Neike Taika-Tessaro
Archon
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 126
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: Decree #0002: On §1.1 (Turing Test, Individuality) |
 |
|
Law
(1) A Turing Test as by constitution will only be performed if there is cause for doubt. Using the terms of the consitution: A Turing Test is only necessary if Individuality must be verified.
(2) To be considered an Individual by Dark Arcadian right, the subject of comparison will be the halting problem. In detail, this means that if an applicant can solve the halting problem to the degree of a human, they will be considered an Individual.
(3) The decision of whether the halting problem was sufficiently solved compared to a human will be felled in manner of a Turing Test, in that an uninvolved third party will be asked to compare the applicant's solution and other dummy solutions with what they would expect of a human. If the applicant's solution is amongst those identified as human, Dark Arcadia recognises the Individuality of the applicant.
(4) Much care must be taken to ensure that the assignment has been understood. Communicative factors such as language or medium must be considered, and the assignment given in an appropriate form.
Notes
The format of the solutions is up to the discretion of their judge. It should be as far removed from natural language as possible, to avoid communicative bias, much as the assignment is given with as little communicative bias as possible. This is not a bare, communicative Turing Test and should not become one.
The halting problem as a whole is undecidable. The test would naturally ask the question the halting problem poses for all programs for specific programs instead.
Reasoning
A classic Turing Test is prone to erring considerably. There are several variations of it, most notably the subject matter expert Turing test, which is very close to what we are trying to achieve with infusing our own version with the halting problem, with the subject matter at hand being logical thought.
Not all humans are very good at logical thought, of course, but consider the following program:
| Code: | | if (this_program_halts) then continue; else halt; |
Most computers would fail to see that the above is undecidable, but most humans, providing they are given the above program in a way they can understand it (which can be complex for people with one or several concurrent forms of sensory deprivation, dyslexics, or those that have not mastered English, to name a few), will instantly see the impossibility.
This Turing Test, like all Turing Test variants, is also capable of erring, but is much closer to what we wish to achieve than the classical Turing Test regarding communication. The halting problem introduces reflective qualities into classical logic, both which should be present in any sentient applicant, whereas the classical Turing Test can be failed even by intelligent human beings if the judge has enough scepticism, or passed too easily by computer programs if not. More specifically, the halting problem offers a problem that requires a high level of reflection, but does not require the assignment itself to be complex, and its answers are one of the set {halts, does not halt, undecided}, making analysis of the same simple and basically language- and medium-neutral.
See also: Halting problem. |
|
