Turing Test

What sense of intelligence does Turing have in mind?

Intelligence without intentionality. A thinking machine but has no aboutness

Suppose that a future version of ChatGPT can develop models of the world, plan, make decisions, solve difficult math problems, and write novels. Suppose that a judge who is also an expert on how these machines work can discriminate between these machines and humans on the basis of her knowledge of how the currently available machines work. What should Turing say about this case given his other commitments? 

In this case, the judge is too discriminating. Turing concedes defeat of the necessary condition (if a machine things, it would pass the TT). It seems intuitive to say that this version of ChatGPT can think (solves problems, makes decisions, figures things out), however, only because of the judge, it does not pass the TT. Turing says that machines can act in a way that would be described as thinking, yet still very different than how humans think. Therefore, he concedes defeat of the necessary conditions: X thinks → it would pass the test

Turing would argue that what matters is the output, what the machine does, rather than how the machine does it, and that the judge should discriminate on their evaluation of the output, ignoring or without knowledge

(Something thinks ↔ it would pass the test. Say whether the objection is relevant to the → part of the claim or to the ← part of the claim)

An intelligent machine might believe that if it were to pass the Turing Test, people would take it apart to see how it worked. So it might intentionally fail.

Objection is to the → part of the claim (something thinks but does not pass the test)

(Something thinks ↔ it would pass the test. Say whether the objection is relevant to the → part of the claim or to the ← part of the claim)

Suppose the ELIZA program was augmented by a much larger library of canned responses and as a result was thought to be intelligent even by judges who are wise

Objection is to the ← part of the claim (machine passes the TT, but clearly is a blockhead/has no thinking or intelligent capabilities)

(Something thinks ↔ it would pass the test. Say whether the objection is relevant to the → part of the claim or to the ← part of the claim)

An intelligent cave person might be very good at telling men from women in the imitation game, but nonetheless hopeless at telling people from machines because of lack of familiarity with technology

Objection is to the ← part of the claim (if the judge has no way ti discern, then the fact that the machine passes the test means nothing about whether the machine is thinking)