From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga Thu Feb 20 15:21:23 EST 1992
Article 3795 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga
>From: c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <1992Feb16.223332.23142@ida.liu.se>
Date: 16 Feb 92 22:33:32 GMT
References: <1992Feb15.190542.11778@ida.liu.se> <12827@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: news@ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 38

curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson) writes:

>From article <1992Feb15.190542.11778@ida.liu.se>, by c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge):
>> I find it unlikely that AI researchers actually could delude themselves
>> into producing the table-cheat idiot AI, but any possibility thereof
>> weakens the Turing Test somewhat as an operationalist intelligence
>> criterion.

>Ok, then let's just skip right to the punchline.  Since the Turing Test
>is too weak to serve as an operationalist definition of intelligence you
>would advocate ---> [insert your alternative here].  It would be nice 
>if your new Test differed significantly from the Turing Test (so that it
>could distinguish between those cases where you intuitively reason that
>a thing isn't intelligent, e.g., humongous table lookup, and those cases 
>where you reckon that it is, e.g., human beings).  You don't have to
>give your new definition in all its gory details, a summary will do
>nicely.  Thanks,

>Curtis Dyreson

Oh no! I've been found out! Ummm...I ain't got no other test.

Seriously, though, much as I would appreciate a non-cheatable test
for intelligence, I doubt that one exists. This was not immediately
obvious to me, however, and I became certain thereof only through
the recent debates. (Big News: It appears debates can be good for 
other things than the practising of rhetoric.)

It would have been nice to have a definition of intelligence. I fear 
that the Turing Test is the best approximation we can get. So much
for absolute certainties...
--
/-------------------------+-------- DISCLAIMER ---------\
| Pontus Gagge            | The views expressed herein  |
| University of Link|ping | are compromises between my  |
|                         | mental subpersonae, and may |
| c89ponga@und.ida.liu.se | be held by none of them.    |
\-------------------------+-----------------------------/


