If you mean "in the context of a classical text-only real-time conversation Turing test" - that's fairly easy.
1: Show a lack of ability to create new models of abstract situations (emotional, interpersonal);
2: Show a lack of ability to integrate new themes into the conversation, and / or elucidate the relationship between the old theme and the new theme;
3: The oldie-but-goodie non-sequitur complete with lack of ability to refer to the non-sequitur statement in future statements: schizoid amnesia, on a far faster timescale than any human could accomplish without massive brain damage (one individual in particular who only has short-term memory formation but remembers most of what he experienced up to the injury is a sticker: He'd probably be very difficult to tell apart from a poor-quality chatbot script);
4: Inability to make interpersonal relationship statements that integrate social mores and manners to explain "quirks" - i.e. it has become fashionable lately to blanket-excuse one's rudeness by saying "Oh, Sorry: I Have Asperger's" - Which is a cop-out that a Turing test would try to use, as a response to someone expressing offense at an unknown's statement. How is that relevant? What part of the statement was rude? "Ah, I apologise for offending your sense of propriety; I know you are British and that the British rarely approach such a subject directly; I have socialisation difficulties and am, by habit, frank and direct."
5: Statements throughout the conversation being authored by more than one personality. Some Turing tests use stock phrases or sentences in response to specific situations. These are authored by more than a single author. It comes through as a lack of cohesive voice, as if reading a quotation book instead of a single piece.
--
In /person/, it would be an entirely different matter.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-18 02:45 pm (UTC)If you mean "in the context of a classical text-only real-time conversation Turing test" - that's fairly easy.
1: Show a lack of ability to create new models of abstract situations (emotional, interpersonal);
2: Show a lack of ability to integrate new themes into the conversation, and / or elucidate the relationship between the old theme and the new theme;
3: The oldie-but-goodie non-sequitur complete with lack of ability to refer to the non-sequitur statement in future statements: schizoid amnesia, on a far faster timescale than any human could accomplish without massive brain damage (one individual in particular who only has short-term memory formation but remembers most of what he experienced up to the injury is a sticker: He'd probably be very difficult to tell apart from a poor-quality chatbot script);
4: Inability to make interpersonal relationship statements that integrate social mores and manners to explain "quirks" - i.e. it has become fashionable lately to blanket-excuse one's rudeness by saying "Oh, Sorry: I Have Asperger's" - Which is a cop-out that a Turing test would try to use, as a response to someone expressing offense at an unknown's statement. How is that relevant? What part of the statement was rude? "Ah, I apologise for offending your sense of propriety; I know you are British and that the British rarely approach such a subject directly; I have socialisation difficulties and am, by habit, frank and direct."
5: Statements throughout the conversation being authored by more than one personality. Some Turing tests use stock phrases or sentences in response to specific situations. These are authored by more than a single author. It comes through as a lack of cohesive voice, as if reading a quotation book instead of a single piece.
--
In /person/, it would be an entirely different matter.