Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!frank
From: frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is no good!
Message-ID: <2870@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Date: 16 Aug 90 04:12:21 GMT
References: <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <3156@gara.une.oz.au>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 57

In <3156@gara.une.oz.au> pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) writes:

<From article <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>, by frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen):

<> ... 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.

But to me Searle shows how it is possible to construct something that
will answer any question without understanding it.  (I don't believe
it would be possible but I can't prove it and after reading Searle's
paper it seems like a valid though experiment).  I disagree with
Searles conclusion however since his reasoning seems a bit circular.

'lets construct something that answer questions using only symbol
manipulation and think about the consequences. think think...  Well
it seems to me that it is only using symbol manipulation and so doesn't
really understand it.'

What Searle shows (to me) is that the turing test might be inadequate
to test understanding of some things but only in extreme cases. (the
chinese room being one of them).  But I don't see how he disproves
strong AI.

<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. ...
<...I, for one,
<will not stop thinking just because of the advent of AI.

I agree that it's not a reason to stop AI but I do think they could
take all our jobs - but they might not - we'll just have to wait and see.

<We might well be extremely bad at it - there could be thousands of species
<of creatures throughout the Galaxy more intelligent than we are,...

Frightening - I like being a member of the smartest known species.

<> ... 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?

Yes I agree with this - it's a good point.

Frank Breen