Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:43:30 +0100
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>
> * Magnus Berg
> |
> | [critizing the Turing test]
> |
> | First of all, this communication channel used would cripple a HI
> | and force him to statically intellectualize all that he wants to
> | communicate to the receiver. The communication almost strips all
> | DQ away, which makes the two "competitors" much more equal.
>
> I don't agree with this. If this is to be a criticism of the Turing test
> you'll have to specify what kind of information is "stripped away" that
> makes it more difficult to decide whether the entity on the other side
> of the screen/keyboard is intelligent or not.
The thing is, I can't specify what gets stripped away because it is DQ,
and DQ is impossible to specify. The human at the other end of the
keyboard has to intellectualize all answers before typing them. Ok,
this is true for most types of communication but I think the written
language is more static than, say the spoken one. You have to think
one step further to write a thought than to speak it.
You still talk like intelligence is something you can define in
the same way as you define the operation plus or something. Imagine
that a definition *is* possible, what would it say? List all the
right answers to the questions? Then it would be quite easy to fake
such an intelligence, just as all computer manufacturers tries to
optimize their computers to the current Benchmark tests. This is
very similar to Doug's rational criticism of the test.
I think the minimum requirement for true AI is that it has to
be able to surprise its creators. The answers must not be rationally
deducible from the input.
Magnus
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:04 CEST