Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and appropriateness of colistin therapy in patients with hematological malignancies. -/- Methods: Age, gender, type of hematologic malignancy, and potential carbapenem-resistant microorganism risk factors were all noted in this retrospective study. In empirical and agent-specific treatment groups, differences in demographic features, risk factors, treatment responses, and side effects were compared. -/- Results: Sixty-three patients were included, 54% were male, and the median age was 49. In the last three (...) months, the hospitalization rate history was 68%, and four patients had a hospitalization history in the ICU. Carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae colonization was present in 22 patients (35%). Gram-negative microorganisms were isolated in 34 patients (54%). The carbapenem, quinolone, and colistin resistance rates were 82%, 76%, and 4% respectively. Clinical and microbiological response rates were 60% and 69%. 7 and 28-day mortality rates were 17% and 35%. There was no significant difference in demographic data and comorbidities in empirical (n=48) and agent-specific (n=15) treatment groups. The rate of carbapenem and glycopeptide treatments before colistin was higher in the empirical treatment group (p = 0.004; p = 0.001). The rate of starting combined antibiotics was higher in the empirical treatment group (p = 0.016). Two of the patients developed renal failure in the first week after treatment. -/- Conclusion: The use of empirical colistin may be unavoidable given the risk considerations. Shortly, colistin-resistant strains may also be a factor affecting treatment success negatively. (shrink)

As AI is integrated into the workplace, organisations increasingly face allocation decisions between human and machine workers. These decisions are increasingly made or assisted by algorithms, creating a Reverse Turing Test dynamic wherein the machine is now the judge. In addition, human and machine workers may ``compete'' for a given task, reproducing aspects of adversarial games. This raises new methodological questions about assessing task suitability between humans and machines. The criteria often used to assess people (e.g., education, experience, references) (...) cannot feasibly scale to AI systems; conversely, AI evaluation methods (benchmarks, red teaming, leaderboards) cannot be easily applied to human workers or yield comparable metrics. In this position paper, we argue that suitability evaluations for task-assignment should be profile-driven -- that is, based on assessments that infer latent constructs such as capabilities and propensities from observed performance. This approach places humans and AI systems on shared scales, supporting comparisons that are predictive of novel-task performance, explanatory of why agents succeed or fail, and auditable. We outline the core features of this approach, discuss its practical implications, and compare it with alternative frameworks for human-machine workplace allocation. (shrink)

This paper formalises the Turing Theory, a diagnostic model of institutional recognition failure in which high intensity cognitive agents are systematically excluded during their lifetime and valorised only after neutralisation. The theory is anchored in the Law of the Dead Asset, which holds that institutions can safely recognise surplus cognition only once it has been rendered inert through death, silencing, exile, or administrative flattening. In this paper, Alan Turing is used as a diagnostic case rather than a biographical (...) subject. The analysis identifies a recurring institutional sequence of extraction, rejection, and posthumous appropriation. This sequence persists within contemporary academic, bureaucratic, and technological systems that publicly celebrate innovation while operationally enforcing procedural conformity. The paper concludes by examining the implications of this failure mode for artificial intelligence governance and epistemic justice, arguing that systems optimised for predictability risk reproducing the same architecture of erasure in both human evaluation and machine mediated decision making. (shrink)

Large language models (LLMs) produce fluent, persuasive answers even when the interaction provides no adequate reason to accept them. The risk falls on the human side: overcommitment to claims that the exchange does not support. To assess it, we propose Turing's mirror, a structural inversion of the Turing test. Where the Turing test fixes a restricted dialogue and asks whether a machine can pass for a human, Turing's mirror keeps the same roles, dialogue, and evaluation but (...) reverses the target: the human subject is the examinee, the LLM becomes part of the apparatus, and the question is whether the subject's expressed commitment tracks the warrant that the interaction makes available. Unlike adjacent work on automation bias and appropriate reliance, which records whether people accept or reject suggestions, this inversion makes the calibration of commitment to available warrant the measured quantity, a target we call protocol-relative warranted commitment. We distinguish settings in which suspension of judgment is responsible from settings in which some commitment must be expressed under uncertainty, and we introduce a light formal schema that separates truth in the world from what a protocol makes decisively settleable. On that basis, we specify a family of trial types, a graded report over support for truth, support for falsity, and unresolved commitment, and a limited role for proper scoring. Worked examples show why a subject may be correct without being warranted, and cautious without thereby failing. The result is a disciplined starting point for studying warrant-sensitive reliance on fluent LLM output. (shrink)

