Straw Man Fallacy of the Complete Conversation System Claim against the Turing Test
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper aims to present and discuss an argumentation against the Turing test (TT), which we shall call the CCSC (Complete Conversation System Claim). Exemplary arguments of the CCSC type include Lem’s “Space Gramophone,” the “machine equipped with a dictionary” proposed by Shannon and McCarthy, Block’s “Aunt Bubbles,” and Searle’s “Chinese Room” argument. CCSC argumentation is constructed to show that the TT is not properly designed and, consequently, is not a good hallmark of intelligence. Based on the original TT rules reconstruction, I argue that CCSC-type argumentation seems to be aimed at a certain interpretation of the TT, which, as I demonstrate, commits the straw man fallacy. In light of the results presented by Łupkowski and Wiśniewski, I also discuss whether a complete conversation system is theoretically possible.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
How to Cite
References
Block N. (1981), “Psychologism and behaviorism,” Philosophical Review 90 (1): 5–43.
Block N. (1995), “The mind as the software of the brain,” [in:] An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 3, Thinking, E.E. Smith, D.N. Osherson (eds.), The MIT Press, London: 377–425.
Bringsjord S., Bello P., Ferrucci D. (2003), “Creativity, the Turing Test, and the (Better) Lovelace Test,” [w:] The Turing Test: The Elusive Standard of Artificial Intelligence, J.H. Moor (ed.), Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht: 215–239.
Cole D. (1984), “Thought and thought experiments,” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 45 (3): 431–444.
Copeland B.J. (1993), “The curious case of the Chinese gym,” Synthese 95: 173–186.
Copeland B.J. (ed.) (2004), The Essential Turing, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Danziger S. (2022), “Intelligence as a social concept: a socio-technological interpretation of the Turing Test,” Philosophy and Technology 35: 68, URL = https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00561-z [Accessed 3.04.2024].
Dennett D.C. (2002), “Can Machines Think?,” [in:] Foundations of Cognitive Psychology, D.J. Levitin (ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), London: 35–64.
French R.M. (1990), “Subcogniton and the Limits of the Turing Test,” Mind 99 (393): 53–65.
French R.M. (2000), “The Turing Test: the first 50 years,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (3): 115–122.
Gonçalves B. (2023a), “Can machines think? The controversy that led to the Turing test,” AI and Society 38 (6): 2499–2509, URL = https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01318-6 [Accessed 3.04.2024].
Gonçalves B. (2023b), “The Turing Test is a Thought Experiment,” Minds & Machines 33 (4): 1–31, URL = https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09616-8 [Accessed 3.04.2024].
Harnad S. (2003), Minds, Machines and Turing, [in:] The Turing Test: The Elusive Standard of Artificial Intelligence, J.H. Moor (ed.), Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht: 253–273.
Hingston P. (2009), “A Turing Test for Computer Game Bots,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence in AI and Games 1 (3): 169–186.
Hodges A. (2014), Alan Turing: The Enigma, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Kocoń J., Cichecki I., Kaszyca O., Kochanek M., Szydło D., Baran J., Bielaniewicz J., Gruza M., Janz A., Kanclerz K., Kocoń A., Koptyra B., Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz W., Miłkowski P., Oleksy M., Piasecki M., Radliński Ł., Wojtasik K., Woźniak S., Kazienko P. (2023), “ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none,” Information Fusion 99: 101861, URL = https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101861 [Accessed 3.04.2024].
Lem S. (2013), Summa technologiae, trans. J. Zylinska, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis–London.
Łupkowski P. (2006), “Some historical remarks on Block’s ‘Aunt Bubbles’ argument,” Minds and Machines 16 (4): 437–441.
Łupkowski P. (2019), “Turing’s 1948 ‘Paper Chess Machine’ Test as a Prototype of the Turing Test,” Ruch Filozoficzny 75 (2): 117–128.
Łupkowski P., Jurowska P. (2019), “Minimum Intelligent Signal Test as an Alternative to the Turing Test,” Diametros 16 (59): 35–47, URL = https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1125 [Accessed 10.11.2022].
Łupkowski P., Krajewska V. (2019), “Immersion level and bot player identification in a multiplayer online game: The World of Warships case study,” Homo Ludens 1 (11): 155–171.
