From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Wed Feb 26 12:53:22 EST 1992
Article 3905 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Look-up tables
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.235802.28290@oracorp.com>
Date: 20 Feb 92 23:58:02 GMT
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 26

Neil W. Rickert writes (in response to Mark Rosenfelder):

>> *Everything* is in the computer's lookup table.  This seems to be
>> what you're not scoping on.

> I agree.  That is the essence.  Even the most stupid conversations
> are in the table.

> The judges, after reviewing the conversation decide: "This is indeed
> the response of a human - indeed it is the response of a human
> attempting to emulate an unintelligent computer.  Obviously this human
> wants me to flunk him, and I shall oblige."

No, no, you've got it wrong. In the definition of the table lookup
program, a conversation is a sequence of responses alternating between
interviewer and interviewee. The table covers *every* possible
response that the interviewer could make (even stupid, ungrammatical,
or nonsensical ones). But it only allows *sensible* responses for the
interviewee.

Therefore, the judges could only make the conversation turn out stupid
if *they* are the ones saying stupid things.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