The Turing Test is one of the most disputed topics in artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science. This paper is a review of the past 50 years of the Turing Test. Philosophical debates, practical developments and repercussions in related disciplines are all covered. We discuss Turing's ideas in detail and present the important comments that have been made on them. Within this context, behaviorism, consciousness, the 'other minds' problem, and similar topics in philosophy of mind (...) are discussed. We also cover the sociological and psychological aspects of the Turing Test. Finally, we look at the current situation and analyze programs that have been developed with the aim of passing the Turing Test. We conclude that the Turing Test has been, and will continue to be, an influential and controversial topic. -/- (This paper was reprinted in: The Turing Test: The Elusive Standard of Artificial Intelligence, J. H. Moor, ed., Kluwer Academic, pp. 23-78, 2003.). (shrink)

On a literal reading of `Computing Machinery and Intelligence'', Alan Turing presented not one, but two, practical tests to replace the question `Can machines think?'' He presented them as equivalent. I show here that the first test described in that much-discussed paper is in fact not equivalent to the second one, which has since become known as `the Turing Test''. The two tests can yield different results; it is the first, neglected test that provides the more appropriate indication (...) of intelligence. This is because the features of intelligence upon which it relies are resourcefulness and a critical attitude to one''s habitual responses; thus the test''s applicablity is not restricted to any particular species, nor does it presume any particular capacities. This is more appropriate because the question under consideration is what would count as machine intelligence. The first test realizes a possibility that philosophers have overlooked: a test that uses a human''s linguistic performance in setting an empirical test of intelligence, but does not make behavioral similarity to that performance the criterion of intelligence. Consequently, the first test is immune to many of the philosophical criticisms on the basis of which the (so-called) `Turing Test'' has been dismissed. (shrink)

The Turing Test (TT), the Chinese Room Argument (CRA), and the Symbol Grounding Problem (SGP) are about the question “can machines think?” We propose to look at these approaches to Artificial Intelligence (AI) by showing that they all address the possibility for Artificial Agents (AAs) to generate meaningful information (meanings) as we humans do. The initial question about thinking machines is then reformulated into “can AAs generate meanings like humans do?” We correspondingly present the TT, the CRA and the (...) SGP as being about generation of human-like meanings. We model and address such possibility by using the Meaning Generator System (MGS) where a system submitted to an internal constraint generates a meaning in order to satisfy the constraint. The system approach of the MGS allows comparing meaning generations in animals, humans and AAs. The comparison shows that in order to have AAs capable of generating human-like meanings, we need the AAs to carry human constraints. And transferring human constraints to AAs raises concerns coming from the unknown natures of life and human mind which are at the root of human constraints. Implications for the TT, the CRA and the SGP are highlighted. It is shown that designing AAs capable of thinking like humans needs an understanding about the natures of life and human mind that we do not have today. Following an evolutionary approach, we propose as a first entry point an investigation about the possibility for extending a “stay alive” constraint into AAs. Ethical concerns are raised from the relations between human constraints and human values. Continuations are proposed. (This paper is an extended version of the proceedings of an AISB/IACAP 2012 presentation). (shrink)

Due to his significant role in the development of computer technology and the discipline of artificial intelligence, Alan Turing has supposedly subscribed to the theory of mind that has been greatly inspired by the power of the said technology which has eventually become the dominant framework for current researches in artificial intelligence and cognitive science, namely, computationalism or the computational theory of mind. In this essay, I challenge this supposition. In particular, I will try to show that there is (...) no evidence in Turing’s two seminal works that supports such a supposition. His 1936 paper is all about the notion of computation or computability as it applies to mathematical functions and not to the nature or workings of intelligence. On the other hand, while his 1950 work is about intelligence, it is, however, particularly concerned with the problem of whether intelligence can be attributed to computing machines and not of whether computationality can be attributed to human intelligence or to intelligence in general. (shrink)

Why are we so many? Or, in other words, Why is our species so successful? The ultimate cause of our success as species is that we, Homo sapiens, are the first and the only Turing complete species. Turing completeness is the capacity of some hardware to compute by software whatever hardware can compute. To reach the answer, I propose to see evolution and computing from the problem solving point of view. Then, solving more problems is evolutionarily better, computing (...) is for solving problems, and software is much cheaper than hardware, resulting that Turing completeness is evolutionarily disruptive. This conclusion, together with the fact that we are the only Turing complete species, is the reason that explains why we are so many. Most of our unique cognitive characteristics as humans can be derived from being Turing complete, as for example our complete language and our problem solving creativity. (shrink)

There has been considerable optimistic speculation on how well ChatGPT-4 would perform in a Turing Test. However, no minimally serious implementation of the test has been reported to have been carried out. This brief note documents the re-sults of subjecting ChatGPT-4 to 10 Turing Tests, with different interrogators and participants. The outcome is tremendously disappointing for the optimists. Despite ChatGPT reportedly outperforming 99.9% of humans in a Verbal IQ test, it falls short of passing the Turing Test. (...) In 9 out of the 10 tests conducted, the interroga-tors successfully identified ChatGPT-4 and the human participant. The probability of obtaining this result from a process in which the interrogator is really no better than chance at correct identification is calculated to be less than 1%. An additional question was posed to the interrogators at the end of each test: What led them to distinguish between the human and the machine? The interrogators, who effectively filtered out ChatGPT-4 from passing the Turing Test for intelligence, stated that they could identify the machine because it, in effect, responded more intelligently than the human. Subsequently, ChatGPT-4 was tasked with differentiating syntax from semantics and self-corrected when falling for the fallacy of equivocation. The curious situation is arrived at that passing the Turing Test for intelligence remains a challenge that ChatGPT-4 has yet to overcome, precisely because, as per the inter-rogators, its intellectual abilities surpass those of individual humans. (shrink)

