From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga Tue Jan 28 12:17:52 EST 1992
Article 3155 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga
>From: c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Keywords: table-lookup,AI
Message-ID: <1992Jan25.224700.8656@ida.liu.se>
Date: 25 Jan 92 22:47:00 GMT
Sender: news@ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 63

This debate has continued beyond my endurance level as a normally
passive reader. Avaunt, ye scurvey bandwidth complainers!

Pro primo: The table-lookup passes the Turing test by *definition*. There
*is* no conversation which makes it fail the Turing test - to reveal that
it is not a human. Whatever extra condition you pose (time, city, earlier
conversations) may be met by simply augmenting the definition.

Pro secundo: It (the finite, max-100-year variant) is equivalent to *a* 
Turing machine which therefore passes the test. Thus it is surely
relevant to the test-adequacy discussion. (For once, I not only welcomed
an article by Mr. Zeleny, but actually *agreed*, as he recently
pointed this out). The inputs are discrete; at each given point in
the conversation a unique state is reached: therefore, we have a TM
(indeed, a DFA).

Pro tertio: Always remember that it is practically absurd, but
theoretically possible. It is therefore unsuitable as an example of
"fake" AI, as AI research will not produce it; but useful to a
discussion of the Turing test.

Right. Now *that* is out of my system. The one problem with this 
"AI"-program is that it implements intelligent behaviour in an 
*uninteresting* manner. It tells us nothing about intelligence. Its 
(hypothetical) creator can always (hypothetically) predict what the 
next reply will be.

What is it then? An AI? I would say not. Where does it fail? Is it
unintelligent? I would say not, as it will reply intelligently (and
yes, I am guilty of the operationalist sin). However, that intelligence
is not artificial; it is the intelligence of its creator.

Consider: Let us imagine a single, infinitely dedicated, and
infallible creator. We give her (should be PC :-)) a longevity drug 
and put her in a timewarp with adequate time (say, a few billion years), 
from which she returns with the table. We proceed to Turing test it. Now, 
to any question or statement, the answer is certainly found in the table. 
However, all cogitation which produced it was done by the creator.
The table passes the test. What may we conclude? Why, that the *creator*
can impersonate an intelligent person (despite that infinite
dedication :-)). She has merely left a list of what to say in a given 
situation, and let somebody act as a stand-in for her.

If you agree with my conclusion, and with strong AI, we have an 
interesting result. It seems that an intelligence can be shared by
an entity and a creator, in varying proportions; in the table-lookup
the proportion is an unattainable 0 to 1; whereas a true AI programme
would have 1 to 0. (The creator need be no moron (0 intelligence): we are 
talking about the intelligence that passes the Turing test; the creator 
may retain all his intelligence; it will merely not participate in the test).

This would yield an entire new area to quibble over; how to estimate
the amount of "canned" intelligence in a purported AI. Could this be
done without inspection? Or is there no such "gradual" canning in the
real (if future) world?

--
/-------------------------+-------- DISCLAIMER ---------\
| Pontus Gagge            | The views expressed herein  |
| University of Link|ping | are compromises between my  |
|                         | mental subpersonae, and may |
| c89ponga@und.ida.liu.se | be held by none of them.    |
\-------------------------+-----------------------------/


