Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!forbis
From: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea
Message-ID: <1991May13.144943.19575@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 13 May 91 14:49:43 GMT
References: <1991May13.133711.102@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 36

I have pared this down.

In article <1991May13.133711.102@athena.mit.edu> mlevin@jade.tufts.edu writes:
>
>Suppose in X years, physics
>gets to such a point where very fast storage and retrieval of
>arbitrary amounts of information is easy (imagine some sort of
>hyperdimensional memory, or something). They then make an enormous
>'game-tree' of all possible conversations in English (taking 
>into account randomizing elements, repeat questions,
>etc.), and make an idiot box that simply accepts inputs from an
>interrogator, and, by direct table look-up, spits out answers, which
>are good enough to pass the Turing Test. I imagine supporters of the
>test (except behaviorists, I guess) will not want to classify this
>device as intelligent (or as a 'person') in any sense of the word.

I guess I am beyond any of these people you imagine for I think one has
to call the machine intelligent if the word is to retain any useful meaning.
Are you an implementationalist?  Is there some right way to implement 
specific behavior such that it and it alone may be called intelligent and
all other implementations are simulations?  If you are then how do I know
any specific human has intelligence rather than a simulation of the same?

An aside to the question.  Are you imagining a device which gives the 
appearance of learning without actually doing so?  If you are not then you
might reexamine the assertion that it is good enough to pass the Turing
Test.  Suppose I ask, "Do you remember the last time we talked about the
Turing Test?"  How would the machine respond?  The machine could not be
static but must have an ever growing knowledge base of the world about it.
The ability to learn and function at a human level is why I would call it
intelligent (there is no way to give the appearance of learning without
actually doing so.)

>Mike Levin

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu