>It only means T3 has to be able to DO everything a human can do (that's
>the TT). So the symbols need to be grounded, but there are no rules
>about HOW they should be grounded (nor about their actual history).
Isn't the T2 test about engaging with a human in a turing
indistinguishable
way from another human via letter or e-mail for a sufficiently long period
of time. So the T3 test must also involve the robot engaging with another
human, as well as doing everything a human can do. If a person can tell
the robot apart from a human through being with it for a sufficiently
long period of time, it must fail. (How else can you test the robot)
>HARNAD
>One human hasn't the same weaknesses and needs as another. All T3 needs
>is generic capacities, indistinguishable from one of us.
Surely this is not enough. A T3 robot must not only have the same
capacities
as a human but also the same generic INCAPACITIES. These come largely
from our weaknesses and vulnerabilities. No non-T4 (or perhaps T5) robot
is going to have these. A T3 robot can't ground human incapacities. A
person spending time with such a robot is going to pick up on this and so
fail the robot. Therefore a T4 robot (or above) is required to pass T3.
However there is no reason why this T3 robot should not be able to think.
Perhaps we need to change the Turing test a little to recognise this. (No
disrespect to Turing, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't be having this
discussion)
>I couldn't follow that. Why is 1 week special? And convince them it
>could think (= ?) how? Via T2 (language alone) or via T3? We are back
>where we started.
Essentially we want to CREATE a robot that can think. The idea being that
if we created it we would know how it works and so understand thinking.
Therefore the point of the Turing Test should not be to create a robot
that
can think as a human but simply a robot that can THINK
We know that a dolphin is intelligent, not because we are dolphins or
because dolphins can do everything a human can do, but because we have
spent time interacting with them and putting them through tests. We have
concluded that they can think and are intelligent.
(This is our Dolphin Test, D3).
Similar to our Dolphin test we could have a Robot test.
If we were to spend time with our robot, interacting with it, testing it,
eventually we would come to a conclusion as to weather or not it was
able to think. We would RECOGNISE intelligence in the robot. It
would be self-evident, the same as it is in the dolphin.
As we had created the robot which could think we would understand
what thinking and intelligence is. Our goal would be accomplished.
Sorry if I am going over the same old ground but it is useful for me to
clear up these questions before the exam.
Grady, James
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:36:29 GMT