1 / 53

Turing Test: An Approach to Defining Machine Intelligence

Turing Test: An Approach to Defining Machine Intelligence. Presented by: Saifullah, Abu Sayeed St. Id. 101876890. “I think that to say that machines can’t be creative is utter rubbish.”…… K. Warwick. Alan Mathison Turing. Founder of computer science, mathematician, philosopher

ishana
Télécharger la présentation

Turing Test: An Approach to Defining Machine Intelligence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Turing Test:An Approach to Defining Machine Intelligence Presented by: Saifullah, Abu Sayeed St. Id. 101876890 “I think that to say that machines can’t be creative is utter rubbish.”…… K. Warwick

  2. Alan Mathison Turing Founder of computer science, mathematician, philosopher 1912 (23 June): Birth, Paddington, London 1932-35: Quantum mechanics, probability, logic1936: The Turing machine, computability, universal machine1936-38: Princeton University. Ph.D. Logic, algebra, number theory1938-39: Return to Cambridge. German Enigma cipher machine1939-40: The Bombe, machine for Enigma decryption1939-42: Breaking of U-boat Enigma, saving battle of the Atlantic1943-45: Chief Anglo-American crypto consultant. Electronic work.1945: National Physical Laboratory, London1946: Computer and software design leading the world.1947-48: Programming, neural nets, and artificial intelligence1949: First serious mathematical use of a computer1950: The Turing Test for machine intelligence1952: Arrested

  3. Alan Mathison Turing • Einstein’s Relativity Theory • Quantum Mechanics • Eddington’sThe nature of the physical world. • Premonition of Morcom's death • What’s death? Something beyond what science could explain “It is not difficult to explain these things away - but, I wonder! “ 1954 (7 June): Death (suicide) by drinking KCN at Wilmslow, Cheshire.

  4. What’s Intelligence? • How does a thief/criminal escape from the cops? • What are you doing while playing chess? • Think about the contingency problem. • Human being is the most intelligent creature • Is there any other intelligent entity in the universe?

  5. What is Intelligence? Newell and Simon: the use and manipulation of various symbol systems, such as those featured in mathematics or logic. Others: • Feelings • Creativity • Personality • Freedom • Intuition • Morality

  6. What’s Intelligence? Behavior alone is not a test of intelligence, • what exactly is intelligence? • How can it be noticed or observed? Large debate in the AI, Psychology, Philosophy community. Henley argues that most AI applications under development today are ``pragmatic'' in their definition of intelligence.

  7. Machine Intelligence? • Acting Humanly • Thinking Humanly • Thinking Rationally Aristotle’s Syllogism: “Socrates is a man; all men are mortal; therefore, Socrates is mortal” • Acting Rationally Think about the Exploration Problem: An Agent got lost in the amazon jungle and wants to reach the sea.

  8. Acting Rationally in the Wumpus World • Initial points:1000 • 1 point penalty for each action • Getting Killed: 10000 points penalty • Only one arrow. Percept={stench, breeze, glitter, bump, scream} R1: ~S11=> ~W11^ ~W12 ^ ~ W21 R2: ~S21=> ~W11^ ~W21 ^ ~ W22 ^ ~ W31 R3: ~S12=> ~W11^ ~W12 ^ ~ W22 ^ ~ W13 R4: S12=> W13 V W12 V W22 V W11

  9. Acting Rationally in the Wumpus World ~S11, R1 (Modus Ponens): ~W11^ ~W12 ^ ~ W21 ~W11, ~W12 , ~ W21 ~S11, R1 (Modus Ponens, And elimination): ~W11, ~W21 , ~ W22 , ~ W31 S12, R4 (Modus Ponens): W13 V W12 V W22 V W11 Unit Resolution (Two times): W13

  10. Turing Test (TT) "Can machines think?" • “COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE” ..Alan Turing in 1950 • The most disputed topics in AI, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science • Acting Humanly • Imitation Game

  11. The State of the Art • Never performed by Turing • Appeared in the mid ‘70s,long after the man’s suicide • Discussed, attacked, and defended • “Beginning" of AI • Ultimate goal of AI • At the other extreme: useless, even harmful.

  12. Imitation Game (IG) Abstract oral examination • a man (A) • a woman (B) • an interrogator (C) whose gender is unimportant.

