Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!otter!cdfk
From: cdfk@otter.hple.hp.com (Caroline Knight)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Re: The future of AI - my opinion
Message-ID: <2070012@otter.hple.hp.com>
Date: 8 Apr 88 12:24:51 GMT
References: <2979@sfsup.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 23

The Turing Test is hardly adequate - I'm surprised that people
still bring it up - indeed it is exactly the way in which people's
expectations change with what they have already seen on a computer
which makes this a test with continuously changing criteria.

For instance, take someone who has never heard of computers
and show them any competent game and the technically 
unsophisticated may well believe the machine is playing
intelligently (I have trouble with my computer beating
me at Scrabble) but those who have become familiar with
such phenomena "know better" - its "just programmed".

The day when we have won is the inverse of the Turing Test - someone
will say this has to be a human not a computer - a computer 
couldn't have made such a crass mistake  - but then maybe
the computer just wanted to win and looked like a human... 

I realise that this sounds a little flippant but I think that
there is a serious point in it - I rely on your abilities
as intelligent readers to read past my own crassness and 
understand my point.

Caroline Knight