sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (08/16/83)
OOPS! that should be "express some sort of INtolerance"... This is a really fun topic. The problem of the Turing Test is enormously difficult and *very* subtle (either that or we're overlooking something really obvious). Now the net provides a gigantic lab for enterprising researchers to try out their latest attempts. So far I have resisted the temptation, since there are more basic problems to solve first! The curious thing about an AI project is that it can be made infinitely complicated (programs are like that; consider emacs or nroff), certainly enough to simulate any kind of behavior desired, whether it be bigotry, right-wingism, irascibility, mysticism, or perhaps even ordinary rational thought. This has been demonstrated by several programs, among them PARRY (simulates paranoia), and POLITICS (simulates arguments between ideologues) (mail me for refs if interested). So it doesn't appear that there is a way to detect an AI project, based on any *particular* behavior. A more productive approach might be to look for the capability to vary behavior according to circumstances (self-modifiability). I can note that all humans appear capable of modifying their behavior, and that very few AI programs can do so. However, not all human behavior can be modified, and much cannot be modified easily. "Try not to think of a zebra for the next ten minutes" - humans cannot change their own thought processes to manage this feat, while an AI program would not have much problem. In fact, Lenat's Eurisko system (assuming we can believe all the claims) has the capability to speed up its own operation! (it learned that Lisp 'eq' and 'equal' are the same for atoms, and changed function references in its own code) The ability to change behavior cannot be a criterion. So how does one decide? The question is still open.... stan the leprechaun hacker ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs) ps I thought about Zeno's Paradox recently - the Greeks (especially Archimedes) were about a hair's breadth away from discovering calculus, but Zeno had crippled everybody's thinking by making a "paradox" where none existed. Perhaps the Turing Test is like that....
brh@wjh12.UUCP (Holt) (08/18/83)
I realize this article was a while ago, but I'm just catching up with my news reading, after vacation. Bear with me. I wonder why folks think it would be so easy for an AI program to "change it's thought processes" in ways we humans can't. I submit that (whether it's an expert system, experiment in KR or what) maybe the suggestion to 'not think about zebras' would have a similiar effect on an AI proj. as on a human. After all, it IS going to have to decipher exactly what you meant by the suggestion. On the other hand, might it not be easier for one of you humans .... we, I mean ... to consciously think of something else, and 'put it out of your mind'?? Still an open question in my mind... (Now, let's hope this point isn't already in an article I haven't read...) Brian Holt wjh!brh