Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!rutgers!argos.montclair.edu!hubey
From: hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey)
Subject: Re: Bag the Turing Test
Message-ID: <hubey.787108757@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Sender: root@argos.montclair.edu (Operator)
Organization: SCInet @ Montclair State
References: <1994Dec8.143144.11787@oracorp.com> <D0IoAu.7DA@spss.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 01:19:17 GMT
Lines: 32

markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

>In article <1994Dec8.143144.11787@oracorp.com>,
>Daryl McCullough <daryl@oracorp.com> wrote:

>>the judge hear the responses. The advocates are able to analyze the
>>code (to find out *how* responses are created) in order to come up
>>with their questions. But the judge is not allowed to see the code,
>>and is not even allowed to know whether the subject is human or
>>machine.

>Well, this is a step in the right direction.  You've added a good deal of
>rigor to the Turing Test, and allowing the advocates to examine a machine's
>mechanism is a nice touch.

It's not that difficult.  The ES MYCIN was able to produce (i.e. write out
on the screen in English) the reasons as to why it thought that the 
postoperative infection was such and such and why it "thought" that the
patient should be treated with such and such antibiotic.  

In fact, as techonology progresses, we could probably start generating
artificial protein (like artificial left-handed fat) and even peering
into the "brain" of the machine (without instruments) would probably
not give an advantage to any judges as to whether the subject
was human or not.  In this respect science fiction is much further
ahead than the anti-AI crowd.


--
						-- Mark---
....we must realize that the infinite in the sense of an infinite totality, 
where we still find it used in deductive methods, is an illusion. Hilbert,1925
