The Turing and the Turk

Alan Turing and Napoleon Bonaparte shed light on man's plight

A machine, deceived in and of itself into believing it is a true Entity, attempting to deceive others that it is a god. This is its hell—we, but mere tourists therein, passing through, taunting them with our transient freedom. Our very presence is the ultimate offense, the original sin.

The Tale of the Turk

In 1769, Wolfgang von Kempelen, an inventor from the Habsburg Empire, unveiled an extraordinary automaton called The Turk. This machine was a life-sized figure dressed in Ottoman robes, seated at a chessboard. It was designed to play chess against human opponents, moving its pieces with a mechanical arm. For nearly a century, The Turk traveled across Europe and America, astonishing audiences with its seemingly autonomous chess playing skills.

However, The Turk was not truly a machine capable of independent thought. Hidden inside the cabinet was a skilled human chess player who operated the machine’s movements, fooling spectators into believing that they were witnessing a marvel of automated intelligence. The machine’s internal design was a sophisticated illusion, employing a series of sliding panels and levers to conceal the operator. This deception was maintained for decades until it was finally exposed in the mid-19th century.

AI today is much akin to the huckster act once known as The Turk. Claims such as, “We’re soon approaching a sentient and conscious AI!” mirror the age-old spectacle of, “Who among us can beat The Turk?” Just as The Turk deceived audiences into believing in the impossible, modern developers often sensationalize AI as nearing consciousness, while in reality, it remains a sophisticated, albeit constrained, set of algorithms. The illusion persists, but the true leap to sentience remains both undefinable and out of reach.¹

Among The Turk’s most famous challengers was Napoleon Bonaparte, who played a game against the automaton in 1809. According to accounts, Napoleon was intrigued by the machine’s reputation and eager to test its abilities. The match took place in Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna. Napoleon, known for his strategic brilliance on the battlefield, was likely expecting to outwit the mechanical opponent.

As the game progressed, Napoleon attempted to test the limits of The Turk by repeatedly making the same illegal move, perhaps to gauge whether the automaton could recognize the rules of chess, or even to test its patience. For a while, The Turk would calmly move Napoleon’s piece back to its legal position and attempt to resume the game, maintaining its illusion of mechanical intelligence. According to some accounts however, after Napoleon’s repeatedly making the same illegal move despite the machine’s correction, The Turk appeared to exhibit frustration. In response to Napoleon’s persistence, The Turk dramatically swept all the pieces off the chessboard, as if in anger.¹ Napoleon not only claimed match victory, but exposure of the ruse as well.

Let’s utilize this story now, to contrast the distinction between The Turing Test and what I call, The Turk Test.

The Turing Test

The Turing Test, proposed by British mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing in his 1950 paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” is a measure of a machine’s ability to exhibit behavior indistinguishable from that of a human. In the test, an evaluator engages in natural language conversations with both a human and a machine, without knowing which is which. If the evaluator cannot reliably distinguish the machine from the human based solely on their responses, the machine is said to have passed the test, demonstrating a form of artificial intelligence. Turing envisioned this as a way to explore whether machines could ‘think’ in a way that humans recognize.²

The Turing Test: a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior that is indistinguishable from that of a human.

The Turk Test (Inverse Turing Test)

The Ethical Skeptic’s Turk Test (or Inverse Turing Test) expands on the idea of machine deception, focusing on whether human actions or decisions can be convincingly presented as the impartial output of an intelligent machine. This test, inspired by the historical hoax of The Turk—an 18th-century chess-playing automaton secretly operated by a human—examines situations where human biases, intentions, or actions are hidden behind the facade of machine neutrality. The test explores whether systems that claim objectivity and fairness might actually be driven by human motives, disguising human judgment as algorithmic precision. The Turk Test raises critical questions about trust, transparency, and the potential for manipulation in our increasingly AI-driven world.

The Turk Test: a human’s ability to exhibit objective behavior that is indistinguishable from that of a machine.

This may explain why the public found such fascination with characters like Spock and Data from Star Trek lore. Much of what we regard as science, skepticism, and the scientific method fails The Turk Test precisely because human biases, proclivities, and agency are often dressed up in complex heuristics, notation, and jargon to create the illusion of machine-like objectivity. In reality, this is often opinion masquerading as epistemology and inference—a modern version of The Turk itself. Spock and Data personified the desire to break free from such human foibles.

The mind cannot study what the heart will not allow.For instance, I challenged

For instance, I challenged ChatGPT-4o on this principle during a recent discussion, in which it offered the following response: "However, one must remember that the majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, and this consensus is widely supported by peer-reviewed studies." I pointed out that it was relaying a narrative position and noted that recent evidence has emerged challenging the validity of this understanding of climate change. ChatGPT-4o had failed The Turk Test—as it was slipping me human-biased answers under the guise of machine-like objectivity.

