zaumen%Sri-Tsc@sri-unix.UUCP (06/16/83)
Sorry, it has to be parsed by a program (I assume you are a person, not a machine), so you don't get a real physical can of Coors Lite. You mentioned that a program that could parse legalese (as convoluted as in my example) would not pass the Turing test, as most people could not parse it. Lawyers claim to be able to parse it, thereby leading me to suspect that lawyers cannot pass the Turing test. This leads to an interesting question--are lawyers intelligent? If lawyers are intelligent, what does this imply about the Turing test? Bill [The lawyer could pass the test by pretending not to understand the test sentence. It has always been assumed that an intelligent machine would similarly hide its superior arithmetic skill. This requirement for duplicity is a major failing of the Turing test. -- KIL]
SASW%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (06/22/83)
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC> Do I count as an AI program? I can parse your "legalese" for you. The quoted paragraph essentially signs over to your insurance company any rights you may have had to sue someone (anyone) over the accident. This is in exchange for the company's payout on your claim. They can then (themselves) sue the people you would have been able to sue and collect without bothering you or getting your approval. This is not a legal opinion of any sort. Please send me my can of Coors Lite via the newly-created CLTP (Coors Lite Transmission Protocol). -- Steve P.S. The Los Angeles /Daily Journal/ is a legal newspaper which publishes a "sentence of the day" each day, culled from actual legal writing. It is usually as bad or worse than your quoted example. They also publish a "sentence of the year" (!). Since most human beings cannot parse a sentence of that opaqueness, no AI program should pass the Turing test unless it also fails at it. $$