Talk:Reverse Turing test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

I think the link to CAPTCHA should be more prominent. I came to this article thinking that it was about CAPTCHAs. But I didn't see anything about them so I almost concluded nobody had written anything about them yet. Or am I the only person who thinks 'Reverse Turing test' when I see a CAPTCHA in a registration form (since I had never heard of the word CAPTCHA before)? —TylerRick

Computer success means human failure in Turing test[edit]

If a human being is judged to be a computer, then presumably the computer was judged to be the human, meaning the computer passed. So if the computer passed, the human failed. Am I missing something? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The Turing test (as currently performed) is rarely done on a 1:1 ratio as you described. So there is the possibility of multiple winners. -- trlkly 12:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This article neeeds more work[edit]

No original research    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Citing sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources needs more work see the wikipidia articles about how to do this ilija.milcinoski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilija.milcinoski (talkcontribs) 11:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Verifying that a strong AI isn't a hoax?[edit]

Would you use this article's name for a hypothetical case where someone claims to have created an AI as intelligent as a human, and its IM/email conversation is humanlike enough that the main issue becomes verifying that there isn't secretly an actual human at the other end? I'm not sure how you'd even do that -- maybe look at "typing" speed? --Shay Guy (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition(s)[edit]

It seem to me there's more than one. E.g. Ben Goertzel; Cassio Pennachin (2007). Artificial General Intelligence. Springer. p. 8. ISBN 978-3-540-68677-4.  says "Certainly, humans would fail a “reverse Turing test” of emulating computer programs – humans can't even emulate pocket calculators without unreasonably long response delays." 188.27.81.64 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, the def used commonly for CAPTCHA-style problems is more involved. E.g. the paper "Pessimal Print: A Reverse Turing Test" by Allison L. Coates, Henry S. Baird, and Richard J. Fateman cites the following definition (from Blum et al.):

  • the test’s challenges can be automatically generated;
  • the test can be taken quickly by human users;
  • the test will accept virtually all human users (even young or naive users) with high reliability while rejecting very few;
  • the test will reject virtually all machine users; and
  • the test will resist automatic attack for many years even as technology advances and even if the test’s algorithms are known (e.g. published and/or released as open source).

188.27.81.64 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reverse Turing test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)