Turing tests are a framework, not a set of specific questions. It assumes the interrogator is human, and the machine passes the test when its responses are indistinguishable from a human’s. What the questions are doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t matter if the answers are right or wrong. If the human interrogator cannot tell the difference between a human and a machine, it has passed the test.
Well, that’s sorta the point. Do machines think? They have knowledge and logic, but not insight or creativity. But do humans have those things? Or are we just really advanced pattern recognition machines? Turing tests demonstrated that it is really our imperfections that make us recognizable as humans. And if machines can be better at distinguishing between humans and machines, what is the virtue of “thinking”? Why is that better than “computing”?
Turing tests are a framework, not a set of specific questions. It assumes the interrogator is human, and the machine passes the test when its responses are indistinguishable from a human’s. What the questions are doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t matter if the answers are right or wrong. If the human interrogator cannot tell the difference between a human and a machine, it has passed the test.
How does it account for lots of humans being really dumb though?
Well, that’s sorta the point. Do machines think? They have knowledge and logic, but not insight or creativity. But do humans have those things? Or are we just really advanced pattern recognition machines? Turing tests demonstrated that it is really our imperfections that make us recognizable as humans. And if machines can be better at distinguishing between humans and machines, what is the virtue of “thinking”? Why is that better than “computing”?