XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com   
      
   On 1/25/14 3:54 AM, David Goldfarb wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)  wrote:   
   >> 	"A machine that   
   >> thinks like a human, only maybe better", and the Turing Test (as a   
   >> general concept -- making one that really works is harder) was always   
   >> the general idea of how to really measure it. Can it pass for human in   
   >> realistic circumstances?   
   >   
   > That's one way.  My recollection is that Turing proposed it as   
   > sufficient:  a machine that would pass the Turing Test would be   
   > one that everyone would have to admit was AI.  That doesn't rule   
   > out the possibility of something that can't pass the test but   
   > is intelligent nonetheless.   
   >   
   > (To take just one example, the Postman from Vernor Vinge's "True   
   > Names":  it thought *slower* than a human, and therefore could   
   > never pass such a test.)   
   >   
      
      
   	It could never pass such a test in real-time, but there is as far as I   
   know no absolute requirement that it be in real time.   
      
      
   --   
                         Sea Wasp   
                           /^\   
                           ;;;	   
   Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog:   
   http://seawasp.livejournal.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)