The Turing alternatives

Alternative Turing tests

Ya’ll heard of the Turing test for measuring machine intelligence. Seems kinda odd, doncha think, that after 50 years we ain’t never thought of any other ways to test machine intelligence.

Same thing occurred Shane “Hind” Legg at the IDSIA (Istituto Dalle Molle di Studi sull’Intelligenza Artificiale) in Switzerland and his buddy Marcus so they delved into the topic. Turns out, various researchers have come up with interesting machine intelligence tests which have been ignored by the community. So Shane and Marcus and have listed them all for ya on the arXiv.

Here are some highlights:

Compression: a machine intelligence has to compress a corpus of knowledge. This can only be done effectively when the machine has some understanding of the knowledge which allows it to extract some kind of overall structure. So a measure of compression can be interpreted as a measure of understanding

Linguistic complexity: measuring a machine’s conversational ability using techniques developed for tracking the complexity of children’s language

Competitive games: a broad definition of intelligence is the ability to do well at a wide range of tasks. So one idea is to test machines against each other on a wide range of games

The paper contains other tests so feel free to take a look.

Ref: Tests of Machine Intelligence

4 Responses to “The Turing alternatives”

  1. For another test see the OAIU book.

    The proof that physics, a universe, would be impossible in any dimension but 3+1 (strangely agreeing with reality) is clear and unavoidable. Stunning is that a change of any number in any of the formulas by even 1 would make any dimension, thus any universe, impossible.

    That the universe allows, and has, galaxies, stars, planets, even life, thinking life, that all the conflicting conditions do not conflict and are met, is beyond stunning.

    Click on

    Science blog

    Political blog

    Books (details below)

    Our Almost Impossible Universe:
    Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely

    Group Theoretical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

    Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group

    Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory
    geometry, language, logic

    Quantum Field Theory, Conformal Group Theory, Conformal Field Theory:

    Group Theory: An Intuitive Approach

    Point Groups, Space Groups, Crystals, Molecules

    Our Almost Impossible Universe:
    Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans
    extraordinarily unlikely
    R. Mirman
    iUniverse, inc. 2006

    May be ordered from booksellers or
    1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

    For special prices for class adoption, other discounts and information contact; 800-288-4677, ext. 501.

    An exploration of the precise conditions required for the existence of humans in the universe. … the author does an admirable job delineating the laws of physics without becoming too bogged down in complicated jargon, and he maintains a sense of wonder about the unique and random nature of the universe. He repeatedly celebrates our highly improbable achievements as a species, marveling at our ability to use the language of abstract mathematics to unravel the mysteries of existence. … the prevailing tone of the narrative is clear and confident, marked by a meticulous attention to detail. A[n] … often fascinating journey through the history of the universe and mankind. — Kirkus Discoveries

    Existence, of the universe, structure, life, intelligence, is unthinkable, really impossible. Incredibly, intriguingly, we are here. From the universe itself to humans, that we are, what we are, what we have accomplished, we find implausibility upon implausibility making us as reasoning beings (at least almost) unique in the universe, quite fortunate, but quite dangerous. SETI is nonsense. Reasons range from mathematically rigorous — unavoidable — to extremely strong to highly likely. These force the question: does the word God exist?

    This discussion is aimed at all interested in not only science, but in the world in which we (strangely can and do) live, the laws of nature, in what humanity is and why. It has in addition much material of value to specialists, and because of its breadth and coherence, its attempts to provoke thought, it, besides being a popularization, should be an excellent text for courses in science for non-scientists and as a (perhaps necessary) supplement for science courses.

    Existence is the greatest mystery, not only that it is but that it can be. Conditions are too many, too strict, too conflicting. Outlandishly we are, yet that we are impose upon us the responsibilities of loneliness. Horrendously our most basic need is to hate, hurt and kill, to horribly misuse that awesome, and likely unique, gift of intelligence — destroying, dishonoring, the most magnificent constituent of nature.

    The most elementary arithmetic, just counting, should make a universe impossible. Why then does one actually exist? Just counting, not even concepts of numbers and arithmetic are needed, just nothing, but in that nothing there is so much, so much that is so necessary. Nothing, but that nothing gives everything, existence itself. Why can, why should, our invention, mathematics, tell nature that it can be, what it must be? Is it counting or is it physics? Is it physics or just mere numbers? Yet mathematics extends almost infinitely beyond numbers, our mathematics that we create. That is the strangest part of being human: we can — and do — create rules for nature. And nature obeys. There is no reason that we should even have mathematical talent, no reason for it to have developed. Humans have immense, but quite unreasonable, talents not only in mathematics — totally unreasonable but true. Why? And they work.

