Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!ames!eugene
From: eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Should The Turing test be modified with the times?
Message-ID: <427@ames.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Jul-84 17:12:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.427
Posted: Sun Jul 22 17:12:05 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jul-84 07:26:40 EDT
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 26

I am not an AI expert, but I do know image processing and certain other
computationally intensive tasks which are 'easy' for humans.  I also know
the original definition of the Turing test.  I take issue
with statements that LISP machines are 'smarter' or 'better' than humans
for "subgoal" tasks.  What I am wondering is "should the Test be modified
to Our times?"

I recall that Turing specified that a communication link such as a tty or
phone like could be used[1930s].  Should this be changed to a video link?
[This is am example only, there might be other aspects.]
Should the testee 'see' images?  Can machines recognize defocused images
of an animal and say "That is a cow" as humans could [to a limit].

Perhaps, what our definition of 'human' constitutes a moving target which
might take the Test more difficult.  The processing requirements of the
Turing Test in the 1930s would be less than those of today.  I can see it now,
over a crude link, we discover that we cannot tell the difference between
man and machine, then we hook up a video link, and the difference 'becomes
apparent.'  Admittedly, one can argue that this is only a matter of adding
more processig power, but ignore that argument or a while.  Also, there might
be audio examples (perhaps not as power as the video example).

Comments?  This is for discussion purposes, not just me.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center