Blockchain has been touted as an emerging technology with the potential to disrupt every industry. The decentralized system of blockchain technology is antithetical to the inherently centralized system of operation in use today. By employing a form of decentralized database architecture, the record and authentication of certain operations are contingent upon the agreement of several parties rather than a single authority.
Philosophical background[ edit ] The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind.
But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do.
Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the Turing test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion.
According to dualism, the mind is non-physical or, at the very least, has non-physical properties  and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms.
According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially.
In his book, Language, Truth and LogicAyer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: In other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test. Alan Turing[ edit ] Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence AI research in It is not difficult to devise a paper machine which will play a not very bad game of chess.
A, B and C. A and C are to be rather poor chess players, B is the operator who works the paper machine. Two rooms are used with some arrangement for communicating moves, and a game is played between C and either A or the paper machine.
C may find it quite difficult to tell which he is playing. Turing chooses not to do so; instead he replaces the question with a new one, "which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.
In this game both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they are the other.
Huma Shah argues that this two-human version of the game was presented by Turing only to introduce the reader to the machine-human question-answer test.
We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think? In this version, which Turing discussed in a BBC radio broadcast, a jury asks questions of a computer and the role of the computer is to make a significant proportion of the jury believe that it is really a man.
If a keyword is not found, ELIZA responds either with a generic riposte or by repeating one of the earlier comments. A group of experienced psychiatrists analysed a combination of real patients and computers running PARRY through teleprinters.
Another group of 33 psychiatrists were shown transcripts of the conversations. The two groups were then asked to identify which of the "patients" were human and which were computer programs. Searle noted that software such as ELIZA could pass the Turing test simply by manipulating symbols of which they had no understanding.
Without understanding, they could not be described as "thinking" in the same sense people do. Therefore, Searle concludes, the Turing test cannot prove that a machine can think. Loebner Prize The Loebner Prize provides an annual platform for practical Turing tests with the first competition held in November The Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in MassachusettsUnited States, organised the prizes up to and including the contest.
As Loebner described it, one reason the competition was created is to advance the state of AI research, at least in part, because no one had taken steps to implement the Turing test despite 40 years of discussing it.
This highlighted several of the shortcomings of the Turing test discussed below: The winner won, at least in part, because it was able to "imitate human typing errors";  the unsophisticated interrogators were easily fooled;  and some researchers in AI have been led to feel that the test is merely a distraction from more fruitful research.
Learning AI Jabberwacky won in and Early Loebner Prize rules restricted conversations: Each entry and hidden-human conversed on a single topic,  thus the interrogators were restricted to one line of questioning per entity interaction.
The restricted conversation rule was lifted for the Loebner Prize. Interaction duration between judge and entity has varied in Loebner Prizes. In Loebnerat the University of Surrey, each interrogator was allowed five minutes to interact with an entity, machine or hidden-human.
Between andthe interaction time allowed in Loebner Prizes was more than twenty minutes. Player C, through a series of written questions, attempts to determine which of the other two players is a man, and which of the two is the woman.
Player A, the man, tries to trick player C into making the wrong decision, while player B tries to help player C. Figure adapted from Saygin, Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C who plays the role of the interrogator is of either sex.
In the imitation game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B, and can communicate with them only through written notes.Can a machine display general intelligence?
Is it possible to create a machine that can solve all the problems humans solve using their intelligence? This is the question that AI researchers are most interested in answering. It defines the scope of what machines will be able to do in the future and guides the direction of AI research.
In terms of the practical question of AI ("Can a machine display general intelligence?"), some versions of computationalism make the claim that (as Hobbes wrote): Reasoning is nothing but reckoning; In other words, our intelligence derives from a form of calculation, similar to arithmetic.
How Blockchain Can Transform Artificial Intelligence To facilitate machine-to-machine communication, there is an expected level of trust.
There is a subfield of AI known as Artificial. It can be argued that at least at one level, the brain is a highly capable pattern recognition machine.
Turing, in particular, had been tackling the notion of machine intelligence since at least and to demonstrate as well a characteristic aesthetic sensibility—both of which qualities are on display in this snippet of dialogue which Turing has imagined: Human intelligence vs. intelligence in general. The professor said: "All statements that include the word 'God' are false." Is the professor right or wrong? (A paradox requiring thinking about statements, not just their contents, as being objects of analysis. Can a machine think so meta?) If the sky is the sea, what does that make birds? (Can a machine extend a metaphor?) Today, I feel sky blue. Can A Machine Display General Intelligence? Is it possible to create a machine that can solve all the problems humans solve using their intelligence?This is the question that AI researchers are most interested in answering.
We can recognize the face of a friend in a crowd in an instant. Turing, in particular, had been tackling the notion of machine intelligence since at least and to demonstrate as well a characteristic aesthetic sensibility—both of which qualities are on display in this snippet of dialogue which Turing has imagined: Human intelligence vs.
intelligence in general. - Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence - Can A Machine Display General Intelligence? You specifically mention a Turing Test.
Passing the test requires interaction by the machine with a human that is indistinguishable from human interaction.