eugene@aurora.UUCP (Eugene miya) (10/16/86)
<2495@utai.UUCP> <2552@utai.UUCP> In article <2552@utai.UUCP>, me@utai.UUCP (Daniel Simon) writes: > In article <167@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > > > >The turing test has two components, (i) a formal, empirical one, > >and (ii) an informal, intuitive one. The formal empirical component (i) > >is the requirement that the system being tested be able to generate human > >performance (be it robotic or linguistic). That's the nontrivial > >burden that will occupy theorists for at least decades to come, as we > >converge on (what I've called) the "total" turing test -- a model that > >exhibits all of our robotic and lingistic capacities. > > Moreover, you haven't said anything concrete about what this test might look > like. On what foundation could such a set of defining characteristics for > "human performance" be based? Would it define those attributes common to all > human beings? Most human beings? At least one human being? How would we > decide by what criteria to include observable attributes in our set of "human" > ones? How could such attributes be described? Is such a set of descriptions > even feasible? If not, doesn't it call into question the validity of seeking > to model what cannot be objectively characterized? And if such a set of > describable attributes is feasible, isn't it an indispensable prerequisite for > the building of a working Turing-test-passing model? > > Again, you have all but admitted that the "total" Turing test you have > described has nothing to do with the Turing test at all--it is a set of > "objective observables" which can be verified through scientific examination. > The thoughtful examiner and "comparison human" have been replaced with > controlled scientific experiments and quantifiable results. What kinds of > experiments? What kinds of results? WHAT DOES THE "TOTAL TURING TEST" > LOOK LIKE? > > I know, I know. I ask a lot of questions. Call me nosy. > > Daniel R. Simon Keep asking questions. 1) I deleted your final comment about database: note EXPERT SYSTEMS (so called KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS) ARE NOT AI. 2) I've been giving thought to what a `true' Turing test would be like. I found Turing's original paper in Mind. This is what I have concluded with light thinking for about 8 months: a) No single question can answer the question of intelligence, then how many? I hope a finite, preferably small, or at least a countable number. b) The Turing test is what psychologists call a test of `Discrimination.' These tests should be carefully thought out for pre-test and post-test experimental conditions (like answers of a current question may or may not be based on answers from an earlier [not necessarily immediate question]). c) Some of the questions will be confusing, sort of like the more sophisticated eye tests like I just had. Note we introduce the possibly of calling some human "machines." d) Early questions in the tests in particular those of quantitative reasoning should be timed as well as checked for accuracy. Turing would want this. to was in his original paper. e) The test must be prepared for ignorance on the part of humans and machines. It should not simply take "I don't know," or "Not my taste" for answers. It should be able to circle in on one's ignorance to define the boundaries or character of the respondent's ignorance. f) Turing would want a degree of humor. The humor would be a more sophisticated type like punning or double entandres. Turing would certainly consider gaming problems. Turing mentions all these in his paper. Note that some of the original qualities make AI uneconomical in the short term. Who wants a computer which makes adding errors? Especially it's it dealing with my pay check. I add that a) We should check for `personal values,' `compassion,' which might traits or artifacts of the person or team responsible for programming. It should exploit those areas as possible lines of weakness or strenth. b) The test should have a degree of dynamic problem solving. c) The test might have characteristics like that test in the film Blade Runner. Note: memories != intelligence, but the question might be posed to the respondent in such a way: "Your wife and your daughter have fallen into the water. You can only save one. Who do you save? and why?" d) Consider looking at the WAIS, WISC, the Stanford-Binet, the MMPI (currently being updated), the Peabody, and numerous other tests of intelligence and personality, etc. Note there are tests which distinguish split brain people. They are simple tests. Consider the color-blindness tests: simple if you are not color blind, confusing is you are. There is a whole body of psychometric literature which Turing did not consult. As you can guess, such a test cannot be easily placed as a sequence on paper, but as a program in a dumb machine, it is certainly possible. As a last thought. The paper in Mind was published in 1950. Turing made comment about "computers with the capacity of a billion [what he did not say]," and the "turn of the Century." I suggested to Doug Hofstadter (visiting here one day), we hold a 50th anniversary celebration in the year 2000 on the publication of Turing paper, and he agreed. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene I need a turing machine to route my mail.