Scheduled Commit

data/clustering_individual-f62bcad9-19c4-430b-a7ba-aa2bfeba99dc.jsonl

@@ -45,3 +45,7 @@
 {"tstamp": 1722435514.2423, "task_type": "clustering", "type": "chat", "model": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435514.1428, "finish": 1722435514.2423, "ip": "", "conv_id": "a193d913382d432b92f44480ac090c70", "model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "prompt": ["Pikachu", "Darth Vader", "Yoda", "Squirtle", "Gandalf", "Legolas", "Mickey Mouse", "Donald Duck", "Charizard", "If someone online buys something off of my Amazon wish list, do they get my full name and address?", "Package \"In Transit\" over a week. No scheduled delivery date, no locations. What's up?", "Can Amazon gift cards replace a debit card?", "Homesick GWS star Cameron McCarthy on road to recovery", "Accidently ordered 2 of an item, how do I only return 1? For free?", "Need help ASAP, someone ordering in my account", "So who's everyone tipping for Round 1?", "octagon", "rectangle", "Temple of Artemis", "Colossus of Rhodes", "Statue of Zeus", "Lighthouse of Alexandria", "Hanging Gardens of Babylon", "Pyramids of Giza", "brunette", "black", "blonde", "redhead", "gray", "auburn", "white", "soccer", "basketball", "tennis", "baseball", "cricket", "ruby", "topaz", "diamond"], "ncluster": 5, "output": "", "ndim": "3D (press for 2D)", "dim_method": "PCA", "clustering_method": "KMeans"}
 {"tstamp": 1722435539.6924, "task_type": "clustering", "type": "chat", "model": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435539.6166, "finish": 1722435539.6924, "ip": "", "conv_id": "dac9a2a0b997486cb92dbd5feed1b831", "model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "prompt": ["octagon", "rectangle", "Temple of Artemis", "Colossus of Rhodes", "Statue of Zeus", "Lighthouse of Alexandria", "Hanging Gardens of Babylon", "Pyramids of Giza", "brunette", "black", "blonde", "redhead", "gray", "auburn", "white", "soccer", "basketball", "tennis", "baseball", "cricket", "ruby", "topaz", "diamond"], "ncluster": 5, "output": "", "ndim": "3D (press for 2D)", "dim_method": "PCA", "clustering_method": "KMeans"}
 {"tstamp": 1722435539.6924, "task_type": "clustering", "type": "chat", "model": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435539.6166, "finish": 1722435539.6924, "ip": "", "conv_id": "2fd4247311744d0fade32bc19b4fc61f", "model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "prompt": ["octagon", "rectangle", "Temple of Artemis", "Colossus of Rhodes", "Statue of Zeus", "Lighthouse of Alexandria", "Hanging Gardens of Babylon", "Pyramids of Giza", "brunette", "black", "blonde", "redhead", "gray", "auburn", "white", "soccer", "basketball", "tennis", "baseball", "cricket", "ruby", "topaz", "diamond"], "ncluster": 5, "output": "", "ndim": "3D (press for 2D)", "dim_method": "PCA", "clustering_method": "KMeans"}
+{"tstamp": 1722435608.784, "task_type": "clustering", "type": "chat", "model": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435608.675, "finish": 1722435608.784, "ip": "", "conv_id": "f2463c866c4a4d6197bf9db3b2d764c4", "model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "prompt": ["octagon", "rectangle", "Temple of Artemis", "Colossus of Rhodes", "Statue of Zeus", "Lighthouse of Alexandria", "Hanging Gardens of Babylon", "Pyramids of Giza", "brunette", "black", "blonde", "redhead", "gray", "auburn", "white", "soccer", "basketball", "tennis", "baseball", "cricket", "ruby", "topaz", "diamond"], "ncluster": 5, "output": "", "ndim": "3D (press for 2D)", "dim_method": "PCA", "clustering_method": "KMeans"}
+{"tstamp": 1722435608.784, "task_type": "clustering", "type": "chat", "model": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435608.675, "finish": 1722435608.784, "ip": "", "conv_id": "38e5e9fa7659433fbeb0c586cb46bc6a", "model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "prompt": ["octagon", "rectangle", "Temple of Artemis", "Colossus of Rhodes", "Statue of Zeus", "Lighthouse of Alexandria", "Hanging Gardens of Babylon", "Pyramids of Giza", "brunette", "black", "blonde", "redhead", "gray", "auburn", "white", "soccer", "basketball", "tennis", "baseball", "cricket", "ruby", "topaz", "diamond"], "ncluster": 5, "output": "", "ndim": "3D (press for 2D)", "dim_method": "PCA", "clustering_method": "KMeans"}
+{"tstamp": 1722435687.9258, "task_type": "clustering", "type": "chat", "model": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435687.8389, "finish": 1722435687.9258, "ip": "", "conv_id": "e2902d845c594bf59d5f3852bfbd708e", "model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "prompt": ["", "pizza", "pasta", "sushi", "python", "java", "javascript", "car", "bus", "train", "violin", "cello", "bass", "oxygen", "hydrogen", "nitrogen"], "ncluster": 5, "output": "", "ndim": "3D (press for 2D)", "dim_method": "PCA", "clustering_method": "KMeans"}
