From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Thu Feb 20 15:20:14 EST 1992
Article 3675 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <1992Feb12.145716.22305@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 12 Feb 92 14:57:16 GMT
References: <1992Feb1.202710.8329@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Feb4.162016.13805@cs.ucf.edu> <1992Feb12.002312.19459@ida.liu.se>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 15

>Anyway, I seem to meet no further resistance to my original 
>statement that
>  a) the table-cheat is in principle possible
>  b) it would pass the Turing Test
>  c) it would be completely uninteresting.
>Even the ever-combative mr. Zeleny has agreed to drop his objection.
>
>Is everybody happy that a DFA exists which passes a Turing Test, and
>does so in a completely uninteresting manner? Is the Turing Test still
>a good criterion for intelligence?

If it quacks like a duck!
All I would like to argue is that if it was possible to actually construct
such a table (which it is not!) what is your objection to calling it
intelligent???


