Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsh!mbb
From: mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Turing Test and Subject Bias
Message-ID: <1130@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Jun 89 19:08:43 GMT
References: <952@maestro.htsa.aha.nl>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 46

From article <952@maestro.htsa.aha.nl>, by fransvo@maestro.htsa.aha.nl (Frans van Otten):
> .....
> It seems to me that the use of the word "intelligence" is rather
> subjective, and the opposite of "dumbness".  It is not an absolute
> property of a system or human or animal, at least not when normally
> used.  I think that is why it is so hard to define "intelligence".
> And a definition based on subjective perceptions like these is
> probably not of much use in the field of ai.
> 
> But it might be possible to describe a property which I might call
> "absolute intelligence".  This could be described by something like
> ........

I wish I knew more about epistemology.  I agree that the use of the
word "intelligence" is subjective.  On the one hand, definitions are
subjective: what looks like a good definition to one person looks like
a bad definition to another.  On the other hand, the Turing test is
objectively definable but is based on the subjective judgments of a
participant.  The subjectivity seems unavoidable.

I see basically two approaches.  One is to put the subjective part
first, and then if we can only agree on it (ha, ha) then we can be
objective thereafter.  The "ha, ha" is, if I may say so, the joker.
We argue and argue over definitions.

The other approach is to put the objective part first.  That's what
Turing tried to do, in a sense.  He suggested putting people and
machines in an objective setting, and letting the people do what people
do, namely, make subjective judgments.  That way, we, the observers, at
least can objectively watch other people being subjective, instead of
being lost instantly in our own subjectivity.

Turing's argument is based (I imagine) on the one thing (I imagine) we
can agree on: that intelligence is what people have.  All our
definitions are based on the belief that people are intelligent.  All
our questions are based on wanting to know whether machines can do what
people do.  We just don't all know exactly what it is that people do.

I think (ha, ha?) we can agree on that.

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201) 949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM

Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer
	    explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.