+{"tstamp": 1722435687.9258, "task_type": "clustering", "type": "chat", "model": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435687.8389, "finish": 1722435687.9258, "ip": "", "conv_id": "00996270e0694fab99e948fd905189b8", "model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "prompt": ["", "pizza", "pasta", "sushi", "python", "java", "javascript", "car", "bus", "train", "violin", "cello", "bass", "oxygen", "hydrogen", "nitrogen"], "ncluster": 5, "output": "", "ndim": "3D (press for 2D)", "dim_method": "PCA", "clustering_method": "KMeans"}

data/retrieval_battle-f62bcad9-19c4-430b-a7ba-aa2bfeba99dc.jsonl

@@ -77,3 +77,4 @@
 {"tstamp": 1722433617.2108, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "bothbadvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "73769c4977e94ec3b25bfdfd7ac03f4b", "0_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "0_prompt": "experimental metaphysics", "0_output": [["experimental metaphysics", "Metaphilosophy\n\nRecently, some philosophers have cast doubt about intuition as a basic tool in philosophical inquiry, from Socrates up to contemporary philosophy of language. In Rethinking Intuition various thinkers discard intuition as a valid source of knowledge and thereby call into question 'a priori' philosophy. Experimental philosophy is a form of philosophical inquiry that makes at least partial use of empirical research\u2014especially opinion polling\u2014in order to address persistent philosophical questions. This is in contrast with the methods found in analytic philosophy, whereby some say a philosopher will sometimes begin by appealing to his or her intuitions on an issue and then form an argument with those intuitions as premises. However, disagreement about what experimental philosophy can accomplish is widespread and several philosophers have offered criticisms. One claim is that the empirical data gathered by experimental philosophers can have an indirect effect on philosophical questions by allowing for a better understanding of the underlying psychological processes which lead to philosophical intuitions. Some analytic philosophers like Timothy Williamson have rejected such a move against 'armchair' philosophy\u2013i.e., philosophical inquiry that is undergirded by intuition\u2013by construing 'intuition' (which they believe to be a misnomer) as merely referring to common cognitive faculties: If one is calling into question 'intuition', one is, they would say, harboring a skeptical attitude towards common cognitive faculties\u2013a consequence that seems philosophically unappealing. For Williamson, instances of intuition are instances of our cognitive faculties processing counterfactuals (or subjunctive conditionals) that are specific to the thought experiment or example in question.\nProgress\nA prominent question in metaphilosophy is that of whether or not philosophical progress occurs and more so, whether such progress in philosophy is even possible.\nDavid Chalmers divides inquiry into philosophical progress in metaphilosophy into three questions.\nThe Existence Question: is there progress in philosophy?\nThe Comparison Question: is there as much progress in philosophy as in science?\nThe Explanation Question: why isn't there more progress in philosophy?"]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "18e7e82f152d4ab4bfdea463925d23a6", "1_model_name": "text-embedding-3-large", "1_prompt": "experimental metaphysics", "1_output": [["experimental metaphysics", "Metaphysics\n\nA priori approaches often rely on intuitions, that is, non-inferential impressions about the correctness of specific claims or general principles. For example, arguments for the A-theory of time, which states that time flows from the past through the present and into the future, often rely on pre-theoretical intuitions associated with the sense of the passage of time. Some approaches use intuitions to establish a small set of self-evident fundamental principles, known as axioms, and employ deductive reasoning to build complex metaphysical systems by drawing conclusions from these axioms. Intuition-based approaches can be combined with thought experiments, which help evoke and clarify intuitions by linking them to imagined situations while using counterfactual thinking to assess the possible consequences of these situations. To explore the relation between matter and consciousness, some theorists compare humans to philosophical zombies, that is, hypothetical creatures identical to humans but without conscious experience. A related method relies on commonly accepted beliefs instead of intuitions to formulate arguments and theories. The common-sense approach is often used to criticize metaphysical theories that deviate a lot from how the average person thinks about an issue. For example, common-sense philosophers have argued that mereological nihilism is false since it implies that commonly accepted things, like tables, do not exist."]