🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep13.215142.25567@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>Some of us have the intuition that the lookup table could not pass the
>Turing test.  What does this do to your argument?

Can you be more explicit about this intuition?  Perhaps I should point out
that my sample of the lookup table was a bit misleading.  The lookup table
would contain all possible sequences of inputs that could be fed to it over
the course of say, seventy years.  Otherwise, things like memory and
learning could not possibly be simulated.  A better picture of the structure
might be:

case (1st input)
  "Hi":	output("Hi")
	case (2nd input)
	  "What's up?": output("Not much.")
			case (3rd input)
			...
	  "How's it going?": ...
	  ...
  "Are you conscious?": output("What do you think?")
  ...

The main problem lies with the limitations of the input and output: it's
hard to simulate holding a bottle to someone's nose to smell, for instance.
But in a certain limited context, namely that of typed input and output, it
seems to me that the lookup table could pass the Turing test.  With these
clarifications, do you still disagree?
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949