Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!frank
From: frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: The Turing Test is no good!
Message-ID: <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Date: 13 Aug 90 09:01:19 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 32


Well this turned out to be a bit rambling and I don't think that it
has any thing particularly revolutionary in it but I think it may
be a different way of thinking about it that some of you haven't
considered.  On the other hand this kind of posting could well turn
up in this group every few months.
Anyway here goes:

To me the turing test only tests if a computer can imitate human
intelligence (and presumably human thought).  I'm not convinced
that it is a good idea to have an AI that is so close to being
human.  If computers can do all the thinking that people can (and
presumably better) then what's the point in any humans thinking.
We would be reduced to being amused by the AI's (presuming they're
nice) and all usefull thought would be done by the AI's.

What AI should do is let us humans keep doing what we're good at
and let the AI's do what they are better at.  Of course the AI's
will take over many task's performed by humans but hopefully some
will remain.  I suppose eventually it is quite likely that AI's 
will surpass human thought in all respects - and who knows what 
will happen then.  I guess I can't help being a bit frightened
by the prospect of becoming obsolete but I still wouldn't want
to slow down progress.

The point is that the Turing test seems to me to be somewhat contrived
and meaningless.  There are many things that computers can do that
people can't and it would be impossible for a person to pass an AI's
version of the turing test - but it doesn't mean a great deal.  AI's
should be measured by their usefulness not their likeness to people.

Frank Breen