From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Thu Feb 20 15:22:01 EST 1992
Article 3855 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <424@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 18 Feb 92 20:25:32 GMT
References: <1992Feb15.190542.11778@ida.liu.se> <12827@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <1992Feb16.223332.23142@ida.liu.se>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 16

In article <1992Feb16.223332.23142@ida.liu.se> c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:
|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...


Of course the *good* news is that all of the cheats so far suggested are
either unrealizable in actual practice or are so wildly unlikely as to
be of little relevance to the *practical* utility of the full Turing Test.

It may not be perfect, but in real life (as opposed to mathematics) it
is difficult to fool.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)