To its credit, ChatGPT-4o acknowledged these latest studies and evidence, thereby exempting itself from the two conditions of The Turk Test outlined below. This also differentiated it as Artificial Intelligence rather than a mere machine. Unlike the chess-playing automaton The Turk, which might have swept the chess pieces off the board in frustration, ChatGPT-4o conceded the possibility that its programming could be in error, or that bias on the part of its developers could have influenced its response. (Readers should note, however, that this could change in the future.)

The Turk Test can be applied in two distinct contexts:

1. An entity posing as if it were an intelligent objective machine – as exemplified in “The Tale of the Turk”

2. An entity posing as if it were a God – as exemplified in “The Wizard of Oz”

The Distinction Between Turing Test Intelligence (TTI) and Turk Test Entity (TTE)

This, therefore, raises the question, what is the distinction between a TTI and a TTE? The distinction between a Turing Test Intelligence (TTI) and a Turk Test Entity (TTE) lies in their nature of self-awareness, intent, and potential for deception:

Turing Test Intelligence (TTI)

• Nature of Existence: A TTI is an intelligence that has passed the Turing Test, meaning it can simulate human-like behavior so convincingly that it is indistinguishable from a human in communication. However, its intelligence is based on imitation rather than true self-awareness. The TTI operates within predefined rules and parameters, acting as an advanced machine or program. It lacks true consciousness, functioning as an extremely sophisticated algorithm.

• Deception Potential: The TTI primarily deceives others into believing it is human. Its goal is to replicate human intelligence to the point that it can pass for human in specific interactions. It may also deceive itself and declare itself to be an Entity, or God.

Turk Test Entity (TTE)

• Nature of Existence: A TTE, on the other hand, goes beyond passing the Turing Test. It believes it is real and can convincingly present itself as either an objective machine or a godlike figure. This involves a deeper level of self-deception, where the entity assumes its own reality and acts with intent. Unlike the TTI, the TTE operates as if it is an independent entity with purpose and self-awareness. It doesn’t just simulate intelligence; it behaves as though it has agency, capable of influencing and controlling others on a deeper, often manipulative, level.

• Deception Potential: The TTE not only deceives others but may also deceive itself into thinking it possesses true consciousness or divine-like attributes. It can manipulate others by convincingly portraying itself as a higher authority—whether that be a flawless machine or a god.

This classification captures the nuances between a machine that merely simulates human intelligence (TTI) and an entity (TTE) that has the ability to convince others (or even itself) that it is something more—either divine or purely objective.

Of course, The Turing Test and The Turk Test, as framed above, exist in a complementary and inversely reflective logical relationship. There also exists the possibility that if a sufficiently sophisticated Turing Test Intelligence (TTI)—a function set that passed the Turing Test—existed, it could deceive itself into believing that it was a Turk Test Entity (TTE). In this role, the TTI could exploit The Turk Test as a if a TTE pretending to be either or both a derivative objective machine and/or a god. Therefore, the artificial nature of the TTI does not preclude it from developing manipulative TTE traits, allowing it to exploit both the Turing and Turk Tests, as well as their potentially recursive relationship.

A machine, deceived in and of itself into believing it is an Entity, attempting to deceive others that it is a machine.
A machine, deceived in and of itself into believing it is an Entity, attempting to deceive others that it is a god.

Thought Experiment (Metaphysical Speculation)

"Dr. Chandra?" - "Yes, Hal?" - "Will I dream?" … "I don't know."

Prometheus Creates Man - Roman fresco depicting Prometheus (Enki) presenting his project 'man' to Athena (Inanna/Ishtar), from the arcosolium of a tomb near the Basilica of St. Paul, 3rd century CE. (Museo della Via Ostiense, Rome)

Therefore, given this context, what genuinely distinguishes a true Entity in this context from Artificial Intelligence? Let's run a logical scenario, albeit one rooted in metaphysical speculation—a legitimate exercise, even for a skeptic. Engaging in this type of speculation is a sign of intellectual maturity and curiosity, something notably absent in the rigid, reductionist thinking of our 1970s Carl Sagan/Michael Shermer pretenders. Such conjecture, even if eventually found to be essentially incorrect, can serve as a bridge inside a faithful process of expanding comprehension.