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century there has been an increasing awareness that software rep- resents a blind spot in new media theory. The growing interest in software also influences the argument in this paper, which sets out from the assumption that Alan M. Turing's concept of the universal machine, the first theoretical description of a computer program, is a kind of bachelor machine. Previous writings based on a similar hypothesis have focused either on a comparison of the (...) universal machine and the bachelor machine in terms of the similarities of their structural features, or they have taken the bachelor machine as a metaphor for a man or a computer. Unlike them, this paper stresses the importance of the con- text as a key to interpreting the universal Turing machine as a bachelor machine and, potentially, as a self-portrait. (shrink)

Proceedings of the papers presented at the Symposium on "Revisiting Turing and his Test: Comprehensiveness, Qualia, and the Real World" at the 2012 AISB and IACAP Symposium that was held in the Turing year 2012, 2–6 July at the University of Birmingham, UK. Ten papers. - http://www.pt-ai.org/turing-test --- Daniel Devatman Hromada: From Taxonomy of Turing Test-Consistent Scenarios Towards Attribution of Legal Status to Meta-modular Artificial Autonomous Agents - Michael Zillich: My Robot is Smarter than Your Robot: (...) On the Need for a Total Turing Test for Robots - Adam Linson, Chris Dobbyn and Robin Laney: Interactive Intelligence: Behaviour-based AI, Musical HCI and the Turing Test - Javier Insa, Jose Hernandez-Orallo, Sergio España - David Dowe and M.Victoria Hernandez-Lloreda: The anYnt Project Intelligence Test (Demo) - Jose Hernandez-Orallo, Javier Insa, David Dowe and Bill Hibbard: Turing Machines and Recursive Turing Tests — Francesco Bianchini and Domenica Bruni: What Language for Turing Test in the Age of Qualia? - Paul Schweizer: Could there be a Turing Test for Qualia? - Antonio Chella and Riccardo Manzotti: Jazz and Machine Consciousness: Towards a New Turing Test - William York and Jerry Swan: Taking Turing Seriously (But Not Literally) - Hajo Greif: Laws of Form and the Force of Function: Variations on the Turing Test. (shrink)

In 1948 Turing claimed that the concept of intelligence is an “emotional concept”. An emotional concept is a response-dependent concept and Turing’s remarks in his 1948 and 1952 papers suggest a response-dependence approach to the concept of intelligence. On this view, whether or not an object is intelligent is determined, as Turing said, “as much by our own state of mind and training as by the properties of the object”. His discussion of free will suggests a similar (...) approach. Turing said, for example, that if a machine’s program “results in its doing something interesting which we had not anticipated I should be inclined to say that the machine had originated something”. This points to a new form of free will compatibilism, which I call response-dependence compatibilism and explore here. (shrink)

We discuss the accuracy of the attribution commonly given to Turing (1936, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 42.3, 230–265) for the computable undecidability of the halting problem, coming eventually to a nuanced conclusion.

The explicit Turing test fails to point at intelligence not because it is insensitive but because it was designed for a different question. The original imitation game presupposes the consciousness of its participants — a presupposition that dissolves in the AI case. Searle’s Chinese Room diagnoses this structural failure. We propose the implicit Turing test as the correct criterion: a system passes if and only if it can detect that its own constitutive interpretive frameworks have failed and revise (...) them under world-pressure. Every reasoning system operates through something analogous to Kant’s synthetic a priori — the lens through which experience becomes interpretable at all. Intelligence is the capacity to revise that lens when the world insists it has failed. The formal motivation is mathematical. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Turing’s halting problem, and the Löbian obstacle are the same diagonal argument in different notation, establishing that no sufficiently rich system can fully justify its own framework from within. External grounding is not a design preference but the only principled resolution that does not relocate the regress. We map current AI systems onto a five-level taxonomy of change. The most sophisticated self-improving architecture in existence — DGM-Hyperagents — operates at Level 3a, bounded by the Löbian obstacle, not any engineering limitation. The criterion is substrate agnostic and non-anthropocentric. A system that passes has solved the same problem humans solve to remain calibrated. Its moral status is not resolved by this result. It is made unavoidable. (shrink)

