1. Argue that the Turing Test is a strong and valid test for human-like intelligence in machines. Propose a single modification that would provide the greatest improvement to the test.
2. Locate research in which mainstream intelligence tests (Stanford-Binet or Wechsler) have been used to assess machine intelligence of systems like Watson (general knowledge) or expert systems (specialized knowledge). Are the results of these assessments valid? [250 & 250 plus word count on both questions. In text, citation required. Two scholarly references should be included in addition to [Friedenberg, J., & Silverman, G. (2006). Cognitive science: An introduction to the study of mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Write in 3rd person scholarly writing. No quotes please.] This is a personally developed question not an assignment or home work© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 6:21 am ad1c9bdddf
Argue that the Turing Test is a strong and valid test for human-like intelligence in machines. Propose a single modification that would provide the greatest improvement to the test.
I think these guys are all wet. But, as per your instructions, I'm arguing for the test (in general).
The Turing Test seeks to measure the equivalence of machine intelligence that replicates that of human intelligence. This approach is an essential aspect of the Theory of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is based on several variables that, taken together, summarize the connection between human and machine intelligence. These include language use, reason, knowledge (or retention), and finally, the ability to learn and build on previous knowledge. Famously, Tuning wrote: "If a machine acts as intelligently as human being, then it is as intelligent as a human being."
This test has important advantages that make it ideal to measure AI. First of all, though reductionist, this system does have a clear and well-defined concept of what makes intelligence. The central concept is that of imitation. This was Turing's own opinion. The question is not "do machines think" but rather, can they fool an intelligent person into believing they are actual human beings. The connection to human intelligence is analogical only. However, a strength of the test is that it seeks, above all else, to parallel the human brain as closely as possible (Bringsjord, 2002).
The best known defender of the Turing test is Stevan Harnad of Princeton. His approach to human cognition is empirical, arguing that senses are registered by the brain, and then sorted into categories based on some criterion of sameness. These categories, in turn, become the building blocks for higher order thought. If this is true, then the argument behind the Turing test is valid: if intelligence is the categorization and recollection of this data, then there is no fundamental difference with the machine. Harnad's point is only that the Turing Test is valid because it claims a limited domain of intelligence: it has to be able to fool a reasonable and neutral observer.
Since Harnad believes that ...
The validity of turning tests are examined.