Will Pavia
Win tickets to every event at Wembley Stadium in 2009

Eugene Goostman is a 13-year-old boy from Odessa, Ukraine, the son of a talk-show host and a gynaecologist, who keeps a guinea pig called Bill in his bedroom and likes the science fiction novels of Sergei Lukyanenko and Kurt Vonnegut.
He is also a work of fiction, a software program written by a bio-scientist from St Petersburg and a finalist in a contest to find the world’s first thinking computer, staged yesterday at Reading University.
His task was to convince judges, in five minutes of conversation, that he was a human being who really had read Slaughterhouse Five and could plausibly shoot the breeze about it and any other topic under the sun.
I was one of those judges, and yesterday, I was fooled. I mistook Eugene for a real human being. In fact, and perhaps this is worse, he was so convincing that I assumed that the human being with whom I was simultaneously conversing was a computer.
This was the 18th Loebner Prize, a talent contest for programs like Eugene, that follows rules sketched out by Alan Turning, the British mathematician and founder of modern computer science, in a seminal paper in 1950.
In Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Turing suggested that a computer could be said to be thinking if, in a text-based conversation, it was impossible to distinguish its responses from those of a human. He predicted that by the end of the century, computers would have a 30 per cent chance of being mistaken for a human being in five minutes of text-based conversation.
Hence yesterday’s Turing Test, in which human judges simultaneously conversed with an "artificial conversational entity" such as Eugene and a "hidden human" for five minutes. If more than 30 per cent of judges mistook the programme for the human, the programme would have passed Turing’s test, thus beginning a new age of thinking machines.
There were high hopes that one or more of the finalists would achieve this feat yesterday when I took my seat at a terminal alongside four fellow human judges. In a classroom down the corridor, a human being and a computer program were ready for my opening question.
"Let’s cut straight to the point," I wrote. "Are you the human or the computer?"
One replied: "What do you think?" The other wrote: "Some of my friends are programmers…"
The first was the sort of thing I had been told to expect from a conversation program. Like politicians, they tend to respond to questions with other questions or else ignore the point entirely.
The second respondent was playful, implying in his answer that he might well be a computer program whose only friends were programmers. When I pointed this out, the response was that my opinion was very interesting, and by the way, where did I live? He was from Ukraine, which explained his occasionally faulty English. He complained that the Loebner Prize was "weird", which certainly suggested that he was here in person, and perhaps that he had met Dr Hugh Loebner, the American businessman who sponsors the prize, who was at that very moment stalking the corridors in a flaming orange shirt, telling people how he had patented the percentage sign for tipping on credit card restaurant receipts.
The other correspondent was undoubtedly a robot. I asked it for its opinion on Sarah Palin, and it replied: ‘Sorry, don’t know her.’ No sentient being could possibly answer in this way.
I proceeded triumphantly on through three more parallel conversations, with the three other finalists and their corresponding ‘hidden humans’, certain in each case that I could tell one from the other, and afterwards repaired to the classroom down the hall, which housed the computer programs and the humans.
There I was introduced to the charming Ukranian computer program that had fooled me, the creation of Vladimir Veselov, 39, a bio-scientist from St Petersburg. I saw the vast database it accessed: there was the file on Vonnegut, there a list of plausible responses on the subject of Eminem.
There too, was Rollo Carpenter, 43, a computer scientist from Devon, whose program Jabberwacky has spent years developing a conversational style via millions of web chats. Some of its conversational partners confide in it every day; one conversation, with a teenaged girl, lasted 11 hours.
I walked into the corridor, no longer certain of anything. There was a man serving drinks at a table. Opposite him, there was a drinks machine, branded with the word Ribena. I thought I could tell which was the machine, but how could I be sure anymore?
The Turing Test was not passed yesterday. It was a close run thing: Elbot, the eventual winner of this year’s prize, with whom I had conversed about the authorship of telephone directories, was confused for a human by a quarter of the judges.
Professor John Barnham, of Birmingham University, who certainly appeared to be human, said the applications of such plausible machines lie in commercial sales, in companions for the elderly, and in the intelligence services, where machines are needed sift through millions of documents and discern their meaning.
Mr Carpenter is currently developing an artificial insurance salesman, a selling machine, that will be ever harder to distinguish from the charming professionals in that industry.