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1722433650.4248, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "81fd0c894f194fcfa36ed75bd2d83aca", "0_model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "0_prompt": "Study analyzing the multitask accuracy of text models including GPT-3 on academic and professional knowledge areas.", "0_output": [["Study analyzing the multitask accuracy of text models including GPT-3 on academic and professional knowledge areas.", "Title: Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding\n\nAbstract: We propose a new test to measure a text model's multitask accuracy. The test covers 57 tasks including elementary mathematics, US history, computer science, law, and more. To attain high accuracy on this test, models must possess extensive world knowledge and problem solving ability. We find that while most recent models have near random-chance accuracy, the very largest GPT-3 model improves over random chance by almost 20 percentage points on average. However, on every one of the 57 tasks, the best models still need substantial improvements before they can reach expert-level accuracy. Models also have lopsided performance and frequently do not know when they are wrong. Worse, they still have near-random accuracy on some socially important subjects such as morality and law. By comprehensively evaluating the breadth and depth of a model's academic and professional understanding, our test can be used to analyze models across many tasks and to identify important shortcomings."]], "0_corpus": "arxiv", "1_conv_id": "a07d495a636249d889895f7e399d41b3", "1_model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "1_prompt": "Study analyzing the multitask accuracy of text models including GPT-3 on academic and professional knowledge areas.", "1_output": [["Study analyzing the multitask accuracy of text models including GPT-3 on academic and professional knowledge areas.", "Title: There are no two non-real conjugates of a Pisot number with the same imaginary part\n\nAbstract: We show that the number $\\alpha=(1+\\sqrt{3+2\\sqrt{5}})/2$ with minimal polynomial $x^4-2x^3+x-1$ is the only Pisot number whose four distinct conjugates $\\alpha_1,\\alpha_2,\\alpha_3,\\alpha_4$ satisfy the additive relation $\\alpha_1+\\alpha_2=\\alpha_3+\\alpha_4$. This implies that there exists no two non-real conjugates of a Pisot number with the same imaginary part and also that at most two conjugates of a Pisot number can have the same real part. On the other hand, we prove that similar four term equations $\\alpha_1 = \\alpha_2 + \\alpha_3+\\alpha_4$ or $\\alpha_1 + \\alpha_2 + \\alpha_3 + \\alpha_4 =0$ cannot be solved in conjugates of a Pisot number $\\alpha$. We also show that the roots of the Siegel's polynomial $x^3-x-1$ are the only solutions to the three term equation $\\alpha_1+\\alpha_2+\\alpha_3=0$ in conjugates of a Pisot number. Finally, we prove that there exists no Pisot number whose conjugates satisfy the relation $\\alpha_1=\\alpha_2+\\alpha_3$."]], "1_corpus": "arxiv"}
 {"tstamp": 1722433984.3307, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "e93de447a5a24fa494ff1d3829debaa8", "0_model_name": "BM25", "0_prompt": "What is the first probe we sent to space?", "0_output": [["What is the first probe we sent to space?", "Pioneer program\n\nThe Pioneer programs were two series of United States lunar and planetary space probes exploration. The first program, which ran from 1958 to 1960, unsuccessfully attempted to send spacecraft to orbit the Moon, successfully sent one spacecraft to fly by the Moon, and successfully sent one spacecraft to investigate interplanetary space between the orbits of Earth and Venus. The second program, which ran from 1965 to 1992, sent four spacecraft to measure interplanetary space weather, two to explore Jupiter and Saturn, and two to explore Venus. The two outer planet probes, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, became the first two of five artificial objects to achieve the escape velocity that will allow them to leave the Solar System, and carried a golden plaque each depicting a man and a woman and information about the origin and the creators of the probes, in case any extraterrestrials find them someday.\nNaming\nCredit for naming the first probe has been attributed to Stephen A. Saliga, who had been assigned to the Air Force Orientation Group, Wright-Patterson AFB, as chief designer of Air Force exhibits. While he was at a briefing, the spacecraft was described to him, as, a \"lunar-orbiting vehicle, with an infrared scanning device.