From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Mon Mar  9 18:35:43 EST 1992
Article 4306 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Monkey Room
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.142314.12046@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <68421@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992Mar4.210902.28435@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar5.145435.11897@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Mar5.200829.708@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 14:23:14 GMT

In article <1992Mar5.200829.708@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>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...)
>
Michael, you know the AI comunity certainly better than I do. So tell me:
did any serious member of this community ever claimed that TT will yield
*perfect* results? And do you know any more reliable test for intelligence of
a system?  I am sure they would be happy if you proposed some other, better
test. Until there is one, they are using what is available. What would you
expect them to do? To say "There is no fool-proof test for intelligence at 
present, so we might just as well close the shop"? In any science, is there ever
a perfect test? Look for instance at medical sciences. They are full of claims,
counterclaims, often allegedly identical experiments giving completly different
results in different labs. And how about cold fusion controversy? Does this
mean that all this sciences are bogus and should be discontinued?
>


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