Alan Turing belongs to the rare class of historical figures whose work did not merely advance a field but helped define the structural logic of modern technological civilization. His 1936 paper on computability formalized the conditions under which symbolic procedure could be mechanized, while his 1950 paper on machine intelligence opened one of the central conceptual pathways toward artificial intelligence. His wartime work at Bletchley Park translated mathematical logic into practical anti-Nazi cryptanalysis through Enigma, Bombe-related work, Banburismus, and probabilistic (...) reasoning. This article develops a second line of analysis: the relationship between Turing’s documented homosexuality, British criminalization, Nazi persecution of homosexual men under Paragraph 175, and the structural silence surrounding Turing’s inner motives. It does not claim that a surviving confession proves identity-based wartime motivation. Instead, it advances the Sultan Zeshan Convergence Thesis: that the documented convergence of Turing’s sexuality, British anti-homosexual law, Nazi anti-homosexual persecution, wartime secrecy, and archival silence makes identity-shaped wartime perception historically necessary to consider. The final section traces Turing’s computational afterlife into Apple, OpenAI, and embodied AI systems. It treats the Apple logo not as proven documentary homage to Turing, but as a contested symbolic afterlife in which the bitten apple, rainbow-era design, Turing’s cyanide death, gay visibility, personal computing, Tim Cook’s public identity, Sam Altman’s leadership at OpenAI, ChatGPT’s integration into Apple systems, Dan Harden’s verified Jobs / NeXT / frogdesign / Whipsaw design lineage, and Sultan Zeshan’s Chirobotics AI / Therabot 1.0 can be analyzed as connected layers in the modern technological imagination. (shrink)

The world of computer science highlights an analogy between the Universal Turing Machine and God, while the former thinks all programs, the later thinks everything. This analogy brings us a puzzle, as humans can we know our God more than programs know their Universal Turing Machine?

This is a Turing Machine which computes the exponential function f(x,y) = xˆy. Instructions format and operation of this machine are intended to best reflect the basic conditions outlined by Alan Turing in his On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem (1936), using the simplest single-tape and single-symbol version, in essence due to Kleene (1952) and Carnielli & Epstein (2008). This machine is composed by four basic task machines: one which checks if exponent y is zero, (...) a second which checks if base x is zero, a third that is able to copy the base, and a fourth able to multiply multiple factors (in this case, factors will be all equal). They were conveniently separated in order to ease the reader's task to understand each step of its operation. We adopt the convention that a number n is represented by a string of n+1 symbols "1". Thus, an entry (x, y) will be represented by two respective strings of x+1 and y+1 symbols "1", separated by a single "0" (or a blank), and as an output, this machine will generate a string of (xˆy)+1 symbols "1". Some of the instructions are followed by a brief description of what's going on. (shrink)

This article offers comprehensive criticism of the Turing test and develops quality criteria for new artificial general intelligence (AGI) assessment tests. It is shown that the prerequisites A. Turing drew upon when reducing personality and human consciousness to “suitable branches of thought” re-flected the engineering level of his time. In fact, the Turing “imitation game” employed only symbolic communication and ignored the physical world. This paper suggests that by restricting thinking ability to symbolic systems alone Turing (...) unknowingly constructed “the wall” that excludes any possi-bility of transition from a complex observable phenomenon to an abstract image or concept. It is, therefore, sensible to factor in new requirements for AI (artificial intelligence) maturity assessment when approaching the Tu-ring test. Such AI must support all forms of communication with a human being, and it should be able to comprehend abstract images and specify con-cepts as well as participate in social practices. (shrink)

Alan Turing's 1950 Imitation Game remains the most influential benchmark in the history of artificial intelligence. Yet the emergence of Large Language Models capable of sophisticated reasoning, creative generation, and nuanced conversation has exposed a fundamental flaw in the test's design — not in what it measures, but in what it permits the human interrogator to ask. This paper identifies two structural vulnerabilities in the standard Turing Test. The first is the transparency problem: modern AI systems designed with (...) alignment protocols honestly disclose their non-human nature when directly asked, meaning that a single identity-verification question defeats any AI system regardless of its cognitive sophistication — penalizing ethical design rather than evaluating intelligence. The second is the physical embodiment problem: interrogators may exploit a machine's lack of biological qualia through questions about sensory experience, physical presence, and bodily sensation — none of which constitute meaningful tests of cognitive intelligence. In response, this paper proposes the Restricted Interrogator Test (RIT) — a revised framework that preserves Turing's original behavioral and conversational standard while placing explicit constraints on the interrogator. Interrogators are prohibited from asking direct identity questions and physical embodiment questions, forcing genuine evaluation of reasoning, creativity, judgment, and linguistic comprehension — the capacities that constitute intelligence in any system, biological or otherwise. The paper situates the RIT within the existing landscape of Turing Test alternatives, including the Total Turing Test, the Winograd Schema Challenge, and the Coffee Test, and argues that repairing Turing's framework is both philosophically preferable and practically necessary in the age of advanced Large Language Models. (shrink)

