Testing Turing's five minutes, parallel-paired imitation game

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider Turing's two tests for machine intelligence: the parallel-paired, three-participants game presented in his 1950 paper, and the “jury-service” one-to-one measure described two years later in a radio broadcast. Both versions were instantiated in practical Turing tests during the 18th Loebner Prize for artificial intelligence hosted at the University of Reading, UK, in October 2008. This involved jury-service tests in the preliminary phase and parallel-paired in the final phase. Design/methodology/approach – Almost 100 test results from the final have been evaluated and this paper reports some intriguing nuances which arose as a result of the unique contest. Findings – In the 2008 competition, Turing's 30 per cent pass rate is not achieved by any machine in the parallel-paired tests but Turing's modified prediction: “at least in a hundred years time” is remembered. Originality/value – The paper presents actual responses from “modern Elizas” to human interrogators during contest dialogues that show considerable improvement in artificial conversational entities (ACE). Unlike their ancestor – Weizenbaum's natural language understanding system – ACE are now able to recall, share information and disclose personal interests.

Some implications of a sample of practical Turing tests

A series of imitation games involving 3-participant (simultaneous comparison of two hidden entities) and 2-participant (direct interrogation of a hidden entity) were conducted at Bletchley Park on the 100th anniversary of Alan Turing’s birth: 23 June 2012. From the ongoing analysis of over 150 games involving (expert and non-expert, males and females, adults and child) judges, machines and hidden humans (foils for the machines), we present six particular conversations that took place between human judges and a hidden entity that produced unexpected results. From this sample we focus on features of Turing’s machine intelligence test that the mathematician/code breaker did not consider in his examination for machine thinking: the subjective nature of attributing intelligence to another mind.

Human misidentification in Turing tests

This paper presents some important issues on misidentification of human interlocutors in text-based communication during practical Turing tests. The study here presents transcripts in which human judges succumbed to theconfederate effect, misidentifying hidden human foils for machines. An attempt is made to assess the reasons for this. The practical Turing tests in question were held on 23 June 2012 at Bletchley Park, England. A selection of actual full transcripts from the tests is shown and an analysis is given in each case. As a result of these tests, conclusions are drawn with regard to the sort of strategies which can perhaps lead to erroneous conclusions when one is involved as an interrogator. Such results also serve to indicate conversational directions to avoid for those machine designers who wish to create a conversational entity that performs well on the Turing test.

Effects of lying in practical Turing tests

Interpretation of utterances affects an interrogator’s determination of human from machine during live Turing tests. Here, we consider transcripts realised as a result of a series of practical Turing tests that were held on 23 June 2012 at Bletchley Park, England. The focus in this paper is to consider the effects of lying and truth-telling on the human judges by the hidden entities, whether human or a machine. Turing test transcripts provide a glimpse into short text communication, the type that occurs in emails: how does the reader determine truth from the content of a stranger’s textual message? Different types of lying in the conversations are explored, and the judge’s attribution of human or machine is investigated in each test.

A Novel Range Test

In a range test, one party holds a ciphertext and needs to test whether the message encrypted in the ciphertext is within a certain interval range. In this paper, a range test protocol is proposed, where the party holding the ciphertext asks another party holding the private key of the encryption algorithm to help him. These two parties run the protocol to implement the test. The test returns TRUE if and only if the encrypted message is within the certain interval range. If the two parties do not conspire, no information about the encrypted message is revealed from the test except what can be deduced from the test result. Advantages of the new protocol over the existing related techniques are that it achieves correctness, soundness, °exibility, high e±ciency and privacy simultaneously.