Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!buffalo.CSNET!colonel
From: colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman")
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: extended Turing test
Message-ID: <8611070542.AA29835@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 30-Oct-86 16:09:20 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8611070542.AA29835
Posted: Thu Oct 30 16:09:20 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Nov-86 23:11:07 EST
References: <8610271728.AA12616@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 25
Approved: ailist@sri-stripe.arpa

In article <8610271728.AA12616@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, harnad@mind.UUCP writes:

> >       [I]t's misleading to propose that a veridical model of _our_ behavior
> >       ought to have our "performance capacities"...I do not (yet) quarrel
> >       with the principle that the model ought to have our abilities. But to
> >       speak of "performance capacities" is to subtly distort the fundamental
> >       problem. We are not performers!
> 
> "Behavioral ability"/"performance capacity" -- such fuss over
> black-box synonyms, instead of facing the substantive problem of
> modeling the functional substrate that will generate them.

You seem to be looking at the problem as a scientist.  Let me give an
example of what I mean:

Suppose you have a robot slave. (That's the practical goal of A.I.,
isn't it?) It cooks for you, makes the beds, changes the oil in your
car, puts the dog out, performs sexual favors, ... you name it.  BUT--
it will not open the front door for you!

Maddened with frustration, you order an electric-eye door opener,
1950s design.  It works flawlessly.  Now you have everything you want.

Does the combination of robot + door-opener pass the Total Turing Test?
Is the combination a valid subject for the Test?