pkelly@westcsr.UUCP (08/20/84)
I read in today's Guardian newspaper of an unpublished report describing an experiment performed at British Department of Health and Social Security offices (D.H.S.S. or colloquially 'the SS'). People claiming social security benefit often queue for literally hours to see DHSS staff about what benefits they're entitled to. In a small selection of offices computers were installed which people could choose to use instead of queueing to see a person. The machines took about half an hour to do a consultation, and produced an extensive print-out at the end. Finally, the clients were questionned on their experience. Despite often never having communicated with a computer before, 85 percent said they found the machines a better source of information than DHSS staff. The mechanised interview took a bit longer than talking to a human, but as the report's author, Joyce Ebstein, concludes, "What the professionals don't appreciate is that people don't object to long periods of service and attention. What they do object to is long periods of waiting for service and attention". Of course, this is no evidence to support wholesale redundancies - it simply underlines the abominable service being provided. But it does bring to mind an alternative to the Turing test, in which it is unimportant whether users can distinguish between a machine and a human. What counts is which they prefer. The test no longer defines Artificial Intelligence, but perhaps it makes a more sensible objective for artificial intelligence research. Yours, Paul Kelly, Westfield College, Univ. of London. (..vax135!ukc!west44!westcsr)