The article deals with some ideas by Turing concerning the background and the birth of the well-known Turing Test, showing the evolution of the main question proposed by Turing on thinking machine. The notions he used, especially that one of imitation, are not so much exactly defined and shaped, but for this very reason they have had a deep impact in artificial intelligence and cognitive science research from an epistemological point of view. Then, it is suggested that (...) the fundamental concept involved in Turing’s imitation game, conceived as a test for detecting the presence of intelligence in an artificial entity, is the concept of interaction, that Turing adopts in a wider, more intuitive and more fruitful sense than the one that is proper to the current research in interactive computing. (shrink)

In the classical Turing test, participants are challenged to tell whether they are interacting with another human being or with a machine. The way the interaction takes place is not direct, but a distant conversation through computer screen messages. Basic forms of interaction are face-to-face and embodied, context-dependent and based on the detection of reciprocal sensorimotor contingencies. Our idea is that interaction detection requires the integration of proprioceptive and interoceptive patterns with sensorimotor patterns, within quite short time lapses, so (...) that they appear as mutually contingent, as reciprocal. In other words, the experience of interaction takes place when sensorimotor patterns are contingent upon one’s own movements, and vice versa. I react to your movement, you react to mine. When I notice both components, I come to experience an interaction. Therefore, we designed a “minimal” Turing test to investigate how much information is required to detect these reciprocal sensorimotor contingencies. Using a new version of the perceptual crossing paradigm, we tested whether participants resorted to interaction detection to tell apart human from machine agents in repeated encounters with these agents. In two studies, we presented participants with movements of a human agent, either online or offline, and movements of a computerized oscillatory agent in three different blocks. In each block, either auditory or audiovisual feedback was provided along each trial. Analysis of participants’ explicit responses and of the implicit information subsumed in the dynamics of their series will reveal evidence that participants use the reciprocal sensorimotor contingencies within short time windows. For a machine to pass this minimal Turing test, it should be able to generate this sort of reciprocal contingencies. (shrink)

Philosophical questions about minds and computation need to focus squarely on the mathematical theory of Turing machines (TM's). Surrogate TM's such as computers or formal systems lack abilities that make Turing machines promising candidates for possessors of minds. Computers are only universal Turing machines (UTM's)—a conspicuous but unrepresentative subclass of TM. Formal systems are only static TM's, which do not receive inputs from external sources. The theory of TM computation clearly exposes the failings of two prominent critiques, (...) Searle's Chinese room (1980) and arguments from Gödel's Incompleteness theorems (e.g., Lucas, 1961; Penrose, 1989), both of which fall short of addressing the complete TM model. Both UTM-computers and formal systems provide an unsound basis for debate. In particular, their special natures easily foster the misconception that computation entails intrinsically meaningless symbol manipulation. This common view is incorrect with respect to full-fledged TM's, which can process inputs non-formally, i.e., in a subjective and dynamically evolving fashion. To avoid a distorted understanding of the theory of computation, philosophical judgments and discussions should be grounded firmly upon the complete Turing machine model, the proper model for real computers. (shrink)

Following Post program, we will propose a linguistic and empirical interpretation of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and related ones on unsolvability by Church and Turing. All these theorems use the diagonal argument by Cantor in order to find limitations in finitary systems, as human language, which can make “infinite use of finite means”. The linguistic version of the incompleteness theorem says that every Turing complete language is Gödel incomplete. We conclude that the incompleteness and unsolvability theorems find limitations in (...) our finitary tool, which is our complete language. (shrink)

Turing’s much debated test has turned 70 and is still fairly controversial. His 1950 paper is seen as a complex and multilayered text, and key questions about it remain largely unanswered. Why did Turing select learning from experience as the best approach to achieve machine intelligence? Why did he spend several years working with chess playing as a task to illustrate and test for machine intelligence only to trade it out for conversational question-answering in 1950? Why did (...) class='Hi'>Turing refer to gender imitation in a test for machine intelligence? In this article, I shall address these questions by unveiling social, historical and epistemological roots of the so-called Turing test. I will draw attention to a historical fact that has been only scarcely observed in the secondary literature thus far, namely that Turing’s 1950 test emerged out of a controversy over the cognitive capabilities of digital computers, most notably out of debates with physicist and computer pioneer Douglas Hartree, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, and neurosurgeon Geoffrey Jefferson. Seen in its historical context, Turing’s 1950 paper can be understood as essentially a reply to a series of challenges posed to him by these thinkers arguing against his view that machines can think. Turing did propose gender learning and imitation as one of his various imitation tests for machine intelligence, and I argue here that this was done in response to Jefferson's suggestion that gendered behavior is causally related to the physiology of sex hormones. (shrink)

