Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T17:16:17.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - The 2008 Reading University Turing Tests

from PART TWO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

Kevin Warwick
Affiliation:
Coventry University
Huma Shah
Affiliation:
Coventry University
Get access

Summary

The 18th Loebner Prize, hosted at Reading University in 2008, began with an experiment using one-to-one text-based interrogation of thirteen machines. Six machines with the most conversational ability scores of 50 or over were invited to participate in simultaneous comparison tests; that is, each of the machines would be interrogated simultaneously with another hidden entity.

Five of the invited systems accepted and participated in the simultaneous comparison phase, with the best machine to be awarded the Bronze Medal of the Loebner Prize. Hugh Loebner allowed the authors to design the experiment around simultaneous tests featuring five machines, Elbot, Eugene Goostman, Brother Jerome, Jabberwacky and Ultra Hal.

Unknown to the judges, control pairs of both human were embedded in the machine–set-ups. This was to make sure the judges were paying attention to the utterances and not returning a result of one machine and one human each time without proper consideration.

Because one of the six invited entries could not attend the experiment, it was decided to use that entry's human comparisons for a control pair of machine–machine tests. The Elbot and Eugene Goostman machines received the most scores of ‘50 or over’ in the preliminary online one-to-one phase. Their developers agreed that their entries could participate in the machine control pair tests. This was the first time in Turing test implementations that control pairs of two humans and two machines had been embedded among machine– human pairs hidden from the interrogators.

The experimental set-ups

A panel of 24 judges, or two juries, was convened for the experiment. The rationale for this was:

  1. (a) to evaluate Turing's five-minute-simultaneous-comparison imitation game;

  2. (b) to test the hypothesis that a five-minute interrogation giving a thin slice of conversation is sufficient for differentiating the machine and the human;

  3. (c) to test the hypothesis that, without being explicitly told of machine–human and control pairs of human–human and machine–machine, an interrogator's gut reaction would correctly identify the nature of each hidden interlocutor.

This experiment considered first impressions observations (Willis and Todorov, 2006) and thin slice experiments (Albrechtsen et al., 2009).

Type
Chapter
Information
Turing's Imitation Game
Conversations with the Unknown
, pp. 103 - 127
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrechtsen, J., Maissner, C., and Susa, K. (2009). Can intuition improve deception detection performance? J. Exper. Soc. Psychol. 45 (4) 1052–1055.Google Scholar
Colby, K.M., Hilf, F.D., Weber, S., and Kraemer, H.C. (1972). Turing-like indistinguishability tests for the validation of a computer simulation of paranoid processes. Artificial Intelligence 3 199–221.Google Scholar
Heiser, J.F., Colby, K.M., Fraught, W.S. and Parkison, R.C. (1979). Can psychiatrists distinguish a computer simulation of paranoia from the real thing? The limitation of Turing-like tests as measures of the adequacy of simulations. Journal of Psychiatric Research 15 (3), 149–162.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1996). Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought, Basic Books. p. 155.
Pavia, W. (2008). Machine takes on man at mass Turing test. The Times. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/ article4934858.ece.
Shah, H. and Warwick, K. (2010a). From the buzzing in Turing's head to machine intelligence contests, In Proc. 1st Symposium Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT). AISB Convention, De Montfort University, UK.
Shah, H. and Warwick, K. (2010b). Hidden interlocutor misidentification in practical Turing tests. Minds and Machines 20 (3), 441–454.Google Scholar
Shah, H. and Warwick, K. (2016). Imitating gender as a measure for artificial intelligence: is it necessary? In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART), Rome, Vol. 1, pp. 126–131.Google Scholar
Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind LIX (236), 433–460.
Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Simon and Schuster.
Willis, J. and Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: making up your mind after a 100ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science 17 (7), 592–598.
Wilson, E. Affect and Artificial Intelligence. University of Washington Press.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×