X-Message-Number: 8547 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 14:35:59 -0400 From: "John P. Pietrzak" <> Subject: Why use the Turing Test References: <> Mike Perry wrote: > One thought about the Turing Test is that so far we haven't created a > program that could pass it, at least at the level of a normal, adult > human. This suggests such a program must be nontrivial. Whatever it > *would* have to have, if not "real" intelligence, must be a fair > imitation. [...] But with intelligence, isn't an "imitation" the > same as the real thing? That is the basic rationale behind the test. To my mind, however, the ability to mimic a human pattern of responses to queries across a network connection is not sufficient to encompass the intelligence of a human. Initially, many early successes in AI seemed to mimic intelligence: programs could play chess and checkers, discover mathematical proofs, diagnose diseases. Certainly, the humans who did these things were considered "intelligent". Unfortunately, each automaton left something to be desired. There's something deeper to intelligence, more than just being able to mimic a particular human ability. Even when we do have programs regularly passing a Turing Test, I suspect they will still not be what people really want. John Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8547