    We look, we see, but do not notice. The nothingness that is space much requires noticing — the opulent structure of the emptiness is essential, even for just a universe. There is so much to see, especially because there is nothing to see. We should learn, and we should look.

    What do we mean when we say that space is 3+1-dimensional, that the space part of space is 3-dimensional, and that there is also another dimension, time? Couldn’t we say that space is 3-dimensional and that time is an independent dimension? Why do we even say that space is 3-dimensional rather then space having 3 independent dimensions? And why is temperature not like time? So we have to consider how to turn around, even between space and time. If space is 3+1-dimensional some distances, and masses, are real, some imaginary. There must be a boundary: the boundary cone, unfortunately called the light cone. Light and gravity (these only) travel on it and only on it. Why?

    Atrocities nurtured by twisted views of the universe emphasize that they are not merely wrong but deeply malevolent, deeply malignant, and the overriding moral imperative of correct understanding and acceptance of the realities of nature. What are these realities, what are physical objects including people? Not particles, not waves, meaningless words here. However unpleasant it is, we must accept what all objects, all people, must be, whether we or nature wishes it so. Thus nature must be quantum mechanical, probability, uncertainty, are inherent, unavoidable. Yet it is causal, quite sensible, quite understandable even elementary. And physics must have axioms: physical objects. Quantum mechanics emphasizes how dangerous language is.

    It is simple to show that physics, a universe, could not exist in any dimension but 3+1, little more than counting. Yet only because of a set of numeral accidents is 3+1 possible, thus that any dimension so any universe is possible at all. Change any number, even by 1, then nothing, no universe could exist. But that universe allowed by arithmetic, barely much more than numbers, is the unique one allowing structure, galaxies, stars, atoms, certainly life. And these requirements have nothing to do with ones leading to the dimension. Satisfying any one does not mean any others can be, certainly not that all can be, that all are. So many conditions, it is just a freak that any are satisfied, thus extremely implausible that all can be, all are. Yet they are. Life is impossible, it really cannot exist.

    Why is the universe not concentrated in an immensely small region, or is not huge and practically empty, with nothing but a few useless particles? Why can it have galaxies, stars, light, people? This analysis of a broad range of laws of physics (and mathematics) amazes, that our universe can be possible, and more that it is true, and is what it is. These laws, what they are, their form, how many, the numbers, all the very, very little details — if there were even the most minute difference then essentially nothing. Laws must prevent a realistic universe, yet actually allow it.

    Because it is so special, and in so many ways. Yet it is not just that it is special but that it is possible at all seems so implausible. Physical laws, and the vagaries of chance, conspire to allow it — quite, quite difficult — and then to make it true, and thus very special.

    To emphasize our implausibility and our peril, our dangerousness, we must consider the often immensity of the most minute, so the moral and ethical implications of mathematics. From the most fundamental laws of nature to the distribution of dirt on asteroids, the slightest change and we would not exist, perhaps intelligence would not exist in nature. Chance has been very kind. We are children of chance.

    Life is a precarious balance between altruism and selfishness. The necessity for both, from the beginning, emphasizes how difficult it is for life to arise. A review of the complexity, the intelligence, the linguistic ability, required of even the simplest cells, of what life is, shows that it, even the most primitive, is very likely extremely rare. We see also the absurdity of the concepts of genetic determinism, nature vs. nurture, even survival of the fittest. Looking at the huge number of potential forms of life, and of the small number of actual ones, emphasizes the immense improbability of a specific type, like one with intelligence, especially humans. We should be thankful to the universe for allowing life (seen clearly dreadfully hard), and to chance for actually creating it, and humans.

    Intelligence is rare — is it toxic? These arguments, including what nerves and brains are like, show strongly why it is, why it is so disadvantageous. The evolution of humans, even intelligence, emphasizes the huge number of accidents, the luck, needed. It is clear why only (placental) mammals have even hope of thought: MOTHERS.

    The vast implausibility, yet actuality, of nature and of humans seem to have implications. Can there be any? To study this we must consider not science, not religion, but language. That is definitive. Inability and refusal to accept reality, to accept what humans are and our place in nature, and our egomania, megalomania, helping to cause these, has led to vast evil. Science is rejected, since it shows that evolution leads to morality, and because people cannot tolerate the truth about reality, about themselves, causing great suffering, much abominations.

