Alleged criminals might not be the only ones to benefit from pleading the Fifth. By falling silent during the Turing test, artificial intelligence (AI) systems can fool human judges into believing they’re human, according to a study by machine intelligence researchers from Coventry University.
Alan Turing, considered the father of theoretical computer science and AI, devised the Turing test in an attempt to outline what it means for a thing to think. In the test, a human judge or interrogator has a conversation with an unseen entity, which might be a human or a machine. The test posits that the machine can be considered to be “thinking” or “intelligent” if the interrogator is unable to tell whether or not the machine is a human.
Also known as the imitation game, the test has become an often-erroneous standard to determine if AI have qualities like intellect, active thought, and even consciousness.
In the study, Taking the Fifth Amendment in Turing’s Imitation Game, published in the Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence by Dr. Huma Shah and Dr. Kevin Warwick of Coventry University, the researchers analyzed six transcripts from prior Turing tests and determined that, when the machines fell silent, the judges were left undecided about their interlocutor’s humanness. The silence doesn’t even need to be intentional. In fact, it tended to result from technical difficulties.
“The idea [for the study] came from technical issues with a couple of the computer programs in Turing test experiments,” Shah tells Digital Trends. “The technical issues entailed the failure of the computer programs to relay messages or responses to the judge’s questions. The judges were unaware of the situation and hence in some cases they classified their hidden interlocutor as ‘unsure.’”
The silent machines may have baffled their judges, but their silence helped expose a flaw in the exam rather than confirm its utility, which Warwick says this raises serious questions regarding the Turing tests validity and ability to test thinking systems. “We need a much more rigorous and all encompassing test to do so, even if we are considering a machine’s way of thinking to be different to that of a human,” he tells Digital Trends.
Shah meanwhile notes that the test was designed to give a framework within which to “build elaborate machines to respond in a satisfactory and sustained manner,” not to build machines that simply trick judges. In short, the systems are meant to imitate human conversation and no human who takes the test seriously would fall silent. Right?
Well, they might, thinks Warwick. “One thing that I have learnt from such tests is that hidden human entities will almost surely do unexpected and illogical things,” he says. “In this case a human could easily get upset or annoyed by something a judge has said and decide not to reply — they are human after all.”
An alternative view is that the Turing test has already been undermined by the current state of AI. Shah says she agrees with Microsoft’s Chief Envisaging Officer in the UK, Dave Coplin, who thinks the “machine vs. human” challenges are no longer relevant. At the AI summit in London in May, Coplin pointed out that, given enough resources, at the rate AI is advancing, developing an intelligent machine doesn’t seem all that farfetched.
“The role of AI is to augment human performance with intelligent agents,” Shah says. “For example, a human educator using an AI to score student assignments and exam questions leaving the teacher time to innovate learning, inspiring students, encouraging more into STEM, including females, for a better life or world of cooperation.”
From this perspective, it’s absurd to develop an AI whose sole goal is to fool a human into thinking it’s human — especially if the simplest way to do so entails making it mute.
Google just dropped its latest AI model, Gemini 4 Carbon, designed to tackle complex coding jobs and cybersecurity threats. The company claims it can work through difficult engineering problems for days, finding hidden bugs and developing fixes across large codebases.
Gemini 4 Carbon also takes the top spot on Artificial Analysis' updated Intelligence Index, scoring 59 points, pushing out Claude Opus 5.5, OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra, and even its own predecessor Gemini 4 Argon.
Apple has just introduced a redesigned MacBook Pro with a few bells and whistles. The focus this time around is on a thinner and lighter build, and an upgrade to a touch-sensitive OLED screen without any ugly notch. And, in case you were wondering, there is definitely a price premium to pay for these niceties, which also include a glowing Apple logo at the back. What if you wanted to get the best that Apple has to offer? Well, the numbers are finally here.
For a mere $14,549, you can get yourself the fully kitted 16-inch MacBook Pro PROLED XDR with the beefiest laptop chip that Apple has to offer, and the best memory configuration in tow. For nearly $15,000, you treat yourself to the 16-inch version of the laptop with a nano-texture glass layer on the screen to reduce reflections and glare.
Apple has unveiled its first-ever touchscreen MacBook Pro. The company seems a bit confused about the naming, calling it the "MacBook Pro with PROLED XDR Display," which is tough to remember. If you look past that and review the full spec sheets, you might ask a genuine question: what are the differences between the touchscreen and non-touchscreen versions?
Given that Apple continues to sell both variants together, that's a genuine question. Luckily, you don't have to spend more time lining up the spec sheets side by side and hunting for differences hidden in the fine print. I took that bullet for you. Here's everything that's different between the PROLED XDR Display and the regular MacBook Pro.