| That has nothing to do with why turing proposed it; nor does it have anything to do with general intelligence. This is just pseudoscience. There's no scientific account of the capacities of a system with intelligence, no account of how these combine, no account of how communicative practices arise, etc. None. Any such attempt would immediately expose the "test" as ridiculous. General intelligence arises as skillful adaptive control over one's environment, through sensory-motor concept aquistion, and so on. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can emit text tokens in the right order to fool a user about whether the machine is a man or a woman (turing's actual test). Nor does it have anything to do with whether you can fool a person at all. No machine whose goal is to fool a user about the machine's intelligence has thereby any capacities. Kinda, obviously. Turing's test not only displays a gross lack of concern to produce any capacities of intelligence in a system; as a research goal, it's actively hostile to the production of any such capacities. Since it is trivial to fool people; this requires no intelligence at all. |
This isn't a generally accepted definition or process.
And indeed it seems to preclude people like Stephen Hawkins who had little control over his environment (or to be pedantic, people who had similar conditions from birth).