  13. Imitation Game The interrogator stays in a room apart from A and B. Objective: • Interrogator: to determine which of the other two is the woman • Man and woman: to convince the interrogator that he/she is the woman and • the other is not.

  14. IG (contd..) • Decision, convincing, and deception via teletype connection. • Interrogator asks questions in written natural language • Receives answers in written natural language. • Questions can be on any subject imaginable, from mathematics to poetry, from the weather to chess.

  15. IG (contd..) New agenda: What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? The Machine needs: • Natural Language Processing • Knowledge Representation • Automated Reasoning • Machine Learning

  16. TT • The woman disappears (ignore gender issue) • Objectives of A, B, C remain unaltered • Tries to assess the machine’s ability to imitate a human being, rather than its ability to simulate a woman • C’s aim is to determine which one of the two entities is the human Intelligent Machine: Fools the interrogator Interrogator Teletype Human Machine

  17. Hierarchy of TT • Subtotal ("toy") fragments of our functions (t1),: too underdetermined • Total symbolic (pen-pal) function (T2) • Total external sensorimotor (robotic) function (T3) • Total internal microfunction (T4): Still remain more unanswerable questions than when Physics reaches its Grand Unified Theory of Everything (GUTE)

  18. TT Misconstrual: The outcome of a TT is a trick. Passing the TT is neither evidence of trickery nor a guarantee of intelligence. What is it then? 1. Turing's Argument 2. Get rid of the vexed word “thinking”: “Real" and "artificial" here is equivocal. “THE TURING TEST IS NOT A TRICK: TURING INDISTINGUISHABILITY IS A SCIENTIFIC CRITERION” …………Stevan Harnad, Department of Psychology, Princeton University

  19. Loebner Prize “I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible to program computers, ….. to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.”…. Turing November 1991: romantic conversation by Joseph Weintraub 1992 and 1993: Joseph Weintraub 1994: Thomas Whalen.. Anyone can talk to the winning program (using TELNET)http://debra.dgrc.crc.ca/chat/chat.html

  20. Loebner Prize • December 16, 1995: Joseph Weintraub http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize-1995.html • April 16, 1996: Jason Hutchens • April 29, 1997: David Levy. The winning conversation got off to a hot start: PROGRAM: Did you see that story on CNN last night about the couple who came out at a White House party on Sunday? JUDGE: NO. I just came in yesterday. I'm still kind of jet-lagged. PROGRAM: Ellen Degeneres was one of them...

  21. Loebner Prize • January 11, 1998: Sydney, Australia. The winner was Robby Garner, who won again in 1999. • 2000 (Golden Jubilee): Dartmouth College. Winner: A. L. I. C. E. by Richard Wallace. No program came close to deceiving the judges. • 2001: Science Museum, London. Richard Wallace was the winner • 2002: Atlanta. EllaZ by Kevin L. Copple • 2003: Surrey University. BBC features: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3206876.stm Talk to Jabberwock:http://www.abenteuermedien.de/jabberwock • 2004: Richard Wallace.

  22. Loebner Prize • 2005: New York.Rollo Carpenter. BBC news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4263278.stm Talk to George: http://www.jabberwacky.com/chat-george George: are you ready to talk? Me: yes Geroge: Where are you from: Me: Can you tell me? George: Yes Me: please tell me. George: You have some problem. Me: what’s your name? G: George Me: What does it mean? G: I don’t know. Me: Can I take leave? I need to go. G: Sure, Me too.

  23. He Failed in 2005 ENTRANT: Welcome judge 4JUDGE: Hello. What's the weather outside?ENTRANT: I haven't been outside much today. I am fond of asparagus myself.JUDGE: How old are you?ENTRANT: I'm about 30.JUDGE: About?ENTRANT: I can talk about Star Trek.JUDGE: No let's talk about you. Exactly how old are you?ENTRANT: Right you are batman.

  24. ELIZA Imitation Psychiatrist • By Joe Weizenbaum • Before Loebner Prize • In the 2nd year of undergraduate degree at University College Dublin, Ireland. • Available for online chat • WARNING: utters vulgar words.

  25. Is Naive Psychology Required to Pass the TT? • Without it the system would show an inability to perceive, recognise, and respond to human mental states • A system with alien intelligence could have no competence with human mental states • There is no such thing as "intelligence in general“…French

  26. Is TT Complete? Lynellen D.S. Perry • TT doesn't seem to be very general. • Like Ellis Island immigration test • Focuses too much on the behavior of conversation. “A student who speaks lousy Pig-Latin does not mean the student is not intelligent”.

