From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!psinntp!bony1!richieb Mon May 25 14:06:11 EDT 1992
Article 5738 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!psinntp!bony1!richieb
>From: richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak)
Subject: Re: Here we go again (Turing test)
Message-ID: <1992May18.194026.6824@bony1.bony.com>
Organization: ****
References: <1992May15.045454.8581@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 19:40:26 GMT

In article <1992May15.045454.8581@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:

[...]

>You are mistaken, the turing test does not have to
>be restricted to test for only verbal intelligence.
>I do not think that you will dissagree that verbally
>she was not very intelligent. (I think I put a triple
>negative in that one :-)
>
>You see, there are many types of intelligence, and
>reasoning abilities, so we must test for all of them
>in the intelligent computers we build.

Given that there exist many types of intelligence, it does _not_ follow
that they can exist in isolation - eg. can speech intelligence exist
without visual intelligence? 

I don't claim to know the answer, I just wanted to point out that the
answer is _not_ obvious.


>>Yet, according to her caretakers, she _was_ intelligent.  She was
>>eerily good at non-verbal communications and was excellent in spacial
>>reasoning.
>>
>>The implication is that the Turing test does not prove or disprove the
>>intelligence of the entity tested.
>>
>How did her caretakers determine that she was good
>at other forms of reasoning? Magic, ESP, Guessing?
>I imagine they tested her on the other forms of
>reasoning, she passed their tests, after she passed
>many of them they decided that it was much more than
>pure chance - and LO and Behold, they proclaimed her
>intelligent!

Yes, they conducted a lot of tests. However, they also based their
conclusions on observation of her daily life.

I thought the New Yorker article was interesting, because it showed
how scientists tried and failed to teach language to a severely
disturbed human. 

In AI, we are trying to "teach" language to computers, a task that's
similar, yet orders of magnitude more difficult.


...richie



-- 
* Richie Bielak   (212)-815-3072   | "Your brain is a liquid-cooled parallel  *
* Internet:       richieb@bony.com | super-computer". He pointed to his nose, *
* Bang {uupsi,uunet}!bony1!richieb | "This is the fan."                       *
*    - Strictly my opinions -      |                     - David Chudnovsky - *


