Talk:Loebner Prize

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Computer science Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

made this an ai stub

This article could really use fleshing out with descriptions of the state of the art and progress over the years. Since judges do occassionally get fooled here, there is a case that the Turing Test has been passed by some systems, which is significant to the debate about Strong AI --Jaibe 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fleshed out the requirements for the $25,000 prize

Although it has been traditional to state the requirements for the $25,000 prize (and by extension the $100,000 prize) as being merely to convince judges that a computer is a human, the structure of the competition makes this a misleadingly incomplete requirement. The judge knows that one entity is a computer and the other a human. Therefore in order to declare the computer to be the human the judge must also declare the human to be the computer. Stating this implicit requirement explicitly gives a clearer picture of what contestants in the competition are really up against, and raises the important question as to whether the competition can be won even in principle. This second requirement obviously being the harder of the two, leaving that requirement implicit misleads by omission. It also suggests that the Loebner Prize is not for passing the Turing Test but rather the very much harder Loebner Test. Vaughan Pratt 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turing actually originally phrases his test as a thought experiment where you are trying to determine which of two people (over a terminal) is a man and which is a woman. the same problem of misattribution holds --- you have to both believe the deceiver and disbelieve the honest person. I've seen a group of AI graduate students run this test as a part of a competition, and indeed this sort of failure was rare. One time two people were pretending to be male they were asked their tux measurements, and as it happened the woman knew hers and the man had never even owned a suit. The other time two people were pretending to be women, and they were asked if they were ready to have a baby, and the woman said "yeah sure, why not, I'm ready." No one believed any women present thought that, so she lost. So my point is, it's not impossible, but it is way less probable. You'd have to ask a question the human happened to have a very unlikely answer for, while the computer would most likely have the average answer down.--Jaibe 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==

I removed "First Turing Test" because (see Jaibe's comments above) others have run what claim to be Turing tests, so this gets into complicated arguments over definitions. At the least, it would need attribution. Also, clarified that the contest decides among chatterbots entered in the competition, not all those in the world--for the latter, the organizers would have to actively recruit as many bots as possible, not just call for entries. Vicki Rosenzweig 01:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misunderstanding the test circumstances

In the test one member of the jury uses one computer screen and one keyboard. There is one person (or program) on the other side to which the judge poses questions and the other side responses. So, there is no 2 screens at the same time for asking two competitors! (anyone can check the test conditions at the official homepage). Misibacsi 08:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, in the 2006 Prize at least, there were two boxes, left-hand & right-hand to each screen available to judges. Each side was linked, through Loebner's communication protocol, to an entity. Hence the machine was paired with a human - judge deciding which was which. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.133.54 (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contests since 2006 have have presented the judges with two identical screens, one controlled by a human, the other by a computer. In this respect the contest fully complies with Turing's description.Loebner (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)User:Loebner[reply]

Is this a joke?

I don't understand how anyone can be fooled. I've tried using Alice, elbot, etc. and they are all stunningly not human. Simple questions like "How fast is a train?" fool them all. Someone please explain how anyone could be fooled. Were the judges not allowed to choose the questions? 155.198.65.29 (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interacting with a system in isolation is not the same as textually engaging two unseen / unheard entities and using their responses to determine which is human and which is machine. Judges could ask whatever they wanted. See the BBC news video clip here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filosofee (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, the web-versions are simplified versions of the corresponding bot. 85.149.120.16 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Link

The automatic link to "Thomas Whalen", winner of the 1994 Lobener Prize Competition is directed to the wrong page. Thomas Whalen, the researcher who won the competition is not the same Thomas Whalen who was mayor of Albany. The Loebner Prize Winner does not have an entry in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.92.60.20 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]