{"347341":{"#nid":"347341","#data":{"type":"news","title":"Georgia Tech Professor Proposes Alternative to \u0027Turing Test\u0027","body":[{"value":"\u003Cp\u003EA Georgia Tech professor is offering an alternative to the celebrated \u201cTuring Test\u201d to determine whether a machine or computer program exhibits human-level intelligence. The Turing Test \u2013 originally called the Imitation Game \u2013 was proposed by computing pioneer Alan Turing in 1950. In practice, some applications of the test require a machine to engage in dialogue and convince a human judge that it is an actual person.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ECreating certain types of art also requires intelligence observed \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/research.cc.gatech.edu\/eilab\/mark-riedl\u0022\u003EMark Riedl\u003C\/a\u003E, an associate professor in the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Tech, prompting him to consider if that might lead to a better gauge of whether a machine can replicate human thought.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u201cIt\u2019s important to note that Turing never meant for his test to be the official benchmark as to whether a machine or computer program can actually think like a human,\u201d Riedl said. \u201cAnd yet it has, and it has proven to be a weak measure because it relies on deception. This proposal suggests that a better measure would be a test that asks an artificial agent to create an artifact requiring a wide range of human-level intelligent capabilities.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ETo that end, Riedl has created the Lovelace 2.0 Test of Artificial Creativity and Intelligence.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFor the test, the artificial agent passes if it develops a creative artifact from a subset of artistic genres deemed to require human-level intelligence and the artifact meets certain creative constraints given by a human evaluator. Further, the human evaluator must determine that the object is a valid representative of the creative subset and that it meets the criteria. The created artifact needs only meet these criteria but does not need to have any aesthetic value. Finally, a human referee must determine that the combination of the subset and criteria is not an impossible standard.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Lovelace 2.0 Test stems from the original Lovelace Test as proposed by Bringsjord, Bello and Ferrucci in 2001. The original test required that an artificial agent produce a creative item in such a way that the agent\u2019s designer cannot explain how it developed the creative item. The item, thus, must be created in such a way that is valuable, novel and surprising.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERiedl contends that the original Lovelace test does not establish clear or measurable parameters. Lovelace 2.0, however, enables the evaluator to work with defined constraints without making value judgments such as whether the artistic object created surprise.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERiedl\u2019s paper, available \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/arxiv.org\/pdf\/1410.6142v1.pdf\u0022\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E, will be presented at \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.math.unipd.it\/~frossi\/BeyondTuring2015\/\u0022\u003EBeyond the Turing Test\u003C\/a\u003E, an Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) workshop to be held Jan. 25 to 29, 2015, in Austin, Texas.\u003C\/p\u003E","summary":null,"format":"limited_html"}],"field_subtitle":"","field_summary":[{"value":"\u003Cp\u003EA Georgia Tech professor is offering an alternative to the celebrated \u201cTuring Test\u201d to determine whether a machine or computer program exhibits human-level intelligence. The Turing Test \u2013 originally called the Imitation Game \u2013 was proposed by computing pioneer Alan Turing in 1950. In practice, some applications of the test require a machine to engage in dialogue and convince a human judge that it is an actual person.\u003C\/p\u003E","format":"limited_html"}],"field_summary_sentence":[{"value":"Mark Riedl develops the Lovelace 2.0 test to assess a computer\u2019s capacity for human-level intelligence through its ability to create rather than to converse or deceive"}],"uid":"27998","created_gmt":"2014-11-19 10:56:48","changed_gmt":"2016-10-08 03:17:34","author":"Brittany Aiello","boilerplate_text":"","field_publication":"","field_article_url":"","dateline":{"date":"2014-11-20T00:00:00-05:00","iso_date":"2014-11-20T00:00:00-05:00","tz":"America\/New_York"},"extras":[],"hg_media":{"207411":{"id":"207411","type":"image","title":"Mark Riedl","body":null,"created":"1449179988","gmt_created":"2015-12-03 21:59:48","changed":"1475894864","gmt_changed":"2016-10-08 02:47:44","alt":"Mark Riedl","file":{"fid":"196774","name":"mark_riedl-_georgia_tech.png","image_path":"\/sites\/default\/files\/images\/mark_riedl-_georgia_tech_0.png","image_full_path":"http:\/\/hg.gatech.edu\/\/sites\/default\/files\/images\/mark_riedl-_georgia_tech_0.png","mime":"image\/png","size":337656,"path_740":"http:\/\/hg.gatech.edu\/sites\/default\/files\/styles\/740xx_scale\/public\/images\/mark_riedl-_georgia_tech_0.png?itok=6oaG0bjH"}}},"media_ids":["207411"],"groups":[{"id":"47223","name":"College of Computing"}],"categories":[],"keywords":[{"id":"110381","name":"artificial creativity"},{"id":"2556","name":"artificial intelligence"},{"id":"110371","name":"Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence"},{"id":"110361","name":"Lovelace 2.0"},{"id":"66281","name":"Mark Riedl"},{"id":"114601","name":"Press Release"},{"id":"110351","name":"Turing Test"}],"core_research_areas":[{"id":"39521","name":"Robotics"}],"news_room_topics":[],"event_categories":[],"invited_audience":[],"affiliations":[],"classification":[],"areas_of_expertise":[],"news_and_recent_appearances":[],"phone":[],"contact":[{"value":"\u003Cp\u003EPhillip Taylor\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENews and Media Relations Manager\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ca href=\u0022mailto:ptaylor@cc.gatech.edu\u0022\u003Eptaylor@cc.gatech.edu\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E","format":"limited_html"}],"email":["ptaylor@cc.gatech.edu"],"slides":[],"orientation":[],"userdata":""}}}