Untitled

Saygın, Ayşe Pınar; Çiçekli, İlyas; Akman, Varol

doi:10.1023/a:1011288000451

Cited by 234 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since its first publication, the TT has been discussed within and across academic disciplines (Saygin, Cicekli, & Akman, 2001). Following these discussions, many other versions of the TT have been developed (e.g.…”

Section: Methods Of Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following these discussions, many other versions of the TT have been developed (e.g. Harnad, 1991;Watt, 1996), but their ultimate purpose has always been machine-centred, meaning that their objective has been to assess, judge, and validate the computational intelligence of the machines used in the tests (Saygin et al, 2001). In contrast, the VAIG is human-centred, meaning that it uses the TT's underlying concept of an imitation game as a probing tool to elicit genuine perceptions of a machine's humanoid as well as non-humanoid characteristics.…”

Section: Methods Of Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this set-up, the interrogating party is told that there is a human who can remotely control DVA 1 or DVA 2. Sources: a adapted from Saygin et al (2001), b compiled by the authors.…”

Section: Methods Of Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Alexa, What Are You? Exploring Primary School Children’s Ontological Perceptions of Digital Voice Assistants in Open Interactions

Festerling¹,

Siraj²

2020

Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's children grow up in an environment that is increasingly characterized by digital voice assistants (DVAs), such as Alexa, Siri, or the Google Assistant. This paper argues that any attempt to investigate children's interactions with, and perceptions of, DVAs should be based on the theoretical grounds of an ontological framework that considers children's genuine understanding of what it means to be human and what it means to be a machine. Based on focus groups and a gamified data collection design, our empirical inquiry applied qualitative methods to explore primary school children's (n = 27, age range: 6-10 years, average age: 8.6 years) open interactions with DVAs. In particular, our focus was on how DVAs were embedded in children's general ontological belief system, and how children interpreted certain aspects of DVAs' interactive capabilities as being genuinely humanoid or non-humanoid. On the one hand, our findings suggest that children's interactions with DVAs might be more an end in itself than a means to an end, meaning that children primarily interact with DVAs for the sake of engaging excitement instead of using the devices' utilitarian functionalities. On the other hand, we found that children in our sample held firm ontological beliefs about the distinct nature of humans and machines, whilst interpreting certain aspects of DVAs' interactive capabilities as being genuinely humanoid (e.g., non-responsiveness, delayed responses, inaccuracy) and non-humanoid (e.g., permanent responsiveness, promptness, accuracy, limited conversational capacities, lack of common sense, standardized responses) at the same time.

show abstract

Section: Methods Of Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods Of Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alexa, What Are You? Exploring Primary School Children’s Ontological Perceptions of Digital Voice Assistants in Open Interactions

Festerling¹,

Siraj²

2020

Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tester is asked to determine if the being in the other room is a human (pretending to be someone else) or a computer (pretending to be a human). Saygin, Cicekli, and Akman (2000) provide a fascinating history of the Turing test. In recent years, the Loebner prize contest has been held to compare chatbots which attempt to convince judges that they are human.…”

Section: Imagining a Vr Turing Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape

Pan

Hamilton²

2018

British J of Psychology

532

346

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As virtual reality (VR) technology and systems become more commercially available and accessible, more and more psychologists are starting to integrate VR as part of their methods. This approach offers major advantages in experimental control, reproducibility, and ecological validity, but also has limitations and hidden pitfalls which may distract the novice user. This study aimed to guide the psychologist into the novel world of VR, reviewing available instrumentation and mapping the landscape of possible systems. We use examples of state‐of‐the‐art research to describe challenges which research is now solving, including embodiment, uncanny valley, simulation sickness, presence, ethics, and experimental design. Finally, we propose that the biggest challenge for the field would be to build a fully interactive virtual human who can pass a VR Turing test – and that this could only be achieved if psychologists, VR technologists, and AI researchers work together.

show abstract

“…Formal semantics works quite well with expressions where time and place are clearly expressed and we know the meanings and referents of all the expressions composing the sentence. Problems arise with indexicals and demonstrative expressions, that is with context dependent expressions like "I", "you", "he", "now", "today", "this", "that" and 4 The point is that Turing Test could have been considered "successful" even with Eliza, if a very "naive" person might believe Eliza is a real person; but this is based on a "trick" and should be rejected (on the Turing test not being a trick see also Harnad, 2000; on Eliza being too naïve to enter the Loebner Prize, see Saygin, Cicekli, & Akman, 2000). The Loebner Prize judges are a bit more sophisticated (even if sometimes ignorant).…”

Section: The Context Argument: Detailsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Updating the Turing Test Wittgenstein, Turing and Symbol Manipulation

Penco¹

2012

OJPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I present an argument against the feasibility of the Imitation Game as a test for thinking or language understanding. The argument is different from the five objections presented by Turing in his original paper, although it tries to maintain his original intention. I therefore call it “the Sixth Argument” or “the Argument from Context”. I show that – although the argument works against the original version of the imitation game – it may suggest a new version of the Turing Test, still coherent with the idea of thinking and understanding as symbol manipulation. In a new form, the main idea which lies behind the original Imitation Game remains untouched by the criticism of Searle’s Chinese room argument and suggest a possible implementation which avoids some of the shortcomings of the original Turing Test

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 234 publications

References 84 publications

Alexa, What Are You? Exploring Primary School Children’s Ontological Perceptions of Digital Voice Assistants in Open Interactions

Alexa, What Are You? Exploring Primary School Children’s Ontological Perceptions of Digital Voice Assistants in Open Interactions

Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape

Updating the Turing Test Wittgenstein, Turing and Symbol Manipulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About