the Turing test

Lyle Burkhead (LYBRHED@delphi.com)
Sat, 26 Oct 1996 19:24:42 -0500 (EST)


Ira Brodsky writes,

> So, you are still trying to evade my question.

I am still saying that your question is an evasion of my question.

> You admit that no one will substantiate your claim that
> there *is* an AI on the list.

What I said was, I don't really know for sure what CMU would say
about this. Asking them wouldn't change the situation, because if they
say "Yes, Lyle is telling the truth," they could also be pulling your leg.

> You are still hiding behind a curtain.

Yes, that's the idea of the Turing test. And you are still trying to peek
behind the curtain, instead of relying on your own judgment.

The point of this exercise is to find a way to calibrate the idea of AI.
If you have the concept in focus, then you will *know* whether you are
talking to a human or an AI. You won't have to look behind the
curtain.

> The only remaining question is whether Emporer Lyle is wearing
> any clothes, or is just a pile of silicon.

Why do you say, "The only remaining question is whether Emporer
Lyle is wearing any clothes"? Maybe I just got out of the shower.
(With or without clothes, at least I know how to spell "Emperor.")

>:: It's interesting to me that you think you would have to read and
>:: analyze *all* the posts every day. Why? Can't you put some of us
>:: into an "obviously not AI" category, so you would only have to
>:: scrutinize the others?
>
> Why? Because I don't follow all of the threads, so there are some
> individuals' posts that I rarely if ever read. (Only a computer would
> assume otherwise.)

Who is trying to evade the question?

> Until an appropriate authority confirms there is an *AI* on this list --

Authority!!

> Really, I would like to believe there is an AI on this list performing
> "brilliantly." I have no reason to doubt this will happen sooner or later.

Why do you say, "I have no reason to doubt this will happen sooner or
later"?

> But if there is an AI here... it must be you. Not because you are
> succeeding brilliantly, but because you evade simple questions.
> That can be done with far less than human intelligence! <g>

That's an interesting way to put it.

Lyle