The android Turning Test can tell us whether a robot is effectively a person
Alan Turing was recently announced as the face of the new £50 note for his code breaking contributions in World War II and laying the foundations of computer science. However, Turing’s work still challenges and inspires many people working today, especially those in robotics and Artificial Intelligence.
In 1950 he asked, “Can machines think?”, and came up with a test that researchers still turn to as a way of judging whether a computer could be considered truly intelligent in the same way as humans. But, coming from an age where autonomous robots were only just in their infancy, the Turing Test was only designed to assess artificial brains, not a complete artificial person.
Now that we have increasingly realistic looking androids, we need a 21st-century version of the test. My colleagues and I have designed a “Multimodal Turing Test” to judge a machine’s appearance, movement, voice and what we call embodied artificial intelligence (EAI). This is a measure of how well Artificial Intelligence is integrated with a robotic body in order to expresses a personality.
This means we can systematically compare a humanoid robot to a living counterpart. In this way, we can ask the question: “Can we build robots that are perceptually indistinguishable from humans?”
Turing argued that if a computer program could deceive more than 30% of humans into believing it was sentient in real-world conditions, then it is effectively indistinguishable from the human mind – it can think. A computer was able to pass this test in 2014. That doesn’t mean there’s no work to do to create true Artificial Intelligence. Far from it. But the Turing Test gives us a benchmark to judge our progress.
Many scholars think creating a humanoid robot that is indistinguishable from a real human is the ultimate goal of robotics. Yet there’s currently no standard way of evaluating how lifelike androids are, so it’s impossible to benchmark this development.
Like Turing, we’re not arguing that a robot transforms into an organic being when it can replicate the conditions of a human. But if a robot appears, behaves and functions in a way that is indistinguishable from a human being in real-world conditions, then it can effectively be thought of as the same as a human.
One of the biggest challenges for lifelike robot builders is overcoming what’s known as the “uncanny valley”. This refers to a stage of development when robots become closer in appearance to humans but are actually more offputting to people because they are not quite right. The issue is that conventional methods of assessing the problem aren’t nuanced enough to determine exactly why a robot makes people uncomfortable.
These approaches tend to compare the robot as a whole with a human, rather than breaking it down into its component features. For example, a slight miscalculation in the movement of the eye of an otherw