Reverse Turing test section. Since Turing test judges are sometimes presented with genuinely human subjects, as a control, it inevitably occurs that a small proportion of such control subjects are judged to be computers. This is considered humorous and often embarrassing for the subject. This situation may be described literally as the human "failing the Turing test", for a computer (the intended subject of the test) achieving the same result would be described in the same terms as having failed. The same situation may also be described as the human "failing the reverse Turing test" because to consider the human to be a
Turing test list of mechanical rules, without thinking or having a mind at all. John Searle has argued that external behaviour cannot be used to determine if a machine is "actually" thinking or merely "simulating thinking." His Chinese room argument is intended to show that, even if the Turing test is a good operational definition of intelligence, it may not indicate that the machine has a mind, consciousness, or intentionality. (Intentionality is a philosophical term for the power of thoughts to be "about" something.) Turing anticipated this line of criticism in his original paper, writing: In practice, the test's results can easily