as issues relating to consent and coercion. This essay takes up the question of whether we should analyze a conversation differently because it is between a human and AI instead of between two humans and, if so, why. When is it okay, for instance, to read the phrases "please stop" or "please respect my boundaries" as meaning something other than what those phrases ordinarily mean – and what makes it so? If we ignore denials of consent, or put them in scare quotes, we should have a good reason. This essay focuses on two thinkers, Alan Turing and Stanley Cavell, who in different ways answer the question of whether it matters that a speaker is a machine. It proposes that Cavell's work on the problem of other minds, in particular Cavell's story in The Claim of Reason of an automaton whom he imagines meeting in a craftsman's garden, may be especially helpful in thinking about how to analyze what AI has to say.

computer science, artificial intelligence
Intelligence as a Social Concept: a Socio-Technological Interpretation of the Turing Test

Shlomo Danziger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00561-z

2022-07-24

Abstract:Alan Turing's 1950 imitation game has been widely understood as a means for testing if an entity is intelligent. Following a series of papers by Diane Proudfoot, I offer a socio-technological interpretation of Turing's paper and present an alternative way of understanding both the imitation game and Turing's concept of intelligence. Turing, I claim, saw intelligence as a social concept, meaning that possession of intelligence is a property determined by society's attitude toward the entity. He realized that as long as human society held a prejudiced attitude toward machinery—seeing machines a priori as mindless objects—machines could not be said to be intelligent, by definition. He also realized, though, that if humans' a priori, chauvinistic attitude toward machinery changed, the existence of intelligent machines would become logically possible. Turing thought that such a change would eventually occur: He believed that when scientists overcome the technological challenge of constructing sophisticated machines that could imitate human verbal behavior—i.e., do well in the imitation game—humans' prejudiced attitude toward machinery will have altered in such a way that machines could be said to be intelligent. The imitation game, for Turing, was not an intelligence test, but a technological aspiration whose realization would likely involve a change in society's attitude toward machines.

A Tale of Two Turing Machines

Hard to Cheat: A Turing Test based on Answering Questions about Images

Teaching Machines to Converse

The Human-or-Machine Matter: Turing-Inspired Reflections on an Everyday Issue

The Turing Test and our shifting conceptions of intelligence

Two heads are better than two tapes

The Turing Deception

Can machines think? The controversy that led to the Turing test

Beyond Turing Machines

Interactive Machines and Its Implication in Scientific Realism

Multiway Turing Machines

Why I am not a Turing machine

Are there intelligent Turing machines?

Alan Turing and Human-Like Intelligence

Passed the Turing Test: Living in Turing Futures

Learning, Social Intelligence and the Turing Test - why an "out-of-the-box" Turing Machine will not pass the Turing Test

Between Turing and Kleene

Alan Turing and the "Hard" and "Easy" Problem of Cognition: Doing and Feeling

Alan Turing and the Other Theory of Computation

In the Craftsman's Garden: AI, Alan Turing, and Stanley Cavell

Intelligence as a Social Concept: a Socio-Technological Interpretation of the Turing Test