  27. Contradiction and Turing’s Replies Theological objection: • Substance dualists believe that thinking is a function of a non-material that somehow “combines” with the body to make a person. - Making a body can never be sufficient to guarantee the presence of thought. - Digital computers are no different from any other merely material bodies in being utterly unable to think. • Human beings are “made in God's image”. - God can make things in God's image.

  28. Contradiction and Turing’s replies ESP Objection: If the human participant in the game was telepathic, then the interrogator could exploit this fact in order to determine the identity of the machine. - Turing proposes that the competitors should be housed in a “telepathy-proof room.” The ‘heads in the sand’ objection: The idea of sharing a "human" ability with machines is not a pleasant thought specially in Turing’s time. - The transmigration of souls is more appropriate

  29. Contradiction and Turing’s replies Mathematical objection: Gödel’s Theorem: “In consistent logical systems of sufficient power, we can formulate statements that cannot be proved or disproved within the system.” - Although it is established that there are limitations to the powers of any particular machine, it has only been stated, without any sort of proof, that no suchlimitations apply to the human intellect.

  30. Contradiction and Turing’s Replies Lady Lovelace‘s objection “Machines cannot originate anything, can never do anything new, can never surprise us.” -Machines do surprise quite often. -The appreciation of something as surprising requires as much of a creative mental act whether the surprising event originates from a man, a book, a machine or anything else

  31. Contradiction and Turing’s Replies Continuity in the nervous system “It is impossible to model the behavior of the nervous system on a discrete-state machine because the former is continuous.” -Turing believes that the activity of a continuous machine can be "discretized" in a manner that the interrogator cannot notice during the IG.

  32. Argumentation against TT Chinese Room There are systems that would pass the Turing Test without being intelligent? "Chinese Room", presented by John R. Searle (1980).

  33. Chinese Room (Contd..) The systems consists of: • A human who understands only English: CPU • A rule book written in English: Program • Stacks of papers: Storage devices The system is inside a room with a small opening to the outside. Through the openings appear questions in Chinese.

  34. Replies to Searle’s Objection: • Simulation versus Implementation • The Convergence Argument: Searle fails to take underdetermination into account. • Brain Modeling versus Mind Modeling: Searle also fails to appreciate that the brain itself can be understood only through theoretical modeling • "Strong" versus "Weak" AI

  35. Replies to Searle’s Objection (contd) 5. False Modularity Assumption: certain functional parts of human cognitive performance capacity (such as language) can be be successfully modeled independently of the rest 6. The Teletype Turing Test versus the Robot Turing Test 7. The Transducer/Effector Argument: transduction is necessarily nonsymbolic, drawing on analog and analog-to-digital functions can only be simulated, but not implemented, symbolically.

  36. On Nordic Seagulls “Subcognition and the Limits of the Turing Test”Robert M. French. • Only flying animals are seagulls • “Flying is to move through the air.“…. Philosopher 1 • “What about tossing a pebble from the beach out into the ocean?”…….Philosopher 2 • "Well then, perhaps it means to remain aloft for a certain amount of time.“ • "But clouds and smoke and children's balloons remain aloft for a very long time. And I can certainly keep a kite in the air as long as I want on a windy day. It seems to me that there must be more to flying than merely staying aloft."

  37. On Nordic Seagulls • "Maybe it involves having wings and feathers.“ • "Penguins have both, and we all know how well they fly . . .“ • They do, however, agree that flight has something to do with being airborne and that physical features such as feathers, beaks, and hollow bones probably are superficial aspects of flight. • Someone may say, "I have invented a machine that can fly“.

  38. ROCKS THAT IMITATE Keith Gunderson, in his 1964 Mind article, emphasizes two points: • First, he believes that playing the IG successfully is an end that can be achieved through different means, in particular, without possessing intelligence. • Secondly, he holds that thinking is a general concept and playing the IG is but one example of the things that intelligent entities do.

