From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!ames!ncar!uchinews!spssig!markrose Thu Jan 16 17:19:48 EST 1992
Article 2654 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!ames!ncar!uchinews!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan11.011444.40220@spss.com>
Date: 11 Jan 92 01:14:44 GMT
References: <1992Jan9.185619.1336@oracorp.com>
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <1992Jan9.185619.1336@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>Jeff Dalton writes:
>On the other hand, if you ignore such practical arguments, and assume
>that computers can be made arbitrarily fast, and have arbitrarily much
>memory, then it follows immediately that a computer could pass the
>test for being able to converse in Chinese with the fluency of a
>native. 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 do a simple table look-up, as
>someone (perhaps you) has pointed out in the past.

There may well be non-intelligent ways to pass the Turing Test, but this
isn't one of them.  One could not look up an entire conversation _while
it is still going on_, no matter how fast the computer.  At any point in
the conversation there is a huge number of possible conversations which
duplicate it up to that point and diverge thereafter.

(Just in case anyone was planning to implement this idea. :-)


