Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale!quasi-eli!cs.yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!mcdermott-drew
From: mcdermott-drew@cs.yale.edu (Drew McDermott)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea
Summary: Bad idea
Message-ID: <1991May20.183713.3587@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 20 May 91 18:37:13 GMT
References: <1991May13.133711.102@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 44
Originator: dvm@aden.CS.Yale.Edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: aden.ai.cs.yale.edu


   In article <1991May13.133711.102@athena.mit.edu> mlevin@jade.tufts.edu writes:
   >
   >    I'd like to hear opinions on the following thought I had, about
   >the Turing Test. Start off with a story. 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 am no supporter of the Test, but this scenario makes no sense (even
after imposing a length limitation on conversations so there's only a
finite number of them).  There are two problems (which others have
pointed out before, but what the the hell):

1. No matter how big and fast your information-retrieval system is, you
cannot build the game tree without actually simulating all possible
conversations.  (Well, not exactly.  You only have to come up with one
response to each of your interlocutor's "moves.")  This will take
more time than we have.  Even if we could somehow do it, the later
retrieval of the conversations would essentially amount to reenacting
the "trial run" that was simulated before.  The retriever would not be
carrying on the conversation, but just enabling the game-tree builder
to carry on conversations long after his death.

2. Many conversational remarks have no context-independent responses, e.g.:
   "What time is it?"  (due to Pat Hayes)
   "Did you hear that? It sounded like a sonic boom."
   "I don't know about you, but those heart tremors made me quayle in
    fear."

There's no way to encode a single appropriate response to
conversations including sentences like these.  There's also no way to
rule them out that I can think of.  (Any attempt to do so would make
it too easy for the human to always win, by subtly breaking the
rules.)

                                             -- Drew McDermott