The Turing Test: Not enough?

 

     Of late, there have been declarations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) becoming sentient. And even louder protestations that it isn't true. Within computer science, there has been an assumption that this can be evaluated by use of what is called "The Turing Test". Created by Alan Turing, a British mathematician and considered to be a founding person in AI, in 1950 -- it was initially called an imitation test. The idea was that if you were unable to distinguish the conversation of a program from the conversation of a person the program could be considered sentient.

     This was in 1950. People conversed on a regular basis in 1950. The criteria of being able to distinguish a person from a program, by use of analysis of conversation, seemed reasonable. Forward the clock to 2022 and that criteria no longer seems to be sufficient. For those who say that AI has reached the criteria set out by Alan Turing -- they are probably correct. There are programs that speak language BETTER than an average person in that language. According to the Turing test, they are sapient. But, according to our current experiences of programs, machine learning, and AI -- it seems that it would be hard to consider them to have had a passing grade for sentiency.

     Which leaves us to the question, once again, of what is sentience? Some of the recent declarations indicate the appearance of emotions, desires. Are these what distinguish sentiency from mechanical responses? Of course, one can move to the religious, spiritual, and theological and say that what we are searching for is a soul. But, if it is a matter of a soul then we are in even worse shape for evaluation. There is no consensus as to what a soul is. If it does exist, where does it reside? If it does exist, is it immortal or connected to something associated with a living mind and only in existence as long as that mind and body exist?

     Science fiction and fantasy -- those genres of "what if" -- have approached such a subject for many decades. But general agreement, even less the matter of consensus, is nowhere to be found.

     If we use the criteria of a desire for survival and a desire for progeny then the state of AI has not been achieved. But, if those are to be criteria, should a goal of reaching such be striven for? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein reflects many matters: human hubris, the difficulty of accepting others, fear of the stranger (xenophobia). But, as seen in the dystopia of the Terminator series, a desire for survival and progeny coordinated with a superiority in speed and execution may prove to be an ultimate competitor to the human species.

     So, let's move back to the start. If we use the Turing Test, alone, as a criterion for sentiency -- we are probably there. If that is not sufficient, what qualities should be measured -- and how should they be measured? And, in some situations, perhaps creating that which meets such criteria may be something that would be a mistake to achieve?

Artificial Intelligence: Beyond the Turing test

     In 1950, the British mathematician Alan Turing gave an answer to the question -- how can you tell if a machine is intelligent? His (paraphrased) response was "if you cannot tell the difference between a human answering questions and a machine answering questions then it has achieved intelligence". This Turing Test is not universally accepted but it is probably the most widely used foundation of answering the question of what is Artificial Intelligence (AI).
     Alan Turing's test was based on the idea of an interviewer and a responder. Someone asks a question and someone answers a question. This led to a series of experiments in computer programs that simulated (or imitated) "normal" human interviewer/questioner situations. It might be between a therapist and patient or doctor and patient or a student and professor/teacher. Naturally, there had to be a way to make it impossible to physically tell whether it was a machine or not. It also had, built into the test, the requirement of equivalent skill in understanding and speaking/responding in a human language.
     In today's world, computer programs have advanced beyond simple questions and answers. We have computer programs beating humans in Chess, and Go, (and other games). The Turing Test might not be considered to apply to these situations but many people would consider this a form of AI. We have computer program/systems that make use of pattern recognition to identify potential suspects or targets of drones. So far, the final decision is still made by humans but stories/films such as The Minority Report indicate a possibility of the machines making final decisions even about what might happen.
     That is the "line in the sand" for people thinking about AI. Who makes the final decisions? Is it a human (with all of her, or his, faults and experience) or a machine (who, at heart, is still the results of a programmer's abilities and recognition of exceptions)? Isaac Asimov, in his Three Laws of Robotics, had the AI programming include self-restraints as to what the program/robot could do, or could not do, without undergoing self-destruction.
     Speed and safety. The primary reason for computer programs is NOT that they can do things that humans cannot do; the primary reason is that they do things much, much, faster (and reproducibly). So, if you design an AI that handles the coordination and operation of a nuclear reactor, you want the program to be able to respond very quickly. Putting a human into the decision path slows everything down. Who has the final responsibility?
     The same question exists within the possibility of self-driving automobiles and trucks. It is likely that AI programs can already drive as well as an average driver -- assuming that all of their sensors work properly (they can detect objects and highway lines and sounds and bouncing balls and the cars and buildings around them, ...). Certainly, in another five or ten years, AI self-driving programs will be able to control a vehicle much safer (and more rationally -- no road rage potential) than humans. But they would be making the final decision.
     If a self-driving AI makes a mistake or a necessary decision that costs lives, who has the responsibility? The programmer? The company that built the vehicle? The owner of the vehicle? What happens if the self-driving car is involved in an accident with a human-driven car? Is there presumption of innocence on the part of the self-driving car?
     In all these cases, the program and machine are taking the place of the human. If you keep them "behind the curtain" there may be no way to identify whether they are human or machine. They PASS the Turing Test. But, when the curtain is removed, what is the final verdict? Who/what has the responsibility? Who/what makes the final decision?