Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Turing Test and Subject Bias Message-ID: <3075@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 7 Jun 89 09:03:43 GMT References: <3039@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1174@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 30 In article <1174@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) writes: >What is artifical intelligence if intelligence is meaningless? Exactly - can't we just get back together and have everyone just work on computer systems, and put away this silly distinction of AI versus non-AI systems? Where does it get us? >I really have trouble absorbing that. I sometimes find value in >Gilbert Cockton's unconventional views, but at other times I find his >excesses excessive. It is the idea that intelligence is a definable, measurable property which is a perversion. I am unconventional here, but not in much larger academic subcultures than than miniscule AI community. I suggest you look at the intelligence debate in psychometrics, and Herb Simon's "Sciences of the Artificial" - as someone in touch with psychologists, he has better sense than to want to use such a term as AI. If you are *SERIOUSLY* interested in this question, there is an enormous amount of work in psychometrics and educational psychology on this. Remember, IQ tests were originally devised to keep idiots out of the French infantry. Today they only confirm that armies have to take them anyway:-) -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs !ukc!glasgow!gilbert