Download introduction

Introduction (Skip if pressed for time)
I can distinctly recall being interested in commuters since I was nine years old, me and
my dad were jogging and I couldn’t help but as a question: “who is smarter, computers or
humans?” My dad, with a chuckle, said “naturally humans are, who do you think
programs computers in the first place?” I couldn’t quite accept this, it seemed –to methat my simple calculator knew a lot more math then I ever would. But my dad easily
parried my objection by telling me that computers didn’t really know math, it all in the
end amounted to something like a memory. They simply were programmed with rules,
some of which I didn’t know yet, or were rules that I was prone to forget at times.
My interest in computers since hasn’t manifested itself in a particularly direct manner. I
don’t feel driven to build one from scratch for instance. But I always have been curious
about the idea of a computer that didn’t merely remember rules: but was intelligent, and
could really know.
It wasn’t until till last year that I learnt about the Turing test in any great detail. But when
I finally did I was immediately intrigued; and equally devastated when I learnt about
Searle’s Chinese Room objection. But I didn’t feel a particular need to do anything about
the Chinese Room objection. I hatched this idea (the Modified Turing Test) that shortly
after learning about Searle’s objection. I even featured it as an aside in a paper I wrote on
Dualism. But I never thought that commuter programmers were lacking a better means of
testing the intelligence of computers. That is until I watched this video. I was surprised
that all that could be managed to test a computer’s intelligence was to observe its
behavior (like Searle’s dog). And it is with that in mind that I offer this brief outline for a
Modified Turing Test, along with some –I take it to be- practical advice for the people
clever enough to program these contraptions.
Artificial Intelligence
At least since Turing people have been fascinated by computers. Indeed, if I’m not
mistaken, we see ‘artificial’ mythological beings made of gold guarding –I think- Crete,
as early as Greek mythology. So there is something deeply human in the drive to take
something and make it into more then it was before. And when you think about it,
computers aren’t the only things with ‘artificial’ intelligence that we’ve felt an incessant
need to create.
For quite a while –now- we’re been exploiting ready-made biological systems. If you
take sheep to be intelligent, and accept the fact that Dolly was cloned, then in a way we
have already achieved ‘artificial’ intelligence. Never mind the countless couples science
has enabled to conceive.
But what we really have in mind isn’t creating biological brains, but silicon brains (or
whatever they use). And it is this goal that I think properly deserves the name artificial
intelligence. The question though has to be: even if someone did succeed, how could we
ever tell?
The Turing Test
Well, no doubt, it will come of no surprise to find out that Turing thought he’d found a
way. But what exactly is the Turing Test?
Well the Turing Test is a rather simple test, with a simple and clearly defined goal. If a
computer can fool a human in the course of a conversation into thinking it –the computeris a human, the computer is intelligent. So the criterion in the Turing Test for intelligence
is an effective use of language, or at least the effective use of syntax.
The Chinese Room
The trouble with this is the Chinese Room Experiment (devised by Searle). According to
which you take an individual and place them in a room, with all the symbols of the
Chinese language (let’s say something like Simplified Mandarin) and a book which tells
you how to respond to a certain set of symbols. The point is: the human in the room
doesn’t understand Chinese, even though the human can use the language or its syntax
anyways.
Searle claims that while syntax is important, what’s more important is knowing what
words actually mean. And since the Chinese Room can use Chinese perfectly even
though it doesn’t have any deeper understanding of the language then syntax it would
pass the Turing Test. But it doesn’t seem very likely that we would be willing to call the
Chinese Room intelligent.
The point being: a computer could still pass the Turing Test and it would still only know
syntax, not semantics. Therefore, the Turing Test is insufficient for determining
intelligence.
The Modified Turing Test
But a simple change can fix this. Let’s call it the Modified Turing Test (feel free to call it
the Turing-Anderson Test but I think Modified Turing Test sounds more technical).
You take the Turing Test and you administer it as usual. But if a computer passes the old
test things aren’t over, you kindly ask the computer to retake the test. Only this time
instead of passing the test the objective is to fail the test.
But there has to be a few new rules:
1. The program can’t be written to respond to the word “fail” –or any other trigger
word- with a new set of rules or algorithm or anything of the like.
2. To make sure people don’t cheat all codes must be examined.
3. And the actual parts that make up the computer must be examined for contraband
(so no one hides a biological brain in the box…).
Now if a computer isn’t programmed to respond to “fail” in a certain way but is really
intelligent then it should understand what “fail” means and “fail” the test. And if it can
understand what fails mean it at the very least shows the potential to be intelligent and
conscious (which I take to be almost one and the same, I’m probably wrong).
(A strange paradox, in order to ‘pass’ the test the computer must ‘fail’ the test.)
Some Practical Advice
With the old Turing Test a lot of time was wasted on syntax. But if you can show that a
computer understands semantics, even if it’s merely a single word then you –at the leastachieve a proof of concept, so instead of focusing on syntax, focus on semantics.
For example, let’s say you have a program and its only objective is to add 1 and 1
together to get 2. Your goal is first to get the computer to give you the answer 2, after
which your goal should be to allow it to understand a prompt like: “Give me the wrong
answer”. So in this case you would try to come up with a way for the computer to learn
what “wrong” when it is combined with “answer” means.
Final Words
Maybe the example given is too simplistic, but at the very least it demonstrates what just
exactly the Modified Turing Test would be asking programmers to do.
Also, while the Modified Turing Test might be sufficient for determining if a computer is
intelligent a question remains to be asked: is it necessary?
And finally, it seems that if the Modified Turing Test was implemented a lot of the
arguing would come down to what is and what isn’t against the three rules. I think most
of us can agree on the objective
But please, what are your thoughts?