From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Wed Apr 22 12:04:09 EDT 1992
Article 5155 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr20.194614.6814@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 20 Apr 92 19:46:14 GMT
References: <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 12

In article <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>This suggests an alternative to the Turing test: a computer can be
>said to exhibit human intelligence and awareness if it is capable of
>producing a work of art which finds both wide acceptance among art
>lovers, and is indistinguishable from similar pieces or art produced
>by human artists.

 However, please keep in mind that many works of art produced by humans in
the 20th century would have been met with utter revulsion from the art lovers
of the 19th century.  What is considered good art is highly sensitive to
cultural influences.  This does not necessarily negate your idea - except
you are now testing cultural adaptation rather than intelligence.


