{"title":"什么应该取代图灵测试?","authors":"Philip N Johnson-Laird, Marco Ragni","doi":"10.34133/icomputing.0064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, chatbots and other artificial intelligence tools pass the Turing test, which was Turing’s alternative to trying to answer the question: can a machine think? Despite their success in passing the Turing test, these machines do not think. We therefore propose a test of a more focused question: does a program reason in the way that humans reason? This test treats an “intelligent” program as though it were a participant in a psychological study and has 3 steps: (a) test the program in a set of experiments examining its inferences, (b) test its understanding of its own way of reasoning, and (c) examine, if possible, the cognitive adequacy of the source code for the program.","PeriodicalId":45291,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Should Replace the Turing Test?\",\"authors\":\"Philip N Johnson-Laird, Marco Ragni\",\"doi\":\"10.34133/icomputing.0064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Today, chatbots and other artificial intelligence tools pass the Turing test, which was Turing’s alternative to trying to answer the question: can a machine think? Despite their success in passing the Turing test, these machines do not think. We therefore propose a test of a more focused question: does a program reason in the way that humans reason? This test treats an “intelligent” program as though it were a participant in a psychological study and has 3 steps: (a) test the program in a set of experiments examining its inferences, (b) test its understanding of its own way of reasoning, and (c) examine, if possible, the cognitive adequacy of the source code for the program.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34133/icomputing.0064\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34133/icomputing.0064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Today, chatbots and other artificial intelligence tools pass the Turing test, which was Turing’s alternative to trying to answer the question: can a machine think? Despite their success in passing the Turing test, these machines do not think. We therefore propose a test of a more focused question: does a program reason in the way that humans reason? This test treats an “intelligent” program as though it were a participant in a psychological study and has 3 steps: (a) test the program in a set of experiments examining its inferences, (b) test its understanding of its own way of reasoning, and (c) examine, if possible, the cognitive adequacy of the source code for the program.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