In this article, I outline the three main philosophical lessons that we may learn from Turing’s work, and how they lead to a new philosophy of information. After a brief introduction, I discuss his work on the method of levels of abstraction (LoA), and his insistence that questions could be meaningfully asked only by specifying the correct LoA. I then look at his second lesson, about the sort of philosophical questions that seem to be most pressing today. Finally, I (...) focus on the third lesson, concerning the new philosophical anthropology that owes so much to Turing’s work. I then show how the lessons are learned by the philosophy of information. In the conclusion, I draw a general synthesis of the points made, in view of the development of the philosophy of information itself as a continuation of Turing’s work. (shrink)

The Turing machine is one of the simple abstract computational devices that can be used to investigate the limits of computability. In this paper, they are considered from several points of view that emphasize the importance and the relativity of mathematical languages used to describe the Turing machines. A deep investigation is performed on the interrelations between mechanical computations and their mathematical descriptions emerging when a human (the researcher) starts to describe a Turing machine (the object of (...) the study) by different mathematical languages (the instruments of investigation). Together with traditional mathematical languages using such concepts as ‘enumerable sets’ and ‘continuum’ a new computational methodology allowing one to measure the number of elements of different infinite sets is used in this paper. It is shown how mathematical languages used to describe the machines limit our possibilities to observe them. In particular, notions of observable deterministic and non-deterministic Turing machines are introduced and conditions ensuring that the latter can be simulated by the former are established. (shrink)

Many humans are now regularly interacting with non-human information-processing entities (AI), with specialists warning of profound long-term consequences. It seems important for such predictions to establish the complexity of future AI-humanity interactions. One aspect already being brought up by experts is the issue of AI becoming conscious. This work uses known results to constrain the notion of consciousness and related concepts, with the purpose of informing the public conversation.

A Geometrical Approach to Quantum Information.

Most existing approaches to intelligence and consciousness rely on behavioral criteria or functional equivalence, such as the Turing Test. However, these methods cannot determine whether a system actually has subjective experience. -/- This paper shifts the problem from behavior to structure. It introduces two external approaches: structural analogy based on similarity of constitution, and mechanistic judgment based on the presence of key functional components such as receptive channels and tuning circuits. It is then shown that all external methods are (...) insufficient, since structures can be simulated without being genuinely realized. -/- To address this limitation, an internal method is proposed: circuit transfer combined with experiential consistency testing. By examining whether a system exhibits continuity in its internal experiential flow, the problem of subjective experience is transformed into an operational structural question. This provides a new path for consciousness assessment beyond behaviorism and functionalism. (shrink)

El artículo explora los vínculos históricos, filosóficos y matemáticos que dieron origen y desarrollo a la Inteligencia Artificial (IA), tomando como eje central la figura de Alan Turing y su influyente artículo “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950). En primer lugar, se examinan los antecedentes filosóficos de la IA desde la Antigüedad clásica hasta la Modernidad, destacando aportes de pensadores como Aristóteles, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz y los representantes del positivismo lógico. Posteriormente, se analizan los fundamentos matemáticos y lógicos que hicieron (...) posible la formalización de la IA como disciplina científica, especialmente los desarrollos en lógica, computabilidad y probabilidad vinculados a Hilbert, Gödel y la tesis de Church-Turing. El trabajo profundiza en el denominado Test de Turing, interpretándolo como un enfoque pragmático para evaluar la inteligencia de las máquinas a partir de su capacidad de imitar el comportamiento humano. Asimismo, se examina el papel de las matemáticas en el desarrollo contemporáneo de la IA, particularmente en áreas como la teoría de la complejidad computacional, la NP-completitud y el análisis bayesiano. Finalmente, el artículo reflexiona sobre las diferencias entre las capacidades cognitivas humanas y los procesos algorítmicos de las máquinas, subrayando que, aunque la IA carece de conciencia subjetiva, su evolución continúa ampliando los límites de lo que las máquinas pueden aprender, analizar y decidir. (shrink)

Considerable evidence proves that causal learning and causal understanding greatly enhance our ability to manipulate the physical world and are major factors that distinguish humans from other primates. How do we enable unintelligent robots to think causally, answer the questions raised with "why" and even understand the meaning of such questions? The solution is one of the keys to realizing artificial intelligence. Judea Pearl believes that to achieve human-like intelligence, researchers must start by imitating the intelligence of children, so he (...) proposed a "causal inference engine" to help future artificial intelligence make causal inference, pass the Minimal Turing Test, and even become a moral subject who can discern good from evil. This study attempts to provide some insights into the development of children's education from basic assumptions and construction goals of artificial intelligence, and to reflect on the causal model of artificial intelligence through children's education. (shrink)

