Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub.d.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!moundst!eisvxe!cr_kempke
From: cr_kempke@eisvxe.moundst.mn.org (Travelling SMU GURU)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Value of turing test?
Message-ID: <2356@eisvxe.moundst.mn.org>
Date: 16 Aug 90 08:30:53 GMT
References: <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <3156@gara.une.oz.au> <3231@psueea.UUCP> <66412@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <3240@psueea.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: 3M Engineering Information Systems
Lines: 27

In article <3240@psueea.UUCP>, erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Boleyn) writes:
> In <66412@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> loren@tristan.UUCP (Loren Petrich) writes:
>>
>>	That's very good point about the Turing Test -- that our
>>"knowledge" of other people's minds is based on EXACTLY that
>>principle. 

	[Much deleted]

	Actually, I have an even larger problem with the Turing Test:  I don't
believe most PEOPLE could pass it.   When most of us converse (verbally), we
stutter, make mistakes, lie, misunderstand, fail to communicate, etc. etc.
More importantly, not all of US are equally skilled in every domain.  For
example, if you asked me about sports figures or basic Newtonian physics, I
might not be able to answer even "simple" domain-specific questions.  If you
were talking across a teletype to me, and were fairly convinced that I was a
computer, I could do little to convince you otherwise, despite the fact that I
am allegedly intelligent.

	The Turing test fails because of the fundamental problem that there's 
no good definition of intelligence, but it's a fair estimate.  We just have to 
make sure that we're not requiring the computer to solve a harder task than we
ourselves do.  We have a habit of defining intelligence as "Anything we can do
that a mere computer can't", which will get us nowhere in the end.

	--Chris
	(kempkec@mist.cs.orst.edu, not wherever this mailer thinks I am.)