Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!uunet!mcsun!corton!inria!seti!nuri!ziane From: ziane@nuri.inria.fr (ziane mikal @) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea Message-ID: <2215@seti.inria.fr> Date: 23 May 91 12:09:43 GMT References: <2212@seti.inria.fr> <3348@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> Sender: news@seti.inria.fr Organization: INRIA Rocquencourt,Le Chesnay, France. Lines: 72 Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea Summary: Expires: References: <2212@seti.inria.fr> <3348@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: INRIA Rocquencourt,Le Chesnay, France. Keywords: In article <3348@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> jbaxter@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Jon Baxter) writes: >We don't need to be able to incorporate any possible number in the tree >because humans can only handle a very small range of numbers themselves. >Sure the tree will need to respond correctly to "how much is 5 times 3", >but to the question "how much is 1991 times 1991" all the tree has to reply >is "I don't have a pencil and paper: I can't work that one out." Even if we >demand that the tree behaves as if it did possess pencil and paper, there is >still a limit to the size of the calculation it can be pretending to perform, >(ask me to calculate "251521271185 times 1276151512" and I'll tell you to >get lost!) and so there is still a limit to the number of possibilities that >need to be encoded into the tree. At least your table needs to include an entry for a sentence mentionning 251521271185 ! Or do you parse the input ? If I ask the machine: "Is 98762340987234 a number ?" I hope it'll reply "yes". This point is only to show that you need to incorporate more or less sophisticated techniques in your system. Numbers are only an example. I guess one could show that you need very complex techniques for coping with other examples. >> Finaly we should agree about the mechanism using the tree and about the >> tree. Somebody has proposed grammars etc. If anything like that is used >> of course (and I think it was the point of this person) the system may >> produce acceptable answers because it would be intelligent ! >> The first proposal was a simple table lookup, right ? > >I agree that the point of this discussion is lost if we start incorporating >more complicated algorithmic procedures such as grammars into our table >look-up. Still, there is a surprising amount that can be done with a table >look-up. Even the problem of describing ones surroundings can be solved by >simply leaving certain entries in the table blank, to be filled in when more >is known about the table's environment. What do you mean ? The table would be constantly updating itself ? How ? Would an operator do that or would it be automatic ? I definitely think this table lookup is less and less clear. However I agree that the idea is interesting. I think we could purge it and formulate it this way: "Maybe a very fast hardware with a huge memory, associated with a "stupid" software may be as effective as a much slower hardware with an intelligent software. Maybe such a system could even speak English like you and me". One limited example of such a system is Deep Thought. It plays chess almost like a grand-master although using a rather simple algorithm. However the Test of Turing, although not the ultimate test for intelligence, is still very useful because of the very low probability that a fast enough hardware will pass the test with a stupid software. A good complement for the test is IMO to "open the box" that is after the demo you want to know more about the way it works. Not so easy with a human being but not impossible, indirectly. If you know the history of the system... But all this is of course much more complicated than the Test of Turing which is precisely interesting because it is so simple. Mikal.