LYCOS RETRIEVER 
Turing Test: Humans
built 279 days ago
The Turing Test is circular: what it fails to detect cannot be “intelligence” or“humanity”, since many humans would fail The Turing Test. Indeed, "since one of the players must be judged to be a machine, half the human population would fail the species test".
Source:
Basically, the Turing Test just consists of a machine behaving as a human impersonator. If it can fool humans into thinking it is human, then the machine is considered intelligent. Basically the Turing Test is like the old saying, "if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck (and tastes like duck), then it's a duck".
Source:
The Turing Test was developed during the 1950's by a man by the name of Alan Turing. Basically, it is a test for artificial intelligence. Turing concluded that a machine could be seen as being intelligent if it could "fool" a human into believing it was human.
Source:
Regarding the Turing Test: it involves interrogation of an anonymous entity, to determine based on its responses whether the entity is human. The underlying premise is that if the entity can provide enough depth to stand up to interrogation, it can pass for human.
Source:
A test devised by pioneering AI researcher Alan Turing to determine whether or not an AI is "strong"; that is, whether or not it is capable of behaving like a human. As described by Turing, the test consists of an AI and a human being siting in separate rooms. A researcher sits separate from both of them in a different room. The researcher does not know which room houses which entity, yet he can communicate freely with both the AI and the human. If the researcher is incapable of differentiating between the human and the AI, then the AI has "passed" the Turing Test.
Source:
[P]assing or failing a Turing test turns out to not be entirely an objective matter. For instance, in the apocryphal legends of Eliza there is no missing that this simple program passed the test. But instead of honestly scoring the win to the program, instead of saying Eliza won, it was said the human lost. And that will always be the case; if ever there is a program that seems to win a Turing test it will be deemed that it wasn’t a legit win for the program but a failure on the part of the human who “somehow should have known better.” (Having a little trouble finding a link to above mentioned apocrypha. In short, developer left Eliza running on terminal, supervisor came to use terminal, mistook Eliza for a maddeningly inquisitive chat buddy of the developer, called developer in the middle of the night. “If it isn’t true it should be.”) The reason the Turing test falls apart conceptually is this notion of testing and the changes in evaluative strategy, in the production and interpretation schmes of the tester, that come from defining a situation as a test, versus a program’s actual ability to perform.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
Humans