\" Saliga thought the title too long, and lacked theme for an exhibit design. He suggested, \"Pioneer\", as the name of the probe, since \"the Army had already launched and orbited the Explorer satellite, and their Public Information Office was identifying the Army, as, 'Pioneers in Space,'\" and, by adopting the name, the Air Force would \"make a 'quantum jump' as to who, really, [were] the 'Pioneers' in space.'\""]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "53b85fd89d2b4f02b5d77aedc69d0628", "1_model_name": "intfloat/e5-mistral-7b-instruct", "1_prompt": "What is the first probe we sent to space?", "1_output": [["What is the first probe we sent to space?", "Sputnik 1\n\nSputnik 1 (, , Satellite 1) was the first artificial Earth satellite. It was launched into an elliptical low Earth orbit by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957 as part of the Soviet space program. It sent a radio signal back to Earth for three weeks before its three silver-zinc batteries became depleted. Aerodynamic drag caused it to fall back into the atmosphere on 4 January 1958. The world's first observation was made at the school observatory in Rodewisch (Saxony).\nIt was a polished metal sphere  in diameter with four external radio antennas to broadcast radio pulses. Its radio signal was easily detectable by amateur radio operators, and the 65\u00b0 orbital inclination made its flight path cover virtually the entire inhabited Earth."]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1722435682.4732, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "e3e0803a5ed3495e879fbdcf95b60e6b", "0_model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "0_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "0_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Cognitive test\n\nCognitive tests are assessments of the cognitive capabilities of humans and other animals. Tests administered to humans include various forms of IQ tests; those administered to animals include the mirror test (a test of visual self-awareness) and the T maze test (which tests learning ability). Such testing is used in psychology and psychometrics, as well as other fields studying human and animal intelligence."]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "6b0f0b1750eb4bb5b4313281fda7164d", "1_model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "1_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "1_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}

data/retrieval_individual-f62bcad9-19c4-430b-a7ba-aa2bfeba99dc.jsonl

@@ -320,3 +320,5 @@
 {"tstamp": 1722435342.8347, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435342.71, "finish": 1722435342.8347, "ip": "", "conv_id": "af2f8752a33e4ce5aab95975ad9e84fb", "model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "prompt": "What is the boiling point of water in Celsius?", "output": [["What is the boiling point of water in Celsius?", "Fahrenheit\n\nThough the United Kingdom changed from Fahrenheit to Celsius in metrology, Fahrenheit is sometimes still used in newspaper headlines to sensationalise heatwaves.\nDefinition and conversion\nHistorically, on the Fahrenheit scale the freezing point of water was 32 °F, and the boiling point was 212 °F (at standard atmospheric pressure). This put the boiling and freezing points of water 180 degrees apart. Therefore, a degree on the Fahrenheit scale was  of the interval between the freezing point and the boiling point. On the Celsius scale, the freezing and boiling points of water were originally defined to be 100 degrees apart. A temperature interval of 1 °F was equal to an interval of  degrees Celsius. With the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales now both defined by the kelvin, this relationship was preserved, a temperature interval of 1 °F being equal to an interval of  K and of  °C. The Fahrenheit and Celsius scales intersect numerically at −40 in the respective unit (i.e, −40 °F ≘ −40 °C).\nAbsolute zero is 0 K, −273.15 °C, or −459.67 °F. The Rankine temperature scale uses degree intervals of the same size as those of the Fahrenheit scale, except that absolute zero is 0 °R the same way that the Kelvin temperature scale matches the Celsius scale, except that absolute zero is 0 K."