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2005 / 55
£59,500
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Special Offers now available
At the new sophisticated
Encore Las Vegas Resort!
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
The article has one typo. Maybe the author was trying to prove that he is actually human
Richard, Philadelphia, USA
Yeah, I played with Elbot a little. It was entertaining trying to throw it easy enough questions to make it sound human. It might be able to pass for a human trying to make me believe it was a machine or maybe a politician.
And BTW, Sorry, dont know her. is certainly a valid human response.
Dodd, Dallas,
Clearly the next question to follow that would be "But you do know of her, don't you?" That question would probably easily have clarified the "Humaness" of the other end. I'm also curious as to who is asking the questions. Most science guys I know can barely pass for human socially as it is.
Dodd, Dallas,
This test would be more legitimate if the programmers and the people involved spent less time trying to "trick" each other. If you go to the websites of any of these programs and just try to have a normal conversation, it becomes obvious within a couple of responses just how poor they are.
Paul Kwill, Moab, USA
In tests of artificial intelligence, the means used by the programs matter. It's not so clear here as in the case of chess, but nevertheless, the results are a testament to the skill of the programmers, not to the intelligence of the machines.
andrew raybo, Irvington, usa
The thing I find interesting is that the Turing Test isn't a well formalized test but it often gets treated like one. For example 30% is just a figure that Turing thought machines would meet by some arbitrary date it doesn't say anything about 30% being some threshold for intelligence.
Jguy, Toronto,
Regards Tom's remark - If something that "appears" to be intelligent is indistinguishable from something that "is" intelligent - Is there a difference ?
Richard, Huntingdon, England
What I'm a little more concerned with is the point at which Sarah Palin is replaced by a robot version. Either it has happened already or her style is deliberately set up to make the transition indistinguishable. Fear 2012.
An, London,
If the picture at the top of the page is a sample of the conversation then this is just another hopeless attempt at strong A.I.
Besides, appearing intelligent is certainly not proof that one is able to think. Hence; the Turing Test should have been scrapped decades ago.
Tom, Lowton , England
Judging from the chat screen at the top of the text, this does not speak well of AI, but rather does speak all too bad about the Times reporter.
Dan Wright, Buenos Aires,
why must a machine pass through the test of a conversation in order to be considered human.
i know plenty of humans unable to hold together a coherent conversation, let alone many social situations,
i would suppose creation and abstraction are more a defining thought of artificial intelligence
felicity logan-price, newton abbott, small heron
The young lady needed to talk. Either (or both) she lived in an uncaring environment, or she did not trust the people she knew. Like passengers on an airplane who will tell you their life story, speaking to a sympathetic stranger will often open the flood gates.
S. Itzkowitz, Indian Wells, U.S.A.
@Andrew Woodhead: You probably are. But in Sarah Palin's case I'm less sure.
Peter Chylewski, Basel, Switzerland
I would argue that the real Sarah Palin does _not_ pass this test. Her interview answers are random babble of talking points.
http://mypalininterview.com demonstrates it pretty well.
Jonah, Chicago, usa
Although quite impressive,
does anyone else think its quite possibly morally wrong to fool a teenage girl for 11 hours just to see if a computer program can, and do gain valuable "experience"?
This careless advance seems to be entering a gray area which I believe we should enter more thoughtfully
jobin gharkhani, Dresden, Germany
I hadn't heard of what or who Sarah Palin is...am I not a sentient being?
Andrew Woodhead, Leeds, United Kingdom
It's not fair having you talk to a Computer Scientist. Many of them are indestinguishable from machines in conversation.
Julian Manning, Tavira,
perhaps politicians should have to pass this test before standing for election.
AndyN, Reading,
chimps and other primates have simulated human speech, via a version of american sign language.
ben r, soton,
I'm amazed that people are mentioning Mr Obama's supposed links with terrorsits as being important. Were you aware that George Bush's first company was started in partnership with Bin Laden's big brother - you gotta love the blinkered vision of the American right
Adam, edinburgh,
Playing language games is only one aspect of thinking. The Turing test is a test for simulation of human interaction not a test of self-awareness, creativity, individuality etc. A chimpanzee is much more intelligent than any computer so far, it just can't simulate human speech.
Paul Freeman, London, England