UMBC ebiquity
Chatterbots vie for $100K Loebner Prize

Chatterbots vie for $100K Loebner Prize

Tim Finin, 7:48pm 5 October 2008

On Sunday October 12, six computer chatterbots will sit down with six human judges at the University of Reading and try to convince them that they are not machines, but humans. The winner might take away the grand Loebner Prize worth $100,000. The Loebner Prize competition is a modified and simplified Turing test intended as a measure of machine intelligence. Here’s how Wikipedia describes it.

“The Loebner Prize is an annual competition that awards prizes to the Chatterbot considered by the judges to be the most humanlike of those entered. The format of the competition is that of a standard Turing test. In the Loebner Prize, as in a Turing test, a human judge is faced with two computer screens. One is under the control of a computer, the other is under the control of a human. The judge poses questions to the two screens and receives answers. Based upon the answers, the judge must decide which screen is controlled by the human and which is controlled by the computer program.”

This year, the competition is taking place ar Reading under the direction of Professor Kevin Warwick. The thirteen initial entries which have been reduced to six finalists.

Bot
Developer
status
Jeremy Gardiner
 
Finalist
Finalist
 
LQ
Qiong John Li
 
Peter Cole & Benji Adams
Finalist
 
Finalist
Finalist
Botooie
Elizabeth Perreau
 
Amanda
Simon Edwards
 
Finalist
Trane
Robert Scott Mitchell
 

The competition was started in 1990 by Hugh Loebner, who put up a set of cash prizes, including one worth $100,000 for the “first chatterbot that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input.” A fact of local interest is that Hugh Loebner worked at UMBC as the assistant director of computing in the 1980s. He left UMBC to run his family’s business, which at the time was doing well manufacturing roll-up disco dance floors for parties.

Over the years the Loebner prize competitions has come under considerable criticism from the AI research community. A common option among AI researchers is that the competition is more about publicity than science and encourages people to try to do well by exploiting tricks and competition-specific strategies rather than work on the fundamental problems underlying the development of intelligent machines. This article in Salon, Artificial stupidity, summarizes the positions.

Here are some stories on the 2008 Loebner Prize competition in the press: ‘Intelligent’ computers put to the test’, Invasion of ‘human’ robots and Artificial Conversational Entities: Can A Machine Act Human and Be Given ‘Rights’?.


5 Responses to “Chatterbots vie for $100K Loebner Prize”

  1. meneame.net Says:

    Crónica de la competición de bots conversacionales por el premio Loebner (100.000 dolares) [ENG]…

    El premio Loebner lo conseguirá aquel que pase el test de turing ante seis expertos. De los trece sistemas inicialmente presentados, sólo seis han pasado la primera criba….

  2. Don Miner Says:

    Here is a really really bad article on the Loebner prize: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/intelligent_supercomputers_put_turing_test

    Does anyone involved in this competition actually believe they are making machines that can think?

  3. Sarah Palin defeats bot in Loebner Prize competition Says:

    [...] Will Pavia of The Times was one of the judges a the 2008 Loebner Prize competition last week. In a story in The Times yesterday, Machine takes on man at mass Turing Test, he revealed [...]

  4. Loebner Prize Winner Announced; Is He Human? - Mashable Says:

    [...] several times, but has recently not met with the level of success that her challengers have. Of this year’s entrants, the most interesting entrant to me was one which didn’t make it to the finals of the [...]

  5. Loebner Prize Winner Announced; Is He Human?  »TechAddress Says:

    [...] several times, but has recently not met with the level of success that her challengers have. Of this year’s entrants, the most interesting entrant to me was one which didn’t make it to the finals of the [...]