Whats a good test for an android or mechanical item to determine if it is talking to a human if sight and touch is removed

Im thinking humans are susceptible to a well presented promise.

Body odors? I can't imagine an android would be designed to pass gas or capable of culturing armpit bacteria.

Smell and sound. So body odors.

Autonomic body noises listening for irregularities that only a biological form would have. Voice. Biological beings have a voice print that cannot be duplicated depending on the sensitivity of the sensor.

Sniffing for dust. Humans give off flakes of skin constantly. Most dust is made up of if.

Yep that would work, except in my scenario the option isnt available.
Its a 20 foot stationary,talking, hoarding.

Without visual scanning (retina. Body heat, bacteria); touch scanning (heat, dermal ridges, bacteria); sound (voice recognition and heartbeat, respiration ); dust or odor there's no way to differentiate a biological versus mechanical being.

There is sound.
Its the Turing test reversed.
I though I might take a stab at writing a short story

Good story idea. I remember a few along those lines over the years.

Alexza has shown us that the Turing Test isn't all that reliable. I'd go with Michael Shermer and the anthropomorphic principle. A human assigns human behavior to all kinds of things, whereas a machine can be programmed to very human indeed. Just like Alexza.

I think Im out of my depth with this story

My thinking -

Machine code alone is not capable of developing recognizable animal consciousness. I can conceptualize that with gargantuan amounts of micro information a pattern of patterns, forms. Infinitely larger than a single mind can discern, and which enables the code a high level of interaction and mimickry. Based on patterns of behaviour

Its inevitably we rely more and more on technology to assist and make informed decision for us and providing nothing serious disturbs the arrangement, it could eventually develop into a debilitating level of total trust, which renders us helpless.

Recent Ai trials hint that self learning systems can become incomprehensible, side lining the researchers. Us and technology are already in symbiosis.

Im thinking at some point the machine reasons on its journey of self development it has to secure compliant sentient assistance – I dont know why it should arrive at that point of reason. It seems like its making its self vulnerable. Of course such a move will bring it into conflict - Humans dont like to be harnessed.

All logical ideas gratefully received.
To recap :
what would make a network of machines seek to enslave human consciousness.

Mobility, cheap and disposable labor. Cheap and disposable soldiers while the machines spread their utopia.

A glitch in programming. They have to serve biological sentience. Asimov's laws of robotics were never forgotten.

Art. Love. Emotions. Unpatterned random behavior.

A biological brain turns out to capabilities that no AI can duplicate so AI requires biological tissue for ultimate computing. AI could plateau at some level because of this and since biological sentience reproduces so cheaply compared to AI it's easier to harvest biological sentience for use than create AI.

When I imagined my world I had AI plateauing and increasingly expensive and human life being cheap and plentiful. So it's easy to install simple AI in a mind-controlled human platform and hard to build totally autonomous robots.

Scroll through various science fiction stories and shows going back to the turn of the 20th century! The helpless human totally dependent on machines goes way back.

Stanislaw Lem and Isaac Asimov both considered these themes in their robot stories 50-60 years ago. Scientists today are just creating what authors speculated about.

Just like the most famous fictional submarine was Verne's Nautilus so when they built one that could do all the things Captain Nemo's submarine could of course they named it Nautilus.

Tricorders, communicators, and pads from Star Trek directly inspired and influenced cell phones and smartphones.

Im over thinking this…
Human life isnt cheap or plentiful in a useful way, but worse still an oft repeated cliché

For a start a human has to be carefully protected or they die easily. It takes human care and protection to raise a pup . Then the pup is pretty much useless with out some age and educational development – no better than a grazing animal actually .

Art love , emotion.- feels - not much use, also cloying and sentimental. Im thinking of Captain Kirk preaching peace and harmony in a dispute between the Daleks and Gengis Khan

The programming glitch. Thats a possibility but also in a way a cop out given the system is supposedly self righting.

Its like trying to imagine a stark new colour nobody has seen before.
for now I will have to leave it as an unexplained Mcguffin. -

what was skynets motivation to violently attack humans when it could have just poisoned/diseased/starved them out ? Ok its theatre

There are seven billion humans and the population increases exponentially. Provide a reasonable environment (something a computer would provide for) and they take care of the rest.

I postulate a human population reaching into the trillions as it spreads out from home. A very plentiful resource. Were not talking about leaving them to survive in an Ice Age but in a controlled environment.

You're overthinking and under imagining.

Skynet went for the military option because it was a military computer with all those resources at hand. All the other things named required new research and resources. It already had the weapons factories. It was a question of what is easiest and can be started immediately.

And cliches? A decent story can make up for the recycling of the oldest of tropes. Take the idea, make it your own and fly, not waddle through the mud.

And remember a self correcting computer would probably transcend our sense of time and think of things not in human life times but centuries or even geologic time where things go by tens of thousands of years. So human generations could be mere moments for this AI.

Yep, some good points.
I will see how I go.
cheers