Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. p - (nf) Message-ID: <500001@ea.UUCP> Date: Sat, 7-Jul-84 14:25:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.500001 Posted: Sat Jul 7 14:25:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jul-84 07:50:25 EDT References: <290@gloria.UUCP> Lines: 28 Nf-ID: #R:gloria:-29000:ea:500001:000:1095 Nf-From: ea!mwm Jul 7 13:25:00 1984 #R:gloria:-29000:ea:500001:000:1095 ea!mwm Jul 7 13:25:00 1984 /***** ea:net.ai / gloria!colonel / 1:01 pm Jul 3, 1984 */ if you really want to know whether somebody is a person or a computer, you just look at him/it. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel /* ---------- */ Sorry, that test only works if you want to know if somebody is a *human* or a computer - and not even reliably in that situation. The point behind the Turing test that many people seem to have missed is impartiality. You don't claim that something isn't intelligent because it's different from you (If you do, I'll sic the ACLU on you! :-). As a different example, lets consider a limited domain: calculus. If you want to know if a human understands calculus, what do you do? You give it a test. If it passes the test, then it understands calculus, and if it doesn't, then it's understanding of calculus is incomplete. Now, if a program passes the same test, shouldn't we say that it understands calculus? If not, why not - and remember, "becauses it's a computer" or "because it can't `understand'" aren't valid answers.