From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga Thu Feb 20 15:21:11 EST 1992
Article 3774 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga
>From: c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <1992Feb15.211700.13784@ida.liu.se>
Date: 15 Feb 92 21:17:00 GMT
References: <1992Feb12.002312.19459@ida.liu.se> <1992Feb12.145716.22305@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb14.015016.21990@ida.liu.se> <1992Feb15.041109.18230@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Sender: news@ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 55

zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:

>In article <1992Feb14.015016.21990@ida.liu.se> c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:
>>zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>
>>>>Is everybody happy that a DFA exists which passes a Turing Test, and
>>>>does so in a completely uninteresting manner? Is the Turing Test still
>>>>a good criterion for intelligence?
>>
>>>If it quacks like a duck!
>>>All I would like to argue is that if it was possible to actually construct
>>>such a table (which it is not!) what is your objection to calling it
>>>intelligent???
>>
>>I do not deny its intelligence *in the limited context for which it was
>>designed*. However, it is singularily uninteresting. To me, it is too
>>weak to be described by the intuitive concept of "intelligence".

>And Pray tell, just what is "the intuitive concept of intelligence"?

In superset relations: intuitive concept > interesting intelligence > 
the ability to manage unforeseen situations. 

Part of the uninterestingness of the table-cheat lies in that it is 
explicitly limited to passing the Turing Test; it has no capacities 
for anything else. Another part lies in that it is a mere copy of its 
creator's intelligence, and not really an *artificial* intelligence.

Generally, I would deem any "AI"-solution uninteresting if its development 
did not give us insight into the mechanisms of intelligence. A bit fuzzy,
and perhaps tangential, but this is where *my* interest in AI is mainly
centered.

[Some notes which seem to indicate an operationalist standpoint omitted]

>>BTW, in *principle* possible certainly does not mean *practically* possible.

>Unless we (humans) are able to map four dimensional space-time into a 3D
>(time omitted) table in the future sometime, then I would have to say that
>the table is impossible even in principle. However, this does not exclude
>other machine constructs that are somehow time-dependent (eg. nearal nets,
>symbolic processors, etc...) (oops, I meant neural nets above ^)

Well, as I have stated elsewhere: the point is that the DFA exists,
at least to a mathematical realist such as me. Of course its existence
does not exclude other entities with the proper behaviour!

[The posting seems to have been cut short at this point]
--
/-------------------------+-------- DISCLAIMER ---------\
| Pontus Gagge            | The views expressed herein  |
| University of Link|ping | are compromises between my  |
|                         | mental subpersonae, and may |
| c89ponga@und.ida.liu.se | be held by none of them.    |
\-------------------------+-----------------------------/