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1722435382.2086, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435382.0223, "finish": 1722435382.2086, "ip": "", "conv_id": "891f518100f244f88c090ec059a543dc", "model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "prompt": "Who developed the theory of relativity?", "output": [["Who developed the theory of relativity?", "Theory of relativity\n\nThe Michelson–Morley experiment was designed to detect second-order effects of the \"aether wind\"—the motion of the aether relative to the Earth. Michelson designed an instrument called the Michelson interferometer to accomplish this. The apparatus was sufficiently accurate to detect the expected effects, but he obtained a null result when the first experiment was conducted in 1881, and again in 1887. Although the failure to detect an aether wind was a disappointment, the results were accepted by the scientific community. In an attempt to salvage the aether paradigm, FitzGerald and Lorentz independently created an ad hoc hypothesis in which the length of material bodies changes according to their motion through the aether. This was the origin of FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction, and their hypothesis had no theoretical basis. The interpretation of the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment is that the round-trip travel time for light is isotropic (independent of direction), but the result alone is not enough to discount the theory of the aether or validate the predictions of special relativity.\nWhile the Michelson–Morley experiment showed that the velocity of light is isotropic, it said nothing about how the magnitude of the velocity changed (if at all) in different inertial frames. The Kennedy–Thorndike experiment was designed to do that, and was first performed in 1932 by Roy Kennedy and Edward Thorndike. They obtained a null result, and concluded that \"there is no effect ... unless the velocity of the solar system in space is no more than about half that of the earth in its orbit\". That possibility was thought to be too coincidental to provide an acceptable explanation, so from the null result of their experiment it was concluded that the round-trip time for light is the same in all inertial reference frames."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1722435382.2086, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435382.0223, "finish": 1722435382.2086, "ip": "", "conv_id": "afaede0c88b04fce85064bfd7039c2ab", "model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "prompt": "Who developed the theory of relativity?", "output": [["Who developed the theory of relativity?", "Theory of relativity\n\nThe theory transformed theoretical physics and astronomy during the 20th century, superseding a 200-year-old theory of mechanics created primarily by Isaac Newton. It introduced concepts including 4-dimensional spacetime as a unified entity of space and time, relativity of simultaneity, kinematic and gravitational time dilation, and length contraction. In the field of physics, relativity improved the science of elementary particles and their fundamental interactions, along with ushering in the nuclear age. With relativity, cosmology and astrophysics predicted extraordinary astronomical phenomena such as neutron stars, black holes, and gravitational waves.\nDevelopment and acceptance\nAlbert Einstein published the theory of special relativity in 1905, building on many theoretical results and empirical findings obtained by Albert A. Michelson, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré and others. Max Planck, Hermann Minkowski and others did subsequent work.\nEinstein developed general relativity between 1907 and 1915, with contributions by many others after 1915. The final form of general relativity was published in 1916.\nThe term \"theory of relativity\" was based on the expression \"relative theory\" () used in 1906 by Planck, who emphasized how the theory uses the principle of relativity. In the discussion section of the same paper, Alfred Bucherer used for the first time the expression \"theory of relativity\" ()."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1722435662.9585, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435662.4712, "finish": 1722435662.9585, "ip": "", "conv_id": "e3e0803a5ed3495e879fbdcf95b60e6b", "model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Cognitive test\n\nCognitive tests are assessments of the cognitive capabilities of humans and other animals. Tests administered to humans include various forms of IQ tests; those administered to animals include the mirror test (a test of visual self-awareness) and the T maze test (which tests learning ability). Such testing is used in psychology and psychometrics, as well as other fields studying human and animal intelligence."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1722435662.9585, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "voyage-multilingual-2", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722435662.4712, "finish": 1722435662.9585, "ip": "", "conv_id": "6b0f0b1750eb4bb5b4313281fda7164d", "model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}