Editing Kevin Warwick (section)

===Turing test===
[[File:Kevin Warwick.jpg|thumb|upright|Warwick in February 2008]]
[[File:Kevin Warwick 2011d.jpg|thumb|upright|Warwick in June 2011]]
Warwick participated as a ''Turing Interrogator'' on two occasions, judging machines in the 2001 and 2006 [[Loebner Prize]] competitions, platforms for an "imitation game" as devised by [[Alan Turing]]. The 2001 Prize, held at the [[Science Museum, London|London Science Museum]], featured Turing's "jury service" or one-to-one [[Turing test]]s and was won by [[A.L.I.C.E.]] The 2006 contest staged "parallel-paired" Turing tests at [[University College London]] and the winner was [[Rollo Carpenter]]. Warwick co-organised the 2008 Loebner Prize at the University of Reading, which also featured parallel-paired Turing tests.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.reading.ac.uk/15/research/ResearchReviewonline/featuresnews/res-featureloebner.aspx |title=Can a machine think? – Results from the 18th Loebner Prize contest |work=[[University of Reading]] |access-date=14 October 2019 |archive-date=14 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191014110902/https://www.reading.ac.uk/15/research/ResearchReviewonline/featuresnews/res-featureloebner.aspx |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In 2012, he co-organised with Huma Shah a series of Turing tests held at [[Bletchley Park Museum|Bletchley Park]]. According to Warwick, the tests strictly adhered to the statements made by Alan Turing in his papers. Warwick himself participated in the tests as a hidden human.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Warwick, K, Shah, H and Moor, J|title=Some Implications of a Sample of Practical Turing Tests|journal=Minds and Machines|volume=23|issue=2|pages=163–177|year= 2013|doi=10.1007/s11023-013-9301-y|s2cid=13933358}}</ref> Results of the tests were discussed in a number of academic papers.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Warwick, K|author2=Shah, H|title=Good Machine Performance in Turing's Imitation Game|journal=IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games|volume=6|issue=3|pages=289|doi=10.1109/TCIAIG.2013.2283538|year=2014|s2cid=16283359|url=http://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/items/564c70a1-cc2b-4740-943b-cbd1f6bb3e31/1|access-date=4 July 2019|archive-date=17 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417140236/https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/items/564c70a1-cc2b-4740-943b-cbd1f6bb3e31/1/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author1=Warwick, K |author2=Shah, H|title=Effects of Lying in Practical Turing Tests|journal=[[AI & Society]]|volume=31|pages=5–15|doi=10.1007/s00146-013-0534-3|year=2014|s2cid=18207951}}</ref> One paper, entitled "Human Misidentification in Turing Tests", became one of the top three most-downloaded papers in the ''[[Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence]]''.

In June 2014, Warwick helped Shah stage a series of Turing tests to mark the 60th anniversary of Alan Turing's death. The event was performed at the [[Royal Society]], London. Warwick regarded the winning chatbot, "[[Eugene Goostman]]", as having "passed the Turing test for the first time" by fooling a third of the event's judges into making an incorrect identification, and termed this a "milestone".<ref name="uor-success">{{cite web | url=http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx | title=Turing Test success marks milestone in computing history | publisher=University of Reading | date=8 June 2014 | access-date=8 June 2014 | archive-date=8 June 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140608201600/http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx | url-status=live }}</ref> A paper containing all of the transcripts involving Eugene Goostman entitled "Can Machines Think? A Report on Turing Test Experiments at the Royal Society", has also become one of the top three most-downloaded papers in the ''Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence''.<ref>Warwick, K. and Shah, H., Can Machines Think? A Report on Turing Test Experiments at the Royal Society, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, DOI:10.1080/0952813X.2015.1055826, 2015</ref>

Warwick was criticised in the context of the 2014 Royal Society event, where he claimed that software program Eugene Goostman had passed the Turing test on the basis of its performance. The software successfully convinced over 30% of the judges who could not identify it as being a machine, on the basis of a five-minute text chat. Critics stated that the software's claim of being a young non-native English speaker weakened the spirit of the test, as any grammatical and semantic inconsistencies could be excused as a consequence of limited proficiency in the English language.<ref name=buzzfeed>[https://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/no-a-computer-did-not-just-pass-the-turing-test No, A Computer Did Not Just Pass The Turing Test] BuzzFeed, 9 June 2014</ref><ref name=techdirt>[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07284327524/no-supercomputer-did-not-pass-turing-test-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml No, A 'Supercomputer' Did NOT Pass The Turing Test For The First Time And Everyone Should Know Better] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610124659/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07284327524/no-supercomputer-did-not-pass-turing-test-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml |date=10 June 2014 }}. Techdirt (9 June 2014). Retrieved 14 May 2016.</ref><ref>[http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx Turing Test Success Marks Milestone in Computing History] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140608201600/http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx |date=8 June 2014 }}, University of Reading, 7 June 2014</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/09/scientists-disagree-over-whether-turing-test-has-been-passed |title=Scientists dispute whether computer 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test |date=9 June 2014 |first1=Ian |last1=Sample |first2=Alex |last2=Hern |newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> Some critics also claimed that the software's performance had been exceeded by other programs in the past.<ref name=buzzfeed /><ref name=techdirt /> However, the 2014 tests were entirely unrestricted in terms of discussion topics, whereas the previous tests referenced by the critics had been limited to very specific subject areas. Additionally, Warwick was criticised by editor and entrepreneur [[Mike Masnick]] for exaggerating the significance of the Eugene Goostman program to the press.<ref name=techdirt />