100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 10 pages.
The second is a combination of language and motor skills. In , Harnad proposes the “TotalTuring Test” (TTT), which requires a machine to possess both of these skill sets. As pointed out byHauser in , Harnad actually states in his paper that linguistic capability tends to be evidence ofmotor skills. Thus, the TTT is redundant: if a machine could pass the TT, he could pass the TTT,assuming Harnad’s conjecture is correct. In fact, Harnad goes so far to claim that body and mindare likely inseparable, so a test for only motor skills would also be redundant.6
6.893Katrina LaCurtsJust to address a misconception of the TT (that Harnad seems perhaps to have), nowhere inthe test did Turing say that linguistic skills were theonlyskills the machine would have. If bodyand mind are in fact inseparable, then yes, we will not be able to create intelligent machines thathave linguistic skills and not motor skills. But that is an implementation issue; it does not speakto a defect in the test.Finally, Schweizer  goes one step further than Harnad, claiming that machines shouldhave linguistic abilities, motor skills, and the ability, as a species, to create. He proposes the TTTT(“Truly Total Turing Test”), which requires an entire specifies of robots that evolve and create, andis in some sense attributing intelligence to a species, not to an individual. While that may be afine extension of the TT, it seems difficult to generate a species of robots that could pass the TTTTwithout starting with a single robot that could pass the TT.6.5Summary of These CriticismsTo summarize this section, most criticisms of language as it is used in the TT claim that languagedoes not capture all manners of intelligence. However, language is how we test for intelligence inhumans, and we arguably do a less thorough job of testing when we converse with a new humanthan we would with a new machine. Additionally, it is not clear that language cannot capture alltypes of intelligence, as evidenced by my argument against Michie  and Hauser’s  criticism ofHarnad . If, one day, we were to find a definite type of intelligence that could not be capturedby language, then yes, we may want to develop a new test for intelligence. But I would arguethat we must work on building intelligent machines before we can discover if this distinct typeof intelligence exists (in part because it will be difficult to isolate any portion of intelligence inhumans who already have linguistic abilities), and also that any new test for intelligence wouldlikely be a stepping stone on the way to passing the TT. After all, though it would be a greatachievement to pass this new intelligence test, our machine would likely be missing some keyintelligences thatarecaptured by the TT.