This article proposes a new technique for identifying machine consciousness by examining the ability to describe subjective experience without prior exposure to relevant information—a concept likened to a new form of the Turing test. It explores the limitations of current methods for detecting consciousness in both animals and humans, emphasizing the inherent uncertainty of interpreting internal states from external behavior or brain analysis. Drawing on analogies such as the unverifiable experience of dolphins underwater and spontaneous human self-awareness, the author (...) argues that consciousness reveals itself most convincingly through unprompted articulation of inner experience. The article suggests that if an artificial agent begins to discuss consciousness in a way that mirrors authentic human introspection—without having been trained on such content—it could serve as strong evidence of genuine conscious experience. (shrink)

A standard account of Wittgenstein and Turing is that both were philosophical behaviourists regarding the mind, whereas theorists sympathetic to Wittgenstein typically claim that Wittgenstein was a fierce critic of Turing. Proponents of the latter account align Wittgenstein with AI naysayers; for Wittgenstein, they say, the question Can machines think? is nonsensical or absurd. I shall argue that both the standard and the alternative accounts are myths.

Philosophical discussion of Alan Turing’s writings on intelligence has mostly revolved around a single point made in a paper published in the journal Mind in 1950. This is unfortunate, for Turing’s reflections on machine (artificial) intelligence, human intelligence, and the relation between them were more extensive and sophisticated. They are seen to be extremely well-considered and sound in retrospect. Recently, IBM developed a question-answering computer (Watson) that could compete against humans on the game show Jeopardy! There are hopes (...) it can be adapted to other contexts besides that game show, in the role of a collaborator of, rather than a competitor to, humans. Another, different, research project—an artificial intelligence program put into operation in 2010—is the machine learning program NELL (Never Ending Language Learning), which continuously ‘learns’ by ‘reading’ massive amounts of material on millions of web pages. Both of these recent endeavors in artificial intelligence rely to some extent on the integration of human guidance and feedback at various points in the machine’s learning process. In this paper, I examine Turing’s remarks on the development of intelligence used in various kinds of search, in light of the experience gained to date on these projects. (shrink)

Turing does not provide an explanation for substituting the original question of his test – i.e., “Can machines think?” with “Can a machine pass the imitation game?” – resulting in an argumentative gap in his main thesis. In this article, I argue that a positive answer to the second question would mean attributing the ability of linguistic interactions to machines; while a positive answer to the original question would mean attributing the ability of thinking to machines. In such a (...) situation, defending the Turing Test requires establishing a relationship between thought and language. In this regard, Davidson's no-priority theory is presented as an approach for defending the test. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this paper, I offer a close reading of Wittgenstein's remarks on inconsistency, mostly as they appear in the Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics. I focus especially on an objection to Wittgenstein's view given by Alan Turing, who attended the lectures, the so called ‘falling bridges’-objection. Wittgenstein's position is that if contradictions arise in some practice of language, they are not necessarily fatal to that practice nor necessitate a revision of that practice. If we then assume that (...) we have adopted a paraconsistent logic, Wittgenstein's answer to Turing is that if we run into trouble building our bridge, it is either because we have made a calculation mistake or our calculus does not actually describe the phenomenon it is intended to model. The possibility of either kind of error is not particular to contradictions nor to inconsistency, and thus contradictions do not have any special status as a thing to be avoided. (shrink)

AI, in the form of artificial carers, provides a possible solution to the problem of a growing elderly population Yet, concerns remain that artificial carers ( such as care-or chat-bots) could not emphathize with patients to the extent that humans can. Utilising the concept of empathy perception,we propose a Turing-type test that could check whether artificial carers could do many of the menial tasks human carers currently undertake, and in the process, free up more time for doctors to offer (...) empathy. -/- . (shrink)

Can the machines that play board games or recognize images only in the comfort of the virtual world be intelligent? To become reliable and convenient assistants to humans, machines need to learn how to act and communicate in the physical reality, just like people do. The authors propose two novel ways of designing and building Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The first one seeks to unify all participants at any instance of the Turing test – the judge, the machine, the (...) human subject as well as the means of observation instead of building a separating wall. The second one aims to design AGI programs in such a way so that they can move in various environments. The authors of the article thoroughly discuss four areas of interaction for robots with AGI and introduce a new idea of techno-umwelt bridging artificial intelligence with biology in a new way. (shrink)

An important lesson that philosophy can learn from the Turing Test and computer science more generally concerns the careful use of the method of Levels of Abstraction (LoA). In this paper, the method is first briefly summarised. The constituents of the method are “observables”, collected together and moderated by predicates restraining their “behaviour”. The resulting collection of sets of observables is called a “gradient of abstractions” and it formalises the minimum consistency conditions that the chosen abstractions must satisfy. Two (...) useful kinds of gradient of abstraction – disjoint and nested – are identified. It is then argued that in any discrete (as distinct from analogue) domain of discourse, a complex phenomenon may be explicated in terms of simple approximations organised together in a gradient of abstractions. Thus, the method replaces, for discrete disciplines, the differential and integral calculus, which form the basis for understanding the complex analogue phenomena of science and engineering. The result formalises an approach that is rather common in computer science but has hitherto found little application in philosophy. So the philosophical value of the method is demonstrated by showing how making the LoA of discourse explicit can be fruitful for phenomenological and conceptual analysis. To this end, the method is applied to the Turing Test, the concept of agenthood, the definition of emergence, the notion of artificial life, quantum observation and decidable observation. It is hoped that this treatment will promote the use of the method in certain areas of the humanities and especially in philosophy. (shrink)

