Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!olivea!tardis!tymix!uunet!ckgp!thomas From: thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: If it does not pass TT it is not intelligent???? Keywords: TT, intelligence Message-ID: <604@ckgp.UUCP> Date: 19 Jun 91 23:32:21 GMT Article-I.D.: ckgp.604 References: <8569@awdprime.UUCP> <1991Jun18.220932.22904@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Jun19.050512.27413@news.media.mit.edu> Organization: CKGP Assoc. Inc. Birmingham, MI Lines: 73 In article <1991Jun19.050512.27413@news.media.mit.edu>, minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes: > In article <3727@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> jbaxter@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Jon Baxter) writes: > >In article <1991Jun18.220932.22904@news.media.mit.edu> > >minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes: > > > >> Please, Turing never meant the TT to be Necessary for people to > >> recognize something as intelligent. It was only intended to be a > >> Sufficient condition. And it was not to define intelligence, but only > >> to propose a situation in which non-critical people would usually agree. I disagree that the the test is a condition that must be met for a computer to be intelligent (let us not get lost on intelligence again...) I also feel that the TT is critical, you are told one is a person and one is a machine so which is which? The test shouldn't be posed in that way. because you govern your question towards the goal. (I know that is the idea!) But what if the person was told that one person is male and one is female like the original party game. And if a person said that that thing sounds like a computer or doesn't make any since then you would know it failed. But if the person said the computer was male or female then the computer would pass! 8^) > >Then what use is the Turing test? Sufficiently non-critical people think > >Did Turing really mean for the people in his test to be non-critical? I think his major goal with the test was to complete the goal of the computer being able to interact with people comfortably. and if this was to happen it sould act and respond just like a person. Now you and I know that now AI have developed into something greater and contains more aspects than just human interaction. (after all in the olden days of AI wasn't that the point?) > It isn't any use at all, so far as I know. Turing was addressing the > problem that people, because they have the word "intelligent", think > there must be a thing that corresponds to it, and they want a I feel that that is more of a problem of today and why we all have such a problem with the TT. WE know that intelligence is more than just natural language processing or simple programs like Eliza. WE also understand (or at least I hope that we do?) that true AI will contain a richer or a better word might be DIFFERENT intelligence that human intelligence AND still not worse than human intelligence. (I would have just said better but people do feel better and smarter than everything else in the world. and always will..8-( .) > So, yes, he meant for the people to be uncritical. Do you think Eliza > is more or less intellgient than an ant? Do you think something is I think elisa is different than an ant, but the joe on the street might infact say YES it does at times seem intelligent, but I of course know the trick behid eliza as we all do. 8^) I THINK: that the TT test is out-dated. The other day I saw a show which was exploring the fact that dolphins communicate with their sonar, wait a sec, not language like we think of language, but with pure images. So since their language is/might be so different than ours is it worse? I say no, they can convey pure idea to large groups over vast distances and have complete or the next best, understanding. (or aleast I think so. If I could in one shot give all of you idea "A" and you understand the whole idea then the task of breaking it down in our system of language would be removed. You all understood "A" and the whole idea behind it and that I meant "A"...so back to the real point) So then is a dolphins system of language or the human system of language better, more advanced, more INTELLIGENT? Isn't this the same thing with intelligence the test should be something more focused on what it means to be intelligent not matching our guidelines of intelligence. Agreed????? 8^) Thanks for listening.... -- Thank you, Michael Thomas (..uunet!ckgp!thomas)