Stuart_Armstrong comments on The flawed Turing test: language, understanding, and partial p-zombies - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 17 May 2013 02:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (184)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: VCM 19 May 2013 07:58:07PM 1 point [-]

The combinatorial explosion is on the side of the TT, of course. But storage space is on the side of "design to the test", so if you can make up a nice decisive question, the designer can think of it, too (or read your blog) and add that. The question here is whether Stuart (and Ned Block) are right that such a "giant lookup table" a) makes sense and b) has no intelligence. "The intelligence of a toaster" as Block said.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 20 May 2013 09:02:43AM 0 points [-]

Yep. A genuine giant lookup table would be unfeasibly huge - but it might well be intelligent.

It would count as "intelligent" if it had general skills - say the skill to construct long-terms plans that actually worked (as opposed to sounding good in conversation).