From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Wed Feb 26 12:54:08 EST 1992
Article 3974 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: That damn humongous table again
Message-ID: <6251@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Feb 92 18:41:20 GMT
References: <1992Feb24.064728.23742@oracorp.com>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 27

In article <1992Feb24.064728.23742@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>Mark Rosenfelder writes:
>
>> When you interact with the lookup-program-and-table ensemble, you are
>> in effect having a predetermined dialogue with the human(s) who
>> created the table. (I think Toby Kelsey made this point a few days
>> ago.)

But Toby was wrong, and it wouldn't help all that much if he'd
been right.

>> So, the table lookup program is neither a failure of the Turing test
>> (there _is_ an intelligence there), 

You could make the same argument for any program: there is
intelligence there: in the authors of the program!  That isn't
much of an argument for machine intelligence, though, is it?

>Mark, there was no requirement that the table's outputs be the same as
>any particular human would make, only that they pass the Turing Test.

In particular, there's no requirement that they be the responses
the human(s) who created the table would make.  The idea that 
conversation with the table is nonetheless a dialog with the
author(s) is therefore a bit strange.

-- jd