Łupkowski P., Wiśniewski A. (2011), “Turing Interrogative Games,” Minds and Machines 21 (3): 435–448.
Mauldin M.L. (1994), “ChatterBots, TinyMuds, and the Turing Test: Entering the Loebner Prize Competition,” [in:] Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), Menlo Park (CA): 16–21.
McKinstry C. (1997), “Minimum Intelligence Signal Test: an Objective Turing Test,” Canadian Artificial Intelligence 41: 17–18.
McKinstry C. (2009), “Mind as Space: Toward the Automatic Discovery of a Universal Human Semantic-affective Hyperspace – A Possible Subcognitive Foundation of a Computer Program Able to Pass the Turing Test,” [in:] Parsing the Turing Test: Philosophical
and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer, R. Epstein, G. Roberts, G. Beber (eds.), Springer Publishing Company, Dordrecht: 283–300.
Millar P.H. (1973), “On The Point of the imitation game,” Mind. A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 82 (328): 595–597.
Münch D. (1990), “Minds, brains and cognitive science,” [in:] Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions, A. Burkhardt (ed.), De Gruyter, Berlin–New York: 367–390.
Nah F.F.-H., Zheng R, Cai J., Siau K., Chen L. (2023), “Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration,” Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 25 (3): 277–304.
Newman A.H., Turing A.M., Jefferson G., Braithwaite R.B. (1952), “Can automatic calculating machines be said to think?,” The Turing Digital Archive, AMT/B/6, URL = https://turingarchive.kings.cam.ac.uk/publications-lectures-and-talks-amtb/amt-b-6 [Accessed 10.11.2022].
Piccinini G. (2000), “Turing’s Rules for the Imitation Game,” Minds and Machines 10 (4): 573–582.
Piccinini G. (2003), “Alan Turing and the mathematical objection,” Minds and Machines 13: 23–48.
Radanliev P. (2024), “Artificial intelligence: reflecting on the past and looking towards the next paradigm shift,” Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 1–18, URL = https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2024.2323042 [Accessed 3.04.2024].
Schweizer P. (1998), “The Truly Total Turing Test,” Minds and Machines 8 (2): 263–272.
Searle J.R. (1980), “Minds, brains, and programs,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417–424.
Shannon C.E., McCarthy J. (eds.) (1956), Automata Studies, vol. 34, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Shieber S.M. (2006), “Does the Turing test demonstrate intelligence or not?,” [in:] Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence 21: 1539–1542.
Shieber S.M. (2007), “The Turing Test as Interactive Proof,” Noûs 41 (4): 686–713.
Sterrett S.G. (2000), “Turing’s two tests for intelligence,” Minds and Machines 10 (4): 541–559.
Sterrett S.G. (2020), “The Genius of the ‘Original Imitation Game’ Test,” Minds and Machines 30 (4): 469–486.
Turing A.M. (1948), “Intelligent machinery,” The Turing Digital Archive, AMT/C/11, URL = https://turingarchive.kings.cam.ac.uk/unpublished-manuscripts-and-drafts-amtc/amt-c-11 [Accessed 10.11.2022].
Turing A.M. (1950), “Computing machinery and intelligence,” Mind 59 (236): 433–460.
Turing A.M. (1951a), “Can digital computers think?,” The Turing Digital Archive, AMT/B/5, URL = https://turingarchive.kings.cam.ac.uk/publications-lectures-and-talks-amtb/amt-b-5 [Accessed 10.11.2022].
Turing A.M. (1951b), Intelligent machinery, a heretical theory, The Turing Digital Archive, AMT/B/4, URL = https://turingarchive.kings.cam.ac.uk/publications-lectures-andtalks-amtb/amt-b-4 [Accessed 10.11.2022].
Turing A.M. (1953), “Digital computers applied to games,” The Turing Digital Archive, AMT/B/7, URL = https://turingarchive.kings.cam.ac.uk/publications-lectures-and-talks-amtb/amt-b-7 [Accessed 10.11.2022].
Vernon P.E. (1979), Intelligence: Heredity and Environment, W.H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco.
Wiśniewski A. (2013), Questions, Inferences, and Scenarios, College Publications, Milton Keynes.
Wiśniewski A., Pogonowski J. (2010), “Interrogatives, Recursion, and Incompleteness,” Journal of Logic and Computation 20 (6): 1187–1199.