From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:35:25 EST 1992
Article 4283 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Monkey Room
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <68421@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992Mar4.210902.28435@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar5.145435.11897@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Mar5.200829.708@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 20:08:29 GMT

In article <1992Mar5.145435.11897@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <1992Mar4.210902.28435@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>
>>Well, it shows that the Turing Test is not infallible.  This in itself is
>>a useful reminder for folks here.  It also shows that arguments against
>>the "Turing Test" results that were posted here a while ago, in which
>>some laypeople thought programs were actually computers, are at best
>>ad hoc.  There is no *clear* way to conduct a Turing Test, and no way
>>that will yield perfect results.
>>
>You must be very young if you still look for perfection. Prepare yourself for
>a big shock :-).
>(Sorry, couldn't restrain myself)

Well, Andrzej, the AI community must be downright infantile, since its members
continue to mouth the words "Turing Test" as if it were some kind of magical
incantation that simply *proves* that a certain system is intelligent.

- michael

(and yes, I *am* getting snarky...)




