From: Randall Randall (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 09:09:55 MST
On Sunday, November 30, 2003, at 06:13 AM, Colin wrote:
> Where is the proof it will/will not 'understand' what it is like to be
> Where is the proof it will/will not have a conception of 'friendly'?
> Where is the proof it it will even know it is there?
> Where is the proof this approach is/is not just a sophisticated version
> of ascription of the style kids have when playing with dolls. For that
> is what the turing test is/is not as the case may be.
> These proofs do not exist. Yet somehow you bow to the great Turing test
> as if it was what is needed to be completely satisfied that real
> understanding exists in an artefact.
It isn't that the Turing test "proves" that understanding exists; it's
that something which passes the Turing test is behaving as if it did
understand. There may be something beyond that: *really* understanding
instead of just *behaving as if it has* understanding, but for practical
purposes (by definition), there is no difference.
It may be that passing the Turing test is impossible without having the
understanding for which you're looking, but if not, why shoot for the
more nebulous goal at once?
-- Randall Randall firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT