From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Mon Mar  9 18:34:06 EST 1992
Article 4155 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: That damn humongous table again
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.233855.7383@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 23:38:55 GMT
Lines: 32

markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
[about that damn table]

> Every response contained in the table has been selected by the human
> being (or the committee) which created the table.  Moreover, to so
> select the responses, the humans must weigh the entire conversation up
> to that point, rather as if they were themselves participating in that
> conversation.

There is no requirement that the table be produced in the manner you
have described. Perhaps someday there will be a complete theory of
"conversations that pass the Turing Test", and the table will be
created by an automatic theorem-prover.

> The "as if" is important; talking with the table-lookup machine,
> you're not simply talking with the table creators-- you're talking
> with a sort of imaginary character whose words they are providing.

I think this is right, but I think it could equally well describe
*any* artificial intelligence.

> It's not unlike talking to an actor who's portraying Richard III:
> you're not really talking to Richard III, and in a sense you're not
> talking (simply) to the actor; but you are talking to a human being.

This is an interesting area to me. Does a *perfect* actor create a
new mind, and a new person?

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY



