Reverse Turing test apparent to a human, and the simulation of the kinds of errors that conversational programs typically make. Arguably unlike the conventional Turing test, this is most interesting when the judges are very familiar with the art of conversation programs, meaning that in the regular Turing test they can very rapidly tell the difference between a computer program and a human acting normally. The humans that perform best (some would say worst) in the reverse Turing test are those that know computers best, and so know the types of errors that computers can be expected to make in conversation. There is
Turing test could pass the Turing test simply by manipulating symbols of which they had no understanding. Without understanding, they could not be described as "thinking" in the same sense people do. Therefore, Searle concludes, the Turing test cannot prove that a machine can think. Much like the Turing test itself, Searle's argument has been both widely criticised and highly endorsed. Arguments such as Searle's and others working on the philosophy of mind sparked off a more intense debate about the nature of intelligence, the possibility of intelligent machines and the value of the Turing test that continued through the 1980s and