 | | Re: Design —steve
| | | | (...) The Turing test only says that a system that can pass the test should be considered intelligent - not that a system that cannot pass the test is not intelligent. This is an important criticism of the test. There are a lot of very clever AI (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Design —Mr S
| | | | | Steve, I agree, the Turing test is not up to date, and even in its time did not indicate intelligence accurately, though I would go so far as to say that those intelligent programs that might pass the Turing test won't pass the test of demonstrating (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Design —dan miller
| | | | | Do you care to put forth an alternate definition of intelligence? What Turing did, IMSHO, is simply make the point concrete that intelligence is what intelligence does. Navel-gazing focus on the 'qualia' of the 'personal experience' of intelligence (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Design —Jeff Wharton
| | | | | Hi All, I've tried everything to unsubscribe from this email service to no avail. Any suggestions? Jeff -----Original Message----- From: dan miller [mailto:danbmil99@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 6:38 PM To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Unsubscribing (ws Re: Design —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) Suggestion: Determine where your subscription is coming from. It could be coming from two places, since the list is gatewayed for obscure historical reasons. From the header page, (URL) : Note: The lugnet.robotics newsgroup and the (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | |
