If the Turing Test stipulated that the human were a politician, it would have been beaten many years ago.

> You know, that's a very interesting point. I tend to agree with what you're saying, and I'd go one step further and say that we as a nation ought to be doing more about that.

Ad nauseam. You could call it E-lies-a.

/snark

I beleive this is a critical issue and one we should be having a broad national debate about.

From their FAQ:

>Will this competition be judged like a Turing Test?

>No. The goal of the Alexa Prize is to create socialbots that engage in interesting, human-like conversations, not to make them indistinguishable from a human when compared side-by-side. While the socialbots built for the Alexa Prize will be human-like in some respects, they will be very different in others, and could easily reveal themselves in a Turing Test. For example, socialbots may have ready access to much more information than a human. Asking the socialbots to act human could diminish the customer experience and hinder the efforts of the participants to build the best socialbot to further conversational AI.

Ooh, so they expect the bots to fail a Turing Test because they're superhuman? That makes it easier. /s

No they didn't say that. A socialbot should fail a Turing test because no human could Google an answer in 1 second or know the exact temperature, etc.

A human plus a googlebot could do it though! Have the bot scan the incoming messages, provide possible facts related instantly. Then the human writes the response. The Turing test would say Robot but it would not be entirely right.

The point of the Turing test is for an AI to pretend to be human so well, humans can't tell if it's human or not. The bots in the Alexa Prize do not have to pretend to be human, and can be very different from humans. The point is just to make bots that are interesting or useful to talk to.