    Our universe is a strange and wonderful place, almost impossible, as are we. But we do not care about these great gifts given us by the unbelievable beneficences of chance. We apply them, not gratefully, but to destroy and diminish, to show our contempt for that life likely so rare, perhaps unique. Our gifts are used not to enhance this life with such incredible talents that we are part of, but to satisfy what is so clearly the most basic human needs, to hate and to kill — hatred, this cancer of the human soul, is fundamental. We are part of a universe of great rationality and grandeur, exceedingly kind and exceedingly cruel, that has made us, and made us what we are. We should be thankful, yet are contemptuous.

    Laws of physics are (perhaps completely) consequences of geometry. Nature, God and we are all governed by geometry. Some of those that we are most aware of, like conservation of energy (with obvious major effects on daily life), are required by geometry (and its monotony). Why? How does geometry enforce these; what do they mean? And how does it restrict turning around?

    See how to impress your friends with your mastery of the secrets of the universe without really knowing anything, especially by misusing language. There are many reasons for the strange stupidity of the errors about quantum mechanics, including often saying it requires that which it forbids (as with wave-particle duality and the vacuum). A major one is that words are not only wrong, meaningless, misleading, but say just the opposite of what we think they say. Quantum mechanics makes complete sense; often language makes none and makes it seem that quantum mechanics (even nature in general) is weird. Language is very dangerous. Weirdness is a confession of incompetence, or dishonesty. It is an interesting psychological question why so many physicists feel so compelled to flaunt their incompetence and complete misunderstanding of their own field.

    Our world is vastly complicated. Biological objects, especially humans, have developed ways of coping, thus telling much about biology and us. In their most formalized forms they are called science. Which are the best scientists: bacteria, trees, worms, bees or birds? Among humans, babies. For biology, even at its most elementary, science is necessary. What is science, what is a scientific theory, why? What is required of these? Why can a theory be indispensable even if absurd? We see that evolution is scientific; (blasphemous) proposed alternatives are nonsense.

    Physics is the most valuable liberal art, but too often quite poorly taught. Here we consider some rules for one aspect, problems. The educational system in general is too often not only poor, even counterproductive, but dishonest, unethical. Emphasis on this can help, but it is only a start.

    It is shocking to see what leaders of the “physics” community, from the top universities, whose work appears in the leading journals, are working on, supported by taxpayer money. Do “physicists” really believe that an object (including a “physicist”) can be in two places at the same time; that “physicists” are so extremely important that just by looking at something they cause the entire universe to split into many universes; that gravity can leak out of the universe; that our universe was started by “another universe” smashing into it (perhaps periodically); that part of the universe is rolled up into a tiny tube and that the dimension is actually 10 or 11 rather than the obvious (and necessary) 3+1; that 1 can have different values in different parts of the universe or at different times; that particles pop out of the vacuum to change solutions of equations; that the vacuum has energy; that a function (which depends on space so has different values at different points) equals a constant (which has the same value at all points); that they are melting the vacuum? Does the American Physical Society advocate that its member lie to Congress to get money, showing deep contempt for Congress, taxpayers, physics and honesty, or do they claim that they have crystal balls in their offices? Evidence is compelling. IS IT ALL A DELIBERATE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD? Taxpayers should be concerned.

    by R. Mirman

    Group Theory: An Intuitive Approach
    (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 1995)

    Group Theoretical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
    (Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 1995; republished by
    Classical physics is inconsistent, impossible, quantum mechanics probability, dimension 3+1, and spin-statistics coming from geometry, are necessary.

    Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group
    electromagnetism, gravitation, quantum mechanics, geometry
    (Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 1995; republished by
    Geometry requires general relativity, which is thus the quantum theory of gravity. Trivially the cosmological constant is 0 as are the reasons for gauge transformations and CPT.

    Point Groups, Space Groups, Crystals, Molecules
    (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 1999)

    Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory
    geometry, language, logic
    (Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2001; republished by
    Properties of (badly, misleadingly, named) quantum mechanics are required (by what?). Language, names, are dangerous. Waves, particles are meaningless. Weirdness comes only from incompetence and dishonesty. Properties of quantum mechanics and their reasons are necessary and clear.

    Quantum Field Theory, Conformal Group Theory, Conformal Field Theory: Mathematical and conceptual foundations, physical and geometrical applications (Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2001; republished by
    The conformal group is the largest invariance group of geometry. Group theory is richer than realized. The proton can’t decay, obviously. What is the significance of the mass level formula?

    Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, Inc., 2006)

    Backinprint is an imprint of iUniverse, Inc.,

    2021 Pine Lake Road, Ste. 100
    Lincoln, NE 68512
    1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)


  2. […] Revisiting the Turing test: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck (despite its positronic brain […]

  3. […] but what innovation could have occurred if incentives weren’t redirected in this manner? 8. Revisiting the Turing test: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck (despite its positronic brain […]