From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!bill Fri Sep  4 09:40:58 EDT 1992
Article 6695 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!bill
>From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Loebner prize
Message-ID: <BILL.92Aug25000110@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu>
Date: 25 Aug 92 07:01:10 GMT
Sender: news@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona
Lines: 17

Thanks, Joao, for posting the transcripts.  Comments:

1)  The performance of the machines was quite disappointing.  None of
them seemed any more responsive than Eliza -- most less.  It seems
pretty obvious that these programs were not taken from the top rank of
state-of-the-art natural language systems.

2)  Most of the judges were hapless.  They actually permitted the
competitors to ask *them* questions!  I wonder if it would violate the
spirit of the Turing Test to first give the judge a few pointers about
elementary interviewing techniques?  :-)

3)  It seems a bit unfair to pick a human competitor with as much wit
as Terminal 4.  He's certainly a more entertaining than average
conversationalist. 

	-- Bill


