From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu Tue Jul 28 09:41:39 EDT 1992
Article 6479 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.sf.science:2789 comp.ai.philosophy:6479
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu
>From: abreu@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Abreu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: How do computers fare on scholastic achievement tests?
Message-ID: <1992Jul17.190315.11710@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Jul 92 19:03:15 GMT
References: <NICKH.92Jul13151811@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> 
	<1992Jul14.014658.4921@newstand.syr.edu> 
	<NICKH.92Jul14141610@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> 
	<1992Jul16.093057.8880@techbook.com>
Sender: usenet@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Usenet News System)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: it118.dcs.qmw.ac.uk

In <NICKH.92Jul17110340@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick 
Haines) writes:

 > In article <1992Jul16.093057.8880@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick 
Szabo) writes:

 >    I've never liked the Turing test.  "Eliza" passed the Turing test
 >    with some people, and it was just a babbling fake Rogerian therapist.
 >    How about let's consider a practical measure of intelligence, eg the
 >    SAT tests?  These are used not only as a practical measure of scholastic 
 >    achievement, but also for membership into MENSA as an alternative to IQ 
 >    tests.  This constitutes a pragmatic, if not philosophically rigorous,
 >    definition of intelligence.

 > But on the other hand SATs (maybe someone should explain what those
 > are to the non-American readers of this group) and all other
 > `standard' IQ tests seem much easier to pass than a rigorous Turing
 > test.
 [...]

Has Nick Szabo actually used 'Eliza'? It was not a therapist. It passed the 
Turing test in an age where people were tremendously naive about computing. 
Apart from that, the interaction had NOTHING to do with a Turing test as 
devised by Alan Turing and described in his paper. Would you please read it, 
before criticising the test, and while at it, read Turing's answers to the 
various refutations to the test? Thank you.


