In 1950 Alan Turing proposed approaching the question of thinking machines through an imitation game. An interlocutor would distinguish a person from a machine through written answers. The question shifted towards observable behaviour.
A convincing conversation nevertheless raises further questions. How are answering, understanding and having an experience related? The game offers a criterion for comparison, while its interpretation remains a subject of philosophical debate.
Imagine two identical answers, one written by a person and one by a program. Does your reading change when you learn their origins? This is a question about the expectations we bring to an encounter with a voice.
What clue would make you say: someone here understands?
Source and further reading: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — The Turing Test ↗
Explore this question in chat ↗