From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!darwin.sura.net!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+ Thu Jan 16 17:19:44 EST 1992
Article 2648 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!darwin.sura.net!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+
>From: fb0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Franklin Boyle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence testing
Message-ID: <MdPU26C00WB8Q_cElU@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 92 20:22:30 GMT
Organization: Cntr for Design of Educational Computing, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 29

I wrote:

> Daryl McCullough writes (in response to Jeff Dalton):

>>There are only a finite number of possible sensible
>>conversations in Chinese in the lifetime of a human being. The
>>computer could store all of these, and so do a simple table look-up, as
>>someone (perhaps you) has pointed out in the past.

>Gee, how does a simple table lookup work on such a data base? I
>would think that keyword matching is hardly adequate.  And
>the jury is still out on semantic indexing (after all, the issue
>we're arguing over concerns semantics).  If you believe that you
>can capture all possible conversational sequences, remember:
>the future may involve a context in which a new concept is created
>that you wouldn't have had when you programmed in all
>conversations.
>
>Frank

oops! I realized after writing this that I was applying a practical
model of indexing used today to Daryl's hypothetical arbitrarily fast
computer.  Of course it is simple table lookup.  Sorry.
In any case, the latter part of my response still stands.  I think
learning is going to give the Turing test trouble.

Again, sorry for the slip.

-Frank


