From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jan 28 12:18:16 EST 1992
Article 3183 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.225454.1257@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 22:54:54 GMT
References: <11927@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 25

In article <11927@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <1992Jan26.220013.7722@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:

>]  The Turing Test is an attempt at
>]the first approach.
>
>A failed and groundless attempt.  I'm still waiting for someone to

 This is a rather surprising statement.

 Perhaps you know something I don't.  But, to the best of my knowledge,
so far every machine which which has passed the Turing Test is one which
you would consider intelligent (that's the empty set).  And every machine that 
has failed the Turing Test is one which you would consider unintelligent (that
is the set of all machines which have been tested).

 I agree this falls far short of a validation of the Turing Test.  But it
is somewhat premature to call it "failed and groundless".  Unless, of course,
you have a totally closed mind.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


