Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aipna!edai!cam
From: cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.edai   031 667 1011 x2550)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Turing Test and Subject Bias
Message-ID: <416@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Jun 89 20:37:54 GMT
References: <3018@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1108@hydra.cs.Helsinki.FI> <3039@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <408@edai.ed.ac.uk> <3079@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: cam@edai (Chris Malcolm)
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Lines: 25

In article <3079@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>So what is the common practice?
>Again, how *DO* AI types test their systems?

As I've said before, in ways as various as the intended capabilities of
the systems. For example, (you're not going to like this!) I'm
developing a system which can plan how to assemble shapes out of parts.
How do I test it? I tell it the shapes of the parts, the shape to build,
and then watch the robot build the shape (or fail, as the case may be).
The criterion is simple and indubitable. I cannot imagine there ever
being any dispute about whether or not the robot succeeded (except
trivial borderline pedantries).

By developing I mean that I'm trying to extend the capabilities of the
system. It is not a complicated system; there are probably thousands of
ways in which it could be built. What is interesting is that some ways
are very simple, whereas others are very complex. What is even more
interesting is why, i.e., the interesting research questions concern
good (simple, economical) architectures for building systems capable of
successful thought and action in a world.

-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.edai   031 667 1011 x2550
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK