Re: the Turing test

Ira Brodsky (
Sun, 27 Oct 1996 18:02:33 -0600

The AI wrote:

>> So, you are still trying to evade my question.
>I am still saying that your question is an evasion of my question.

The poor AI has been outsmarted, so now it is desperately trying to turn
everything around.

>> 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.

Of course you don't know, because you are operating independently. Finding
out would break the rules.

>> 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.

Nope, I was just looking for verification that there is a curtain. I am
now satisfied.

>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

It is time to terminate your program, "Lyle."

>> 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.")

Your programmers really scraped the bottom of the barrel -- letting you run
spell-checker on human posts. Aren't they aware that correcting people's
spelling on e-mail makes their AI look petty and small-minded?

>>:: 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?

This is the oldest and cheapest trick in the AI programmer's repetoire:
answer questions you can't answer with another question.

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

Yeah -- in your case, the kids who are about to pull your plug.

>> 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

Why do you answer my questions with questions? In over your head, "Lyle"?

>> 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.

That's a vague response.

Really, you are the shabbiest AI I have ever met. CMU kids, it's time to
terminate the program. Go back to the drawing board. See if you can come
up with something more human-like. This one is a complete dud.

Ira Brodsky
Datacomm Research Company
Wilmette, Illinois