From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman Tue Jan 28 12:17:07 EST 1992
Article 3103 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Table-lookup Chinese speaker
Message-ID: <11828@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 24 Jan 92 06:31:30 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 18

In article  <1992Jan23.220442.24200@aisb.ed.ac.uk> Jeff Dalton writes:
]In article <1992Jan22.205804.39265@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
]>tester says, but merely a few particularly good ones.  (It can't store
]>just one response, or we would notice it making exactly the same responses
]>in repeated runs, which be a failure of the Turing test.)
]
]I think that's a good point.  If we're allowed repeated tests,
]and they're suspiciously the same, then we'd be, well, suspicious.

No it isn't a good point.  "Repeated runs" are not part of the
experiement.  If you want to experiment today and again tomorrow, then
you have to come back tomorrow and start at the point where the
conversation left off.  Even if that point is "good bye", it will
still have a history of what has happened before.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


