From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Tue Jan 28 12:15:53 EST 1992
Article 3016 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3016 sci.philosophy.tech:1941
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Table-lookup Chinese speaker
Message-ID: <1992Jan22.200714.20798@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 22 Jan 92 20:07:14 GMT
References: <1992Jan21.191924.18205@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan21.182524.7880@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Jan22.161342.17781@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 45

In article <1992Jan22.161342.17781@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:

>All we have to do to defeat the table is allude to some fact that is
>true now and known to the average human, but not always true.  E.g.,
>the fact that earth is inhabitable.  Or, better yet, pick a fact that
>might be true at some times but is not true now.  Suppose we begin our
>dialogue thus:
>
>   "Isn't it sad how all life on earth was wiped out a few years ago?"
>
>and continue with other absurdities.  The lookup system will give
>itself away by responding with things like:
>
>   "Perhaps we can find a way to cause life to re-evolve."
>
>whereas a normal person would say,
>
>   "Are you out of your mind?"

That's silly.  If the "programmers" of the look-up table have done
their job properly, of course the system will give the latter reply.

>If this example seems too ridiculous, take something of a narrower
>scope, like
>
>   "Do you think the king of the United States will succeed in having
>his daughter succeed him?"

Likewise.

>   or even
>
>   "Do you have the time?"

I thought we agreed last time this came up that references to
immediate spatiotemporal context, and to events since a given time
(e.g., 1990), should be outlawed.  We assume e.g. that the system has
a good knowledge of events up to 1990, and has been locked away in a
nuclear bunker since then.  (Of course the person it's being compared
to has been locked away too...)

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


