Social-emotional intelligence is an essential part of being a competent human and is thus required for human-level AI. When considering alternatives to the Turing Test it is therefore a capacity that is important to test. We characterize this capacity as affective theory of mind and describe some unique challenges associated with its interpretive or generative nature. Mindful of these challenges we describe a five-step method along with preliminary investigations into its application. We also describe certain characteristics of the approach such as its incremental nature, and countermeasures that make it difficult to game or cheat.

This page includes forthcoming AAAI sponsored conferences, conferences presented by AAAI Affiliates, and conferences held in cooperation with AAAI. AI Magazine also maintains a calendar listing that includes nonaffiliated conferences at www.aaai.org/Magazine/calendar.php. The Tenth International AAAI Conference 15th International Conference on 18th International Conference on on Web and Social Media Principles of Knowledge Representation Enterprise Information Systems ICWSM-16 will be held May 17-20, and Reasoning (KR 2016) KR ICEIS 2016 will be held April 27-30, 2016 in Cologne, Germany. IEA/AIE-2016 will be York, New York USA. to Washington DC USA. AAAI-17 will be held in January-February in New Orleans, Louisiana USA.

We review the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICMMA’15). The competition evaluated submitted solvers performance on four different computational tasks related to solving abstract argumentation frameworks. Each task evaluated solvers in ways that pushed the edge of existing performance by introducing new challenges. Despite being the first competition in this area, the high number of competitors entered, and differences in results, suggest that the competition will help shape the landscape of ongoing developments in argumentation theory solvers.

The dinner speech at the Fischerhuette was given by Jörg Siekmann (University of Saarbrücken). The poster session, consisting of 18 posters and demos, was jointly organized as a get-together with the Berlin Semantic Web Meetup. At the session, wine, beer, and finger food were provided in the greenhouses of the Computer Science Department at The Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence the Freie Universität Berlin. The organizers also used (AAAI-17) and the Twenty-Ninth Conference on Innovative this unique opportunity to hold a joint public Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-17), will be RuleML and RR business meeting as well as an invited held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, during the mid-January dinner with all chairs, and invited keynote speakers to mid-February timeframe. AAAI-17 August 1, a boat sightseeing tour from lake Wannsee will arrive in New Orleans just prior to Mardi Gras and festivities to the Reichstag on Sunday, August 2, the CADE exhibitions will already be underway.

The 15th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2015) will be held in San Diego, California, USA, June 8-12, 2015, at the University of San Diego, at the Kroc Institute, under the auspices of the International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law (IAAIL), an organization devoted to promoting research and development in the field of AI and law with members throughout the world. The conference is held in cooperation with the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) and with ACM SIGAI (the Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence of the Association for Computing Machinery).

In this article I argue that achieving human-level AI is equivalent to learning how to create sufficiently smart software social organisms. This implies that no single test will be sufficient to measure progress. Instead, evaluations should be organized around showing increasing abilities to participate in our culture, as apprentices. This provides multiple dimensions within which progress can be measured, including how well different interaction modalities can be used, what range of domains can be tackled, what human-normed levels of knowledge they are able to acquire, as well as others. I begin by motivating the idea of software social organisms, drawing on ideas from other areas of cognitive science, and provide an analysis of the substrate capabilities that are needed in social organisms in terms closer to what is needed for computational modeling. Finally, the implications for evaluation are discussed.

If the artificial intelligence research community is to have a challenge problem as an incentive for research, as many have called for, it behooves us to learn the principles of past successful inducement prize competitions. Those principles argue against the Turing test proper as an appropriate task, despite its appropriateness as a criterion (perhaps the only one) for attributing intelligence to a machine.

The Turing Test, as originally conceived, focused on language and reasoning; problems of perception and action were conspicuously absent. To serve as a benchmark for motivating and monitoring progress in AI research, this article proposes an extension to that original proposal that incorporates all four of these aspects of intelligence. Some initial suggestions are made regarding how best to structure such a test and how to measure progress. The proposed test also provides an opportunity to bring these four important areas of AI research back into sync after each has regrettably diverged into a fairly independent area of research of its own.

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is an infinite number of definitions of intelligence. Machines that are intelligent in different narrow ways have been built since the 50s. We are entering now a golden age for the engineering of intelligence and the development of many different kinds of intelligent machines. At the same time there is a widespread interest among scientists in understanding a specific and well defined form of intelligence, that is human intelligence. For this reason we propose a stronger version of the original Turing test. In particular, we describe here an open-ended set of Turing++ Questions that we are developing at the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines at MIT — that is questions about an image. Questions may range from what is there to who is there, what is this person doing, what is this girl thinking about this boy and so on.  The plural in questions is to emphasize that there are many different intelligent abilities in humans that have to be characterized, and possibly replicated in a machine, from basic visual recognition of objects, to the identification of faces, to gauge emotions, to social intelligence, to language and much more. The term Turing++ is to emphasize that our goal is understanding human intelligence at all Marr’s levels — from the level of the computations to the level of the underlying circuits. Answers to the Turing++ Questions should thus be given in terms of models that match human behavior and human physiology — the mind and the brain. These requirements are thus well beyond the original Turing test. A whole scientific field that we call the science of (human) intelligence is required to make progress in answering our Turing++ Questions. It is connected to neuroscience and to the engineering of intelligence but also separate from both of them.

As machines have become more intelligent, there has been a renewed interest in methods for measuring their intelligence. A common approach is to propose tasks for which a human excels, but one which machines find difficult. However, an ideal task should also be easy to evaluate and not be easily gameable. We begin with a case study exploring the recently popular task of image captioning and its limitations as a task for measuring machine intelligence. An alternative and more promising task is Visual Question Answering that tests a machine’s ability to reason about language and vision. We describe a dataset unprecedented in size created for the task that contains over 760,000 human generated questions about images. Using around 10 million human generated answers, machines may be easily evaluated.