Quoting from this website with regard to the Turing test:
The interrogator is connected to one person and one machine via a terminal, therefore can't see her counterparts. Her task is to find out which of the two candidates is the machine, and which is human only by asking them questions. If the interrogator cannot make a decision within a certain time (Turing proposed five minutes, but the exact amount of time is generally considered irrelevant), the machine is intelligent.
The website goes on to discuss the inherent flaws in the Turing test, most importantly that "...there is no definition for (human) intelligence..." All this has already been discussed eloquently here, but no one has really discussed (that I've seen, thus far) what they think constitutes intelligence.
In past reading, I've come across the concept of heuristics, defined here as