weyand@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Weyand) (01/10/90)
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: [previous points deleted] >What I'm trying to suggest is that at some point we may be able to >look inside both humans and machines and find relevant differences. >Maybe it will be clear from this that the machines are just faking it, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The idea Jeff states above that the machines are just faking it seems to me to be something Searle could believe. Searle accepts the possibility of a machine passing the Turing test. But instead of being amazed at such a feat Searle wants to say "Yes, but it's not really thinking it's just faking it". This seems to me a somewhat strange egotistical? viewpoint. I would be absolutely fascinated by a computer passing the TT. Searle accuses AI researchers of confusing simulation with reality. To my mind the line between the two becomes fuzzy at some point especially when dealing with simulations of cognition. Now I don't believe that any current simulations even come close but if someone were to present me with what they called a computer simulation that could pass the TT with me, I would reply "You're no simulation!" >or maybe it will be clear that they should count as understanding >after all, even if they get there in a somewhat different way. Yes, maybe it wouldn't be a simulation of "human" cognition but then I really wouldn't care if it could still pass the TT. The Turing Test seems to me to be a perfectly valid test of thought/ understanding. One person dismissed the TT on the grounds that understanding is not just I/O behavior. Yes but what else do we have to go on really. Why do you suscribe intelligence/understanding to others? Because of their behavior. If we were to have Searle perform the TT with a computer that could pass it, Searle would accept that he was conversing with an intelligent conscious agent until he found out it was a machine at which point he would say, "Oh it's just faking it." Chris Weyand -=- weyand@csli.Stanford.Edu