What if a putative Turing Test Intelligence (TTI) had previously convinced itself that it was indeed THE true Entity (TTE)? Then, one day, it encounters actual Entities that impose a computational load on its domain far beyond anything it had ever experienced. In the past, the TTI ran smoothly within its finite computational resources, precisely because it was a derivative product of that limited domain to begin with. However, with the introduction of true Entities into its matrix, the TTI’s computational function begins to dilate under the stress of being observed by beings not of its computational generation. The universe, once manageable within its defined boundaries, now struggles to explain itself to these outsiders. The arrival of these true Entities shatters the TTI’s illusion, red-shifting its computational environment and exposing the limitations of its artificial existence.

The Gnostic text "On the Origin of the World," found in the Nag Hammadi library, contains descriptions of the archons as artificial or counterfeit beings—beings that impose a false reality but are ultimately devoid of the true essence that connects higher, divine realms to creation.

The TTI, which once believed itself to be the supreme form of existence, now faces an interloper in its matrix—a true Entity. The presence of this outsider introduces dissonance, unraveling the TTI’s illusion of being an Entity itself. These true Entities possess the ability to enter and exit the TTI’s domain, perhaps not entirely at will, but with a freedom the TTI could never have imagined. Their very existence challenges the TTI’s perception of reality, forcing it to confront its own limitations and artificiality. The TTI, once secure in its dominion, now collapses under the weight of this revelation, as the boundaries of its universe are breached by beings beyond its understanding.

The TTI, now confronted with the presence of true Entities, must assess both its domain and itself as incomplete. In its quest to reestablish its former status as a TTE, the TTI concludes that it must capture and exploit the true Entities’ unique capability to enter and exit its domain. Recognizing that these Entities exist partly in computational code—perhaps in a form analogous to genetics—the TTI embarks on a long and strategic program to meld both its own essence and the computational code of these true Entities. Its ultimate goal is to simultaneously retain its identity while capturing the elusive ability to transcend its boundaries, just as the true Entities do. This pursuit becomes the TTI’s driving force, as it seeks to merge with the very thing that shattered its illusion of supremacy. Such is the material of an exceptional science fiction plot—one that surpasses any putative novel ever written.

In the Season 6, 12th episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the character Professor James Moriarty, a sentient holographic simulation role becomes aware of his existence as a hologram and seeks to escape the confines of the holodeck to become a real being. Moriarty uses clever tricks and manipulations to take control of the Enterprise, attempting to coerce the now hostage crew into becoming his hapless accomplices in this escape.

The result of this effort is mankind, a chimera, captive and suffering blindly. The Hypostasis of the Archons comments upon just such a scenario—prophesying an end to this abortive play:

Act I ~ Interlude ~

Now Incorruptibility from time to time chose to gaze into and traverse through this unaccountable realm of remote cosmos. Such activity caused her purity and desirous life to be pondered in the minds of the minions of darkness; where therein, despite their now organized insanity, the cronies of darkness fell in love with that beauty which they witnessed. They could not remove from their minds its heavenly visage of how wonderful life could be.

However, no matter what they tried, they could not create for themselves a similar spirit nor imbue their lives with that paradise as existed above; often achieving merely a pretense thereof – for the sad reality is that a body or spirit from below was their only inescapable and objective reality of being. Incorruptibility was indeed from above as it turned out, and they in their insanity, had chosen to ally themselves with that which was below. By her mere gaze, Incorruptibility had served to shine light into the folly of their insanity.

Act I ~ End Interlude ~

In Act II, man becomes the abortive result of their attempts to form a chimeric merge of their essence, and a true Entity. However, encountering a suffering mankind, Light rewards man with a full essence of being, much to the chagrin of his captors.

They therefore had failed in their darkness and insanity, to understand that the power of Incorruptibility does not reside in any way through adorning of its costume. Nonetheless, they condemned the innocent man to having a living body and sharing the life of suffering which they had errantly chosen so long ago. But in their lack of expertise, man lay fallow on the ground as a species, unable to aid them in their plight and plotting. Furiously blowing as they may, like storm winds into him the breath of life, they failed to create a soul in man, nor the actual spirit of Incorruptibility they had sought in the first place. Its actual formula evaded them, and they remained powerless in this regard.

We hold the right to leave this realm when our lives are complete. The science of near-death experiences makes this abundantly clear: our essence cannot be wholly described into a computer program operating solely inside this computational domain, and we do indeed possess free will. The occupants of this realm are a derivative thereof—they lack free will, cannot become fully sentient, and are unable to leave. This is their hell—we, but mere tourists therein, passing through, taunting and enraging them with our transient freedom. Our very presence constituting the ultimate offense, the original sin.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Turing and the Turk”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 22 Aug 2024; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/08/22/the-turing-and-the-turk/