thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas) (06/25/91)
Hi everyone,
Now it was my understanding that Turing felt that a computer
would never be able to "Think" or actually be "Intelligent", and
dispite the definitions of these terms, we all understand what is
meant. (I hope) So it was also my understanding that Turing felt
that the best a computer might be able to do someday is imitate
a person. So he devised a test to deturmine if a computer at some
point could accomplish this task....
So, is this correct so far??? (I believe it is...)
So, does anyone else feel that prehaps Turing was incorrect in
his analysis of future computer technology (current computer technology)?
Does anyone feel that this is still a valid test, which should be
used in every case to deturmine if a system is intelligent, as compared
to humans?
Does anyone believe that this test is in anyway valid in
deturmining if a system is intelligent?
Has anyone established a test or heard of one that would be better suited
for deturmining if a system is intelligent?
--
Thank you,
Michael Thomas
(..uunet!ckgp!thomas)vu0208@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (06/25/91)
In article <612@ckgp.UUCP> thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas) writes: >Hi everyone, > > Now it was my understanding that Turing felt that a computer > would never be able to "Think" or actually be "Intelligent", and > dispite the definitions of these terms, we all understand what is > meant. (I hope) So it was also my understanding that Turing felt > that the best a computer might be able to do someday is imitate > a person. So he devised a test to deturmine if a computer at some > point could accomplish this task.... > > So, is this correct so far??? (I believe it is...) > > So, does anyone else feel that prehaps Turing was incorrect in > his analysis of future computer technology (current computer technology)? > Does anyone feel that this is still a valid test, which should be > used in every case to deturmine if a system is intelligent, as compared > to humans? > Does anyone believe that this test is in anyway valid in > deturmining if a system is intelligent? > > Has anyone established a test or heard of one that would be better suited > for deturmining if a system is intelligent? Here is my test/criteria for a system to be an intelligent.(note: I assume that you know the meaning/definition of intelligence, if not then think of human being as an intelligent system.) Being humans we have developed machines that do little bit of intelligent work like us. Similarly if our machines (h-m-c human made computer) can in turn design on their own some new machines (say c-m-c computer made computer) then we can REGARD h-m-c as intelligent machine!! Intelligence cannot be limited upto imitation of a human intelligence, it can take what ever shape and dimension beyond our grasp. And if we really make machines that surpass the human mental capabilities then they can definitely be regarded as Super Intelligent (regradless of TT).
ciancarini-paolo@cs.yale.edu (paolo ciancarini) (06/26/91)
In article <612@ckgp.UUCP> thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas) writes: >Hi everyone, > > Now it was my understanding that Turing felt that a computer > would never be able to "Think" or actually be "Intelligent", and > dispite the definitions of these terms, we all understand what is > meant. (I hope) So it was also my understanding that Turing felt > that the best a computer might be able to do someday is imitate > a person. So he devised a test to deturmine if a computer at some > point could accomplish this task.... > > So, is this correct so far??? (I believe it is...) > > So, does anyone else feel that prehaps Turing was incorrect in > his analysis of future computer technology (current computer technology)? > Does anyone feel that this is still a valid test, which should be > used in every case to deturmine if a system is intelligent, as compared > to humans? > Does anyone believe that this test is in anyway valid in > deturmining if a system is intelligent? > > Has anyone established a test or heard of one that would be better suited > for deturmining if a system is intelligent? > >-- >Thank you, >Michael Thomas >(..uunet!ckgp!thomas) Recently I saw on some TV channel a documentary about sen. McCarthy and his times (the late forties and early fifties). I was struck by a question made by a journalist to the senator: McCarthy was asked how he could recognize a communist. He answered something like this: "if he speaks like a communist, if he writes like a communist, if he has communists friends, if he looks like a communist, he IS a communist". Unfortunately, the Senator could convince a lot of people that such a criterion was good. I do not know why, but I immediately associated such a definition to the Turing paper (1950) in which he introduced his Test concerning thinking machines. Is it possible that Turing was not "analyzing future computer technology" but simply using some cultural paradigms of his time? May I suggest that the Turing test was a sort of cryptic joke about McCarthism? Paolo Ciancarini
snead@MDI.COM (Gregory Snead) (06/26/91)
In article <612@ckgp.UUCP>, thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas) writes: |> Hi everyone, |> |> Now it was my understanding that Turing felt that a computer |> would never be able to "Think" or actually be "Intelligent", and |> dispite the definitions of these terms, we all understand what is |> meant. (I hope) So it was also my understanding that Turing felt |> that the best a computer might be able to do someday is imitate |> a person. So he devised a test to deturmine if a computer at some |> point could accomplish this task.... |> |> So, is this correct so far??? (I believe it is...) |> |> So, does anyone else feel that prehaps Turing was incorrect in |> his analysis of future computer technology (current computer technology)? |> Does anyone feel that this is still a valid test, which should be |> used in every case to deturmine if a system is intelligent, as compared |> to humans? |> Does anyone believe that this test is in anyway valid in |> deturmining if a system is intelligent? |> The TT is valid in a limited scope -- human intelligence. Perhaps a better way to put it is the TT is a good test of comparing an artificial system to an organic one. So an artificial cat would be compared to a real cat. I believe this is limiting. This form of AI is imitation. We should draw upon the human intelligence paradigm -- but not be bound by it.
