🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1108@hydra.cs.Helsinki.FI> grano@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
>
>	Furthermore, would you say that a drunk person is not
>	intelligent? Or a child? Or someone mentally handicapped?
>	The question of what defines intelligence is and will remain
>	unsolved.

I think you may have misunderstood my point.
The quality of a Turing test depends on the quality of the observing
subjects.  This is not true in the same way, or to the same extent,
for proper experimental investigations.  The bias here lies with the
experimenter and the sample (both are revealed in replications, or
results).

The issue for the Turing Test is: what is an acceptable sample?

If Turing didn't want to pin down intelligence, he should have used
another word.  I do not accept your version of history.  Sources?

In Turing's day, it was not as unreasonable to think of 'intelligence'
as an out-there in-agents property.

The term has no role today apart from common sense approbation.

-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert