CFP - Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT) - Reconsidering the Turing Test for the 21st Century Symposium

Call for Paper

Towards a Comprehensive Intelligence Test (TCIT)

Reconsidering the Turing Test for the 21st Century Symposium

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~aayesh/TuringTestRevisited/

At AISB2010 Convention

Leicester, UK

29th March – 1st April 2010

2010 marks the 60th anniversary of the publication of Turing’s paper, in which he outlined his test for machine intelligence. Turing suggested that the possibility of genuine machine thought should be replaced by a simple behaviour-based process in which a human interrogator converses blindly with a machine and another human. Although the precise nature of the test has been debated, the standard interpretation is that if, after five minutes interaction, the interrogator cannot reliably tell which respondent is the human and which the machine then the machine can be qualified as a 'thinking machine'. Through the years, this test has become synonymous as 'the benchmark' for Artificial Intelligence in popular culture. However, new advances in cognitive sciences and consciousness studies suggest it may be useful to revisit this test. The aim of this symposium is to reconsider the Turing Test in the light of current advances in Artificial Intelligence, cognitive systems, and other competitions that provide insights into different types of intelligence, with the goal of outlining a new test - or suite of tests - that may more usefully be employed to evaluate 'machine intelligence' at the dawn of the 21st century.

DEADLINES

Submission deadline for all formats: 11 January 2010

Late and by arrangement submissions deadline (e.g. competitions): 20 January 2010

Acceptance notification: 11 February 2010

Camera ready copies: 1 March 2010

Convention: 29 March - 1 April 2010


Submission is through easychair web site:

http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=tcit2010


FORMATS

Full research papers: up to 10 pages

Short Position papers: up to 4 pages

Posters: a single sheet, preferably A1 or A2 size.

System Demonstrations: descriptive A4 sheet and software.

Competition proposal: up to 2 pages, this should go beyond an extended abstract and specify the competition goals and give its operational details.

Competition performance report: up to 2 pages.

Running a competition for demonstration: this is by arrangement only. Please contact the symposium chair (Aladdin Ayesh: aayesh@dmu.ac.uk) to agree on details.



ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Aladdin Ayesh (De Montfort,Symposium Chair)

Mark Bishop (Goldsmith College, London)

Luciano Floridi (Hertfordshire/Oxford)

Kevin Warwick (Reading)



PROGRAM COMMITTEE

Selmer Bringsjord (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

Bernd Carsten Stahl (De Montfort)

James Moor (Dartmouth College)

John Preston (Reading)

Ray Tuner (Essex)

Robb Wilcox (NRG)

La révolution numérique considérée comme une quatrième révolution

Patrick Peccatte La révolution numérique considérée comme une quatrième révolution, par Luciano Floridi
http://blog.tuquoque.com/post/2009/11/03/revolution-numerique-quatrieme-revolution

How information becomes knowledge

Semantic Information and The Network Theory of Account (forthcoming in Synthese)

The article addresses the problem of how semantic information can be upgraded to knowledge. The introductory section explains the technical terminology and the relevant background. Section two argues that, for semantic information to be upgraded to knowledge, it is necessary and sufficient to be embedded in a network of questions and answers that correctly accounts for it. Section three shows that an information flow network of type A fulfils such a requirement, by warranting that the erotetic deficit, characterising the target semantic information t by default, is correctly satisfied by the information flow of correct answers provided by an informational source s. Section four illustrates some of the major advantages of such a Network Theory of Account (NTA) and clears the ground of a few potential difficulties. Section five clarifies why NTA and an informational analysis of knowledge, according to which knowledge is accounted semantic information, is not subject to Gettier-type counterexamples. A concluding section briefly summarises the results obtained.