From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!orion.oac.uci.edu!cerritos.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!optima.UUCP Thu Feb 20 15:21:12 EST 1992
Article 3777 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!orion.oac.uci.edu!cerritos.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!optima.UUCP
>From: curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <12827@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 92 16:46:22 GMT
References: <1992Feb15.190542.11778@ida.liu.se>
Sender: curtis@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 17

>From article <1992Feb15.190542.11778@ida.liu.se>, by c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge):
> I find it unlikely that AI researchers actually could delude themselves
> into producing the table-cheat idiot AI, but any possibility thereof
> weakens the Turing Test somewhat as an operationalist intelligence
> criterion.

Ok, then let's just skip right to the punchline.  Since the Turing Test
is too weak to serve as an operationalist definition of intelligence you
would advocate ---> [insert your alternative here].  It would be nice 
if your new Test differed significantly from the Turing Test (so that it
could distinguish between those cases where you intuitively reason that
a thing isn't intelligent, e.g., humongous table lookup, and those cases 
where you reckon that it is, e.g., human beings).  You don't have to
give your new definition in all its gory details, a summary will do
nicely.  Thanks,

Curtis Dyreson


