From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!noao!arizona!arizona.edu!NSMA.AriZonA.EdU!bill Tue Jan 21 09:27:41 EST 1992
Article 2948 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!noao!arizona!arizona.edu!NSMA.AriZonA.EdU!bill
>From: bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan20.212208.2446@arizona.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 04:22:07 GMT
References: <1992Jan20.191915.14755@oracorp.com>
Reply-To: bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Center for Neural Systems, Memory, and Aging
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: ca3.nsma.arizona.edu

In article <1992Jan20.191915.14755@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
> . . . I
>think that everyone agrees that if we *cannot* build a machine that
>can pass the Turing Test, then we can't build a machine with
>human-like intelligence.
>
  *I* don't believe this.  I believe that a machine that could pass
the Turing Test would have to have much greater than human intelligence.
Why?  Because the machine would not *be* human, and could not share
the human experience of the world.  To pass the test it would have
to fake knowledge of things it had never experienced -- an extremely
difficult task.

  I believe that machines of human-like intelligence will exist
within the next fifty years, but I would be very surprised if a
machine capable of passing the Turing Test is built within that
time.

  I think the Turing Test is a wonderful idea, and I believe it is
aimed at the truly essential feature of human intelligence:  the
ability to converse fluently and flexibly in natural language.  But
it is far too demanding to be realistically useful.

	-- Bill


