In article <36D152E0.82CF34E9 at mich.com>, Michael Edelman <mje at mich.com> wrote:
>>>Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>> What we've actually seen is the phylosophers move the goalposts of
>> "Intelligence" each time AI advanced. Playing chess used to be regarded
>> as an excellent test of intelligence until computers starting to beat
>> people at it. The Turing Test started to look a little shakey when Eliza
>> came along and had to be tightened up.
>>The problem with this argument is that what you describe was never the case.
>has long been realized to be a problem with a solution- not a game. Being
> such, it
>only awaited fast enough computers. If we had much, much faster computers,
>could be solved through a brute-force solution, trying every possible outcome.
>>And the "Turing test" has never been a proof of intelligence. As you note,
>Weitzbaum showed that a very small and crude program like "Eliza" could fool a
>of people without anything that would be called intelligence.
We'll confuse that sucking turing test in 3 sentences.