Because the test is by necessity subjective, a naive interrogator could fail to spot things that an expert would pick out. But I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question with which we are concerned in this paper."įinally, there's the question of the judge. There is, for instance, something of a paradox connected with any attempt to localise it. He wrote in his original paper: "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness. Turing, for his part, anticipated this somewhat.
The counter-argument to that is that humans could well just be following a large list of mechanical rules, and then you're deep into philosophy of consciousness and intentionality. As such, the Turing Test doesn't test whether a machine can genuinely think.
A machine that can pass the Turing Test could just be following a large list of mechanical rules. A second issue is that simulated intelligence isn't the same thing as real intelligence.
0 kommentar(er)
