Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cme!kohout
From: kohout@cme.nist.gov (Robert Kohout)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Value of turing test?
Message-ID: <6032@puggsly.cme.nist.gov>
Date: 24 Aug 90 13:54:58 GMT
References: <14942@csli.Stanford.EDU> <1353@thor.wright.EDU>
Reply-To: kohout@cme.nist.gov (Robert Kohout)
Distribution: comp
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
Lines: 32

In article <1353@thor.wright.EDU> vdasigi@thor.wright.edu writes:
>
>On a related note, I remember a similar discussion about a year or so
>ago, from which I excerpt the following quote from Drew McDermott:
>
>"Turing's test can never hope to provide a NECESSARY condition for
>intelligence, but only a SUFFICIENT one."
>
I believe this is part of an excellent article posted to the net some
months ago. A reposting may be appropriate in light of the current
turn in this discussion. In any event, can someone out there please
E-mail me a copy?

It is important to realize the the Turing Test is only one measure of
intelligence. More correctly, it is one definition of intelligence.
Some (operational) psychologists like to claim that "Intelligence is
what IQ tests measure" and leave it at that. Obviously, this has very little 
intuitive appeal, but it implicitly recognizes the difficulty one faces 
in trying to define or characterize intelligence. It is my belief that ANY
attempt to define or characterize intelligence in a general way will be
problematic, and the shortcomings of the Turing Test are symptomatic of
this. 

A corollary to this is that one should not burden the AI community with
the defense of the Turing Test. Those who care to use it as a foundation
may feel free to do so, but one should not make the assumption that anyone
who claims to be an AI practitioner has submitted himself to the programme
which it dictates. If, as I have claimed, intelligence defies an exact 
definition, we should be satisfied which inexact and problematic ones.


R.Kohout