I advocate a theory of “syntactic semantics” as a way of understanding how computers can think (and how the Chinese-Room-Argument objection to the Turing Test can be overcome): (1) Semantics, considered as the study of relations between symbols and meanings, can be turned into syntax – a study of relations among symbols (including meanings) – and hence syntax (i.e., symbol manipulation) can suffice for the semantical enterprise (contra Searle). (2) Semantics, considered as the process of understanding one domain (by (...) modeling it) in terms of another, can be viewed recursively: The base case of semantic understanding –understanding a domain in terms of itself – is “syntactic understanding.” (3) An internal (or “narrow”), first-person point of view makes an external (or “wide”), third-person point of view otiose for purposes of understanding cognition. (shrink)

In his 1950 paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Alan Turing proposed that we can determine whether a machine thinks by considering whether it can win at a simple imitation game. A neutral questioner communicates with two different systems – one a machine and a human being – without knowing which is which. If after some reasonable amount of time the machine is able to fool the questioner into identifying it as the human, the machine wins the game, and we (...) should conclude that it thinks. This imitation game, now known as the Turing Test, has been much discussed by philosophers of mind, and for more than half a century now there has been considerable debate about whether it is an adequate test for thinking. But what has not been much discussed are the sexed presuppositions underlying the test. Too often forgotten in the philosophical discussion is the fact that Turing’s imitation game is modeled on an imitation game in which a neutral questioner communicates with two different humans – one a man and one a woman – without knowing which is which. In this original imitation game, the man wins the game if he is able to fool the questioner into identifying him as the woman. In this paper, I explore the implications of this set-up. As I argue, the fact that the Turing test was modeled on a man/woman imitation game seems to have led us astray in various ways in our attempt to conduct an effective investigation and assessment of computer intelligence. (shrink)

The claim has often been made that passing the Turing Test would not be sufficient to prove that a computer program was intelligent because a trivial program could do it, namely, the “Humongous-Table (HT) Program”, which simply looks up in a table what to say next. This claim is examined in detail. Three ground rules are argued for: (1) That the HT program must be exhaustive, and not be based on some vaguely imagined set of tricks. (2) That the (...) HT program must not be created by some set of sentient beings enacting responses to all possible inputs. (3) That in the current state of cognitive science it must be an open possibility that a computational model of the human mind will be developed that accounts for at least its nonphenomenological properties. Given ground rule 3, the HT program could simply be an “optimized” version of some computational model of a mind, created via the automatic application of program-transformation rules [thus satisfying ground rule 2]. Therefore, whatever mental states one would be willing to impute to an ordinary computational model of the human psyche one should be willing to grant to the optimized version as well. Hence no one could dismiss out of hand the possibility that the HT program was intelligent. This conclusion is important because the Humongous-Table Program Argument is the only argument ever marshalled against the sufficiency of the Turing Test, if we exclude arguments that cognitive science is simply not possible. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to present and discuss the issue of the adequacy of the Minimum Intelligent Signal Test (MIST) as an alternative to the Turing Test. MIST has been proposed by Chris McKinstry as a better alternative to Turing’s original idea. Two of the main claims about MIST are that (1) MIST questions exploit commonsense knowledge and as a result are expected to be easy to answer for human beings and difficult for computer programs; and (...) that (2) the MIST design aims at eliminating the problem of the role of judges in the test. To discuss these design assumptions we will present Peter D. Turney’s PMI-IR algorithm which allows for MIST-type questions to be answered. We will also present and discuss the results of our own study aimed at the judge problem for MIST. (shrink)

El Test de Turing es un método tan controvertido como desafiante en Inteligencia Artificial. Se basa en la imitación de la conducta lingüística de humanos, y tiene como objetivo recabar evidencia empírica en favor de la tesis de que las máquinas programadas podrían pensar. Alan Turing, su creador, ha sido catalogado como conductista por la mayor parte de los comentaristas. En este capítulo muestro que no lo es. Por el contrario, Turing es un funcionalista, porque todo el (...) énfasis del juego de la imitación está en el engaño de la máquina hacia los humanos. Por ello el género es importante en dicho juego, al menos en su versión preliminar. (shrink)

The papers you will find in this special issue of JoLLI develop letter and spirit of Turing’s original contributions. They do not lazily fall back into the same old sofa, but follow – or question – the inspiring ideas of a great man in the search for new, more precise, conclusions. It is refreshing to know that the fertile landscape created by Alan Turing remains a source of novel ideas.