From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel Thu Apr 30 15:22:16 EDT 1992
Article 5218 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel
>From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.152759.2272@javelin.sim.es.com>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
References: <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr21.221135.20165@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 15:27:59 GMT
Lines: 86

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

>In article <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>>The test, as usually loosely formulated, does not distinguish between
>>being able to speak and having something to say.
>>
>As the saying goes - You can fool some of the people some of the time,
>you can fool a few people all of the time, but you CANNOT fool all
>of the people all of the time. That is what the Turing test is
>based on, not some fast and loose definition. I am sorry to say
>that the turing test does distinguish between just speaking 
>grammatically correct sentences mindlessly, and actually speaking
>about something. (otherwise ELIZA would have been considered
>as passing the Turing test!)

Really!?

As I recall, the Turing test is a pretty simple affair, consisting
of a couple of teletype machines and a human interlocutor who is
challenged to decide which - if any - of the two teletypes is connected
to a computer, and which is manned by a person. Nothing is said about
any special qualifications of any human in this arrangement, and the
antire arrangement invites an attempt at mimicry, rather than deep
understanding or awareness. Implicit in the formulation of the test
by Turing was the assumption that human beings are rather good at
detecting simple mimicry, and that it ultimately does not matter
how the effect is achieved, if it fools people it is good enough, an
operationalist definition of intelligence.

To reiterate: the Turing test does *not* depend on being able to fool
all the people all the time; hell, even I can't do that.

>	Listen, I have never produced a work of art in
>my life that was oohed and ahhed at! Does that make me
>unintelligent???

>If on the other hand computers were programmed to produce
>music, then you would consider that awareness? Utter BS!
>No, awareness requires a demonstration of that awareness,
>and only the Turing test is available to demonstrate to
>a high degree the awareness exhibited.

This, I assume, is pronounced ex cathedra, and is hence infallible?

>Humans have allways been doing this! Why do they
>test children in school, why do they test musicians
>before hiring them? Awareness must be demonstrated!
>>Until very recently only human beings were capable of either, excepting
>>the talk of parrots and the recordings of human speech for the moment.
>>However, we now have machines capable of producing spoken or written, 
>>syntactically
>>adequate sentences for hours on end, and the prospects are bright - or
>>perilous, depending upon one's orientation - that such automatic speech,
>>suitably enriched with clever borrowings from a human interlocutor, can
>>fool some innocent or another into thinking he is talking to an
>>unusually coy and inebriated fellow mortal, when in fact he is only
>>interacting with the equivalent of an elaborate jukebox under computer 
>>control.
>>
>>We speak haughtily of never being fooled ourselves: *we* are so much more
>>clever and sophisticated.
>>
>>The arguments pro and con the Turing test are moot for me, as I know that
>>it would take an exposure to a truly moving piece of art produced by a 
>>computer - a symphony equal to one of Borodin's, for example - before I could
>>fully accept the awareness of a machine. Such acceptance would come as
>>
>>Regards, 
>>       Heiner biesel@thrall.sim.es.com

>I suggest you familiarize yourself with what the Turing test 
>really means! I do not say this in a derogatory way, I really
>mean to make yourself aware of how YOU use the Turing test
>when you may be saying that it is your 'heart' recognizing
>this or that. When people say it is their 'heart' they
>usually mean something that is so ingrained through habit
>that it needs no questioning. But this ingraining of
>knowledge was hard-won through carefull Turing testing.

You seem to think of the Turing test as some generic means of establishing
awareness on the part of others; t'aint so. I have no idea of what you
mean by "...this ingraining of knowledge was hard-won though carefull (sic)
Turing testing."

Regards,
       Heiner biesel@thrall.sim.es.com


