Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2511.20699

In Defense of the Turing Test and its Legacy

Bernardo Gonçalves
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Considering that Turing's original test was co-opted by Weizenbaum and that six of the most common criticisms of the Turing test are unfair to both Turing's argument and the historical development of AI.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bernardo Gonçalves. 2025-11-24. In Defense of the Turing Test and its Legacy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20699

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Cross-Section of Stock Returns and AI Exposure

We study 380 trillion tokens of realized AI consumption across more than four hundred LLMs. We build a high-frequency AI factor and show that a long-short strategy based on firms' AI exposure earns significantly positive returns. The average strategy return is larger based on intensive, frontier-oriented AI consumption but smaller based on casual or open-weight usage. Internationally, the return spread is significant in developed countries but insignificant in emerging markets. Examining occupational AI exposure, we find more positive exposure in occupations intensive in nonroutine interactive tasks and more negative exposure in those intensive in nonroutine analytical tasks.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

What fidelity metrics miss: a structural check on synthetic educational data

Secondary use of educational records is increasingly mediated by platforms that share a differentially private synthetic version of a dataset and validate specific findings against the real data on request. The synthetic version is evaluated by comparing summary statistics of each variable, yet reported confirmation rates suggest that such comparisons do not predict which findings survive. We propose a structural check: the number of connected components of a weekly proximity graph over learners, tracked across a term. Across four annual cohorts of lower-secondary study-habit logs, the synthetic versions reproduced the level of this quantity and the shape of the weekly partition, but its variation across the term was between 2.6 and 4.9 times smaller than in the real data at a common working point, without exception, and those changes fell in different weeks: the synthetic cohorts single out the term's examination weeks and the real cohorts do not. We also show that a routine rule for setting the graph threshold makes naive comparisons between two datasets invalid, and illustrate this with an error of our own. The real curves are also distinguishable from marginal-preserving surrogates of themselves in all four cohorts, where three of the four synthetic ones are not, a comparison that needs no real data; these differences trace to what the generator was given.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

AI-Moderated Interviews for Market Research and Digital Twins Calibration

AI-moderated interviews are emerging as a scalable market-research method for generating consumer insights and building consumer "digital twins." Yet it remains unclear whether they match human-moderated interviews or improve on simpler, static data collection methods. In a pre-registered, between-subjects study (N = 317) with three industry partners, we compare AI-moderated (N = 139), human-moderated (N = 24), and static interviews (N = 154). AI moderation matches human moderation in depth, covers more themes, and, holding budget constant, recovers significantly more customer needs than human moderation or static interviews. However, participants sound more emotionally engaged when speaking to a live human. We then create digital twins using interview data and evaluate each twin against the participant's own held-out responses to six real-world marketing stimuli. We find that digital twins created from AI-moderated interviews predict consumer responses better than demographics-only personas. However, the additional richness from AI moderation does not translate into better quantitative predictions compared to static interviews. By analyzing open-ended thoughts generated from humans versus their twins, we find that prediction errors are connected both to differences in (self-reported) thinking styles between twins and humans, and to gaps between training and validation data (i.e., asking questions that are too far out of distribution).

cs.CY↗