From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Testing AIs
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:38:00 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <C0BCnA.1A7@iat.holonet.net> ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon) writes:
>I think the Turing test, and the whole Chinese room argument WITH responses
>is a crock.
>
>All who agree say aye.
>
>If you take a Chinese room or the winner of a Turing contest and subject it
>to the real world, the idea simply breaks down.  Could either one "pass" an
>employment interview, or pick up girls at a bar.

I hate to defend the Turing Test, which is the reddest of herrings, but
I have to point out that it is supposed to test intelligence, not hireability
or romantic charm.

Now, if you want to say that intelligence should require some ability to
function in the real world, I agree; but how we test for this is not so
straightforward.  Picking up girls at a bar is not such a good test, since 
failure at this task does not preclude intelligence (it's a rare woman, for 
instance, who succeeds at it), and success does not prove intelligence either.

>My opinion is that people who seriously think a word mongering machine can
>duplicate any but the most superficial activities of the human mind
>probably haven't taken a close look at the working of their own mind.

But then you must have some idea of what besides "word-mongering" is necessary 
to duplicate human cognition.  What is it?  I hope you have better luck
with this question than Searle has had.

>>The corollary of his position would be that if a Turing Test-passing AI 
>>*were* intelligent, the intelligence must lie in the *CPU*. The Systems
>>Reply more sensibly draws the entity boundary around the
>>computer/algorithm combination (and emphasizes the need to think more
>>carefully about what systems exhibit what cognitive properties). 
>
>Did I read this right?  Are you saying there are people in responsible
>positions that think a computer sans algorithm is intelligent?  I probably
>read it wrong. 

I'm saying that at least one world-famous philosopher is looking for 
intelligence (although in his opinion not finding it) in the computer sans
algorithm.  In Searle's analogy, the human plays the role the CPU does in 
a computer system.  The CR is designed to show that the human does not 
understand Chinese; by analogy, that the CPU in a computer executing the same 
algorithm doesn't understand Chinese either.  Searle obviously expects that 
the intelligence in an AI, if it exists, can only manifest itself in 
the processor.  

>I think you're still leaving out a vital component, the computer/algorithm
>combination should read computer/algorithm/programmer combination.  At the
>current state of technology, a programmed computer is simply an extension
>of the programmer (admittedly a faster running, better remembering
>extension).  

Not necessarily.  Check out how neural networks work.  A complex enough NN
can learn things its programmer does not know; in some cases it may be
impractical even to figure out exactly how the NN is doing what it's doing.

But in any case, how does the AI's situation really differ from the human's?
The way our mind works is also to a large extent preprogrammed.  Are you
simply an extension of your DNA?
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy