Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!grivel!gara!pnettlet
From: pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is no good!
Summary: I don't believe what I'm hearing (reading that is)!
Message-ID: <3156@gara.une.oz.au>
Date: 14 Aug 90 03:22:26 GMT
References: <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Lines: 52

From article <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>, by frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen):
> ... On the other hand this kind of posting could well turn up in this group
> every few months. ...

It does - most recently (the still ongoing) Searl debate.

> ... To me the turing test only tests if a computer can imitate human
> intelligence (and presumably human thought). ...

"I think, therefore I am" - I still haven't found any proof that other
people exist, I merely choose to BELIEVE they do. Imitation is a nice
concept to pose when trying to undermine the Turing Test, but something
clever enough to imitate a human being well enough to fool a human
interrogator, must be of equivalent or higher intelligence itself.
Remember, ANY question is fair game in the Turing Test.

> ... 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. ...

I don't believe this - "Dem AI's Gunna Be Takin' Our Jobs Nex'".
There are a thousand good reasons for pursuing AI, I've never heard
of this one against it. Deep space exploration, deep sea exploration,
replacement of humans in life endangering jobs, etc, etc. I, for one,
will not stop thinking just because of the advent of AI. I wouldn't
advise arming them with nuclear weapons but thats a different issue.

> ... 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. ...

We might well be extremely bad at it - there could be thousands of species
of creatures throughout the Galaxy more intelligent than we are, and we're
so smart we can't even think of a way to prove whether they exist or not.

> ... The point is that the Turing test seems to me to be somewhat contrived
> and meaningless. ...

IQ tests are contrived and meaningless - we still do them and so do our
kids. It is meant to be a critical test of success or failure in creating
a machine with capabilities approaching those of a human being (at what human
beings do best). It does not represent the definitive answer to what we
expect AI to give us. After all, who needs a machine that can imitate being
a human being?

						Philip Nettleton,
						Tutor in Computer Science,
						University of New England,
						Armidale,
						New South Wales,
						AUSTRALIA.