Between this and the Ars Technica article[1], I'm still confused: Was this a regular Turing test? Who was the humans that the machines tested against? As far as I recall, the model is two participants, one human, one machine -- the judges communicate with each through writing -- and if the machine "tests" as human more than 30% of the time, it's considered a "win" at the imitation game (the machine has successfully imitated being human). Both the machine and the human are supposed to try to appear human.
(And this is extended from another form of the imitation game, where the goal is to imitate being male, where participants are male and female)
Have anyone been able to find any more concrete information (and perhaps some transcripts)? If not I hope someone will set up a new test, and invite "Eugene" to participate.
"Huma Shah and Kevin Warwick, who organised the 2008 Loebner Prize at Reading University which staged simultaneous comparison tests (one judge-two hidden interlocutors), showed that knowing/not knowing did not make a significant difference in some judges' determination. Judges were not explicitly told about the nature of the pairs of hidden interlocutors they would interrogate. Judges were able to distinguish human from machine, including when they were faced with control pairs of two humans and two machines embedded among the machine-human set ups. Spelling errors gave away the hidden-humans; machines were identified by 'speed of response' and lengthier utterances."
]
(And this is extended from another form of the imitation game, where the goal is to imitate being male, where participants are male and female)
Have anyone been able to find any more concrete information (and perhaps some transcripts)? If not I hope someone will set up a new test, and invite "Eugene" to participate.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/eugene...
[edit: We may be given some hints from the wikpedia article on the turing test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Imitation_Game_vs....
"Huma Shah and Kevin Warwick, who organised the 2008 Loebner Prize at Reading University which staged simultaneous comparison tests (one judge-two hidden interlocutors), showed that knowing/not knowing did not make a significant difference in some judges' determination. Judges were not explicitly told about the nature of the pairs of hidden interlocutors they would interrogate. Judges were able to distinguish human from machine, including when they were faced with control pairs of two humans and two machines embedded among the machine-human set ups. Spelling errors gave away the hidden-humans; machines were identified by 'speed of response' and lengthier utterances." ]