I think of the Turing test not as an actual experiment that can be performed, but more of a first crack at a working definition of intelligence.
Sort of like Shannon said "Let's leave 'meaning' to the psychologists, and define 'information' based on properties inherent in the message itself" and ended up revolutionizing information theory.
Turing is saying "Stop bickering over 'comprehension' and 'intent'. Can we just agree that if a machine can fool an intelligent human being into thinking it is also an intelligent human being - based only on its information output rather than its physical shape - that machine deserves the label 'intelligent'?"
And I agree. Philosophers can argue about the internal state of that mind all they want. But if I can converse and crack jokes with my new computer buddy, I have no qualms about calling him intelligent. At least until he blue screens and finally fails the test by spitting out a hex dump.
Sort of like Shannon said "Let's leave 'meaning' to the psychologists, and define 'information' based on properties inherent in the message itself" and ended up revolutionizing information theory.
Turing is saying "Stop bickering over 'comprehension' and 'intent'. Can we just agree that if a machine can fool an intelligent human being into thinking it is also an intelligent human being - based only on its information output rather than its physical shape - that machine deserves the label 'intelligent'?"
And I agree. Philosophers can argue about the internal state of that mind all they want. But if I can converse and crack jokes with my new computer buddy, I have no qualms about calling him intelligent. At least until he blue screens and finally fails the test by spitting out a hex dump.