From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!ugle.unit.no!nuug!ifi.uio.no!sics.se!sics.se!torkel Thu Feb 20 15:19:55 EST 1992
Article 3644 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!ugle.unit.no!nuug!ifi.uio.no!sics.se!sics.se!torkel
>From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Real-life Turing test
Message-ID: <1992Feb11.102903.7771@sics.se>
Date: 11 Feb 92 10:29:03 GMT
References: <1992Feb10.235221.56220@spss.com>
Sender: news@sics.se
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Lines: 16
In-Reply-To: markrose@spss.com's message of 10 Feb 92 23:52:21 GMT

In article <1992Feb10.235221.56220@spss.com> markrose@spss.com 
(Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

   >Just let this sink in: half of the judges thought that this sort of drivel
   >showed human intelligence.

  This isn't at all surprising. It very often happens that people ascribe
to other people such qualities as profound understanding or remarkable
intelligence on the basis of suitably timed grunts, nods, or pieces of
drivel.

  >For those who still think the Turing Test is a sufficient test for
  >intelligence, there is food for thought in the results of the Loebner Prize.

  The test isn't a test unless it is conducted by somebody who knows what
he's doing.