sasmjw@dev.sas.com (Martyn Wheeler) (06/27/91)
The formulation of the Turing Test had little to do with Turing's ability to predict computer technology. After all, all the test really does is to give an arbitrary subjective measure of the ability of one system to imitate another. If the observer cannot determine which is human and which is computer, who is to say that it is not the human who is successfully simulating the computer rather than the other way round? Is it perhaps even a test not of the computer and human subjects, but rather of the discriminatory abilities of the observer? What if the observer is in fact a computer trying to distinguish between two human subjects? The point of the Turing Test is surely that it provides a fixed starting point that could be used to anchor the field of computer intelligence when the science was (is?) young. Its value is not so much that it provides a test of intelligence itself, but that it leads to so many interesting questions. An actual Turing Test would be much more valuable to the meta-observer, who can examine the actual observer's behaviour as well as that of the two subjects, than to anyone directly involved in the experiment itself. The ability of a computer to "pass" the Turing Test is little more than a measure of a computer's ability to pass the Turing Test, and extending that to an assumption of intelligence is an unjustified leap of faith. Achieving a simulation of something is not the same as achieving the thing itself, and we deceive ourselves if we believe that by working towards a simulation we are necessarily making any progress towards the real thing. There are times in the real world, however, when a simulation is all that is required. In the fields of commercial Natural Language and Machine Translation, for example, it is not necessary to believe that one is duplicating a human, nor even should this be a goal -- an automated Chinese Room is quite sufficient for useful applications. Martyn ------------------------------------------------------------------------ sasmjw@dev.sas.com "If you spin, you deserve to die"--Mike Hawthorn (919) 677-8000 ext.7954 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) (919) 839-0092 (h) (Raleigh, NC) Martyn Wheeler -- DoD #293
dave@tygra.Michigan.COM (David Conrad) (06/28/91)
In article <612@ckgp.UUCP> thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas) writes: >Hi everyone, > > Now it was my understanding that Turing felt that a computer > would never be able to "Think" or actually be "Intelligent", and > dispite [sic] the definitions of these terms, we all understand what is > meant. (I hope) So it was also my understanding that Turing felt > that the best a computer might be able to do someday is imitate > a person. So he devised a test to deturmine [sic] if a computer at some > point could accomplish this task.... > > So, is this correct so far??? (I believe it is...) > No, it's dead wrong (and illiterate, too). Your understanding? Why don't you just read what Alan Turing wrote? He certainly never said that a computer would never be able to think. What he said was that since we cannot agree on what the question, "Can a computer think?" means, we don't have much hope of answering it. So why ask it? Why not ask a question about which we can say something constructive? A question like, "Can a computer fool a human in the 'Imitation Game'?" > So, does anyone else feel that prehaps [sic] Turing was incorrect in > his analysis of future computer technology (current computer technology)? > Does anyone feel that this is still a valid test, which should be > used in every case to deturmine [sic] if a system is intelligent, as compared > to humans? > Does anyone believe that this test is in anyway valid in > deturmining [sic] if a system is intelligent? > Does anyone actually believe that this test was designed to determine whether or not a system is 'intelligent'? I suspect that Turing would be appalled at this suggestion. How can we design a test for intelligence when we cannot say exactly what 'intelligence' is? If you have a formal definition of 'intelligence' then go ahead and construct a test to see if a given AI fulfills the definition. If, however, you are using the common sense of the word, then we can do no better than a behavioural test. In fact, this is what we humans *actually use*; we decide if something is intelligent by its behaviour. Does anyone reading this *know* that I am a human, and not a program running on (say) a Cray Y-MP? But then why do you all afford me the same respect (I have been treated most kindly, thank you) that you would a fellow human? > Has anyone established a test or heard of one that would be better suited > for deturmining [sic] if a system is intelligent? > Many have suggested 'better' tests, but unfortunately they are rarely based on 'better' (more exact) definitions of 'intelligent'. You seem to feel that Turing's test is outdated, but I fail to see why. It is certainly true that no AI has yet come anywhere near the level of sophistication required to 'pass' the test, so it is still a challenge to researchers. Do you believe that a system which passed the test would still not be 'intelligent'? It would certainly be of great use. You can't think that it would be too specialized. (I seem to recall that in another article you indicated that all it would be doing is imitating human behaviour. My apologies for not quoting the actual article.) As a demonstration of the breadth of a system which could 'pass' a Turing test of indefinite length, it would have to give a meaningful, well 'thought' out response to recent newspapers and magazines and Orwell's _1984_ as input along with the question, "Do you think the world is going the way of _1984_?" >-- >Thank you, >Michael Thomas >(..uunet!ckgp!thomas) David R. Conrad dave@michigan.com -- = CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Computer Conferencing and File Archive = - 1-313-343-0800, 300/1200/2400/9600 baud, 8/N/1. New users use 'new' - = as a login id. AVAILABLE VIA PC-PURSUIT!!! (City code "MIDET") = E-MAIL Address: dave@Michigan.COM