From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose Tue Jun 23 13:21:10 EDT 1992
Article 6307 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is not a Trick
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.173726.31784@spss.com>
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 17:37:26 GMT
References: <1992Jun12.194443.37383@spss.com> <60830@aurs01.UUCP>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com
Lines: 46

In article <60830@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
>>> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
>>>Similarly, if what's important about a human is their communicative
>>>ability, it doesn't matter if they are speaking english or signing ASL.  
>> To me, that's far too narrow.  If we're trying to define or detect
>> intelligence, I am not willing to restrict it to the ability to communicate
>> by teletype; I also want to look at complex sensory processing, intonation,
>> nonverbal behavior, social interaction, creativity, and more.  
>
>Hmmmmm.  Why?

Why do I want to look at those things?  Because I see them as part of
intelligence, at least till we have a better understanding of what intelligence
is.  And till we do I don't think there's any grounds to restrict 
intelligence to "communicative ability."

>Why *shouldn't* normal usenet-like teletype conversation be thought
>of as involving intonation, nonverbal behavior, social interaction,
>and creativity?  (I'll grant the complex sensory processing (at least
>the "complex" part), but still wonder why it's an issue.)
>
>To be specific, why don't "Hmmmmm.", "*shouldn't*", and the like
>qualify as "intonation"?  Why isn't this message a social interaction?
>And the position that printed language can't be creative holds quite a
>bit of mysteriosity for me.  

The ability to write "Hmmmmm" and "*shouldn't*" is an a highly impoverished
form of intonation.  The social interactions on Usenet are minimal, only
hinting at the richness of human interactions.  And though written language
can be highly creative, verbal creativity is only one kind of creativity.

Perhaps you will say that the aspects of human behavior which aren't 
captured in a teletype conversation don't matter or don't display intelligence.
That's just where I disagree.  So far as I can see such a priori restrictions
are just inserted to make the AI programmer's job easier.

Fortunately, many AI researchers have ignored the Turing Test and worked
with visual processing, robotics, music creation, etc.  I suspect the TT is
more important to philosophers than to AI people.

>( And in passing, note that ASL arguably *does* demonstrate complex sensory
>  processing and creativity, more so than spoken languages.   )

So build a robot which can communicate idiomatically in ASL.  That would
be a much better demonstration of intelligence than the Turing Test.