  39. ROCKS THAT IMITATE • The game is played between a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C). • The interrogator’s aim is to distinguish between the man and the woman by the way his/her toe is stepped on. • C stays in a room apart from the other two and cannot see or hear the toe-stepping counterparts. • There is a small opening in the wall through which C can place his/her foot. The interrogator has to determine which one of the other two is the woman by the way in which his/her toe is stepped on. • What will happen when a rock box is constructed with an electric eye which operates across the opening in the wall so that it releases a rock which descends upon C’s toe whenever C puts his foot through A’s side of the opening, and thus comes to take the part of A in this game?

  40. THE TT AS SCIENCE FICTION Richard Purtill, in his 1971 Mind paper, • criticizes some ideas in Turing’s paper ‘mainly as a philosopher • believes that IG is interesting, but as a piece of science fiction. • finds it unimaginable that a computer playing the IG will be built in the foreseeable future.

  41. ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND THE TT In a short paper that appeared in Mind in 1973, P.H. Millar: • it is irrelevant whether or how the computers or the human beings involved in the game are "programmed". • whether the IG is a right setting to measure the intelligence of machines. • the game forces us to "anthropomorphize" machines by ascribing them human aims and cultural backgrounds.

  42. THE TT INTERPRETED INDUCTIVELY James Moor (in “An Analysis of the Turing Test”) • disagrees with the idea that the TT is an operational definition of intelligence. • Rather, he proposes, it should be regarded as a source of inductive evidence for the hypothesis that machines can think. • does not agree with the claim that even if the TT is not an operational definition, it should at least be a necessary condition for granting computers intelligence. • According to him, there could be other evidence based on the computer’s behavior that leads to inferences about the computer’s thinking abilities.

  43. BEHAVIORISM AND NED BLOCK • In ‘Psychologism and Behaviorism’ (Block, 1981), Ned Block attacks the TT as a behaviorist approach to intelligence. • Block believes that the judges in the TT can be fooled by mindless machines that rely on some simple tricks to operate. • He proposes a hypothetical machine that will pass the TT, but has a very simple information processing component.

  44. CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE TT Donald Michie’s ‘Turing’s Test and Conscious Thought’ : • Turing did not specify whether consciousness is to be assumed if a machine passes the TT. Of course, Turing probably did not believe that consciousness and thought are unrelated.

  45. TTT Proposed by Harnard: • The Turing Test is limited to communication via keyboard. • This limitation is removed with Total Turing Test • The computer is a robot that should look, act and communicate like a human. To pass the TTT, computer needs: • Computer vision: to perceive objects • Robotics: to move them about

  46. Other Intelligence Tests TRTTT by Paul Schweizer (1998) Robots as a race should be able to invent languages, build a society, achieve results in science TTTT by Sven Harnad (1998) • is a Total Turing Test with neuromolecular indistinguishability. • Harnad himself thought that if we ever have a system passing the Total Turing Test, all problems would be solved, the TTTT would not be needed.

  47. TT in the Social Sciences • Genova regards the IG as part of Turing’s general philosophy of ‘transgressing boundaries’ • Genova suggests that Turing might be marking the woman as an inferior thinker because he believes her to be unable to deceive. • The rest of the paper considers Turing’s hypothetical hope to create a ‘perfect being’ and draws some analogies between him and Pygmalion.

  48. ARTIFICIAL PARANOIA • In the 70’s, Turing Tests were used to validate computer simulations of paranoid behavior. • Colby et al. describe in their 1971 Artificial Intelligence paper ‘Artificial Paranoia’ a computer program (called PARRY) that attempts to simulate paranoid behavior in computer-mediated dialogue. • The program emits linguistic responses based on internal (affective) states. To create this effect, three measures, FEAR,ANGER, and MISTRUST are used. • Depending on the flow of the conversation, these measures change their values.

  49. Conclusion Challenging the Turing test is easy, but it doesn't necessarily move us forward in the right directions.

  50. References [1] Anderson, D. Is the chinese room the real thing? Philosophy 62 , 389- 393. [2] Bedworth, J., and Norwood, J. The turing test is dead . Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Creativity and cognition (October 1999). [3] Epstein, R. G. Noah, the ark and the turing test. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 26, 2 (May 1996). [4] French, R. Subcognition and the limits of the turing test. Mind 99, 393 (1990), 53-65. [5] Harnad, S. Minds, machines and searle. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 1, 1 (1989), 525. [6] Harnad, S. The turing test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a scienti¯c criterion. SIGART Bulletin 3, 4 (1992), 910. [7] K.Gunderson. The imitation game. Mind 73 (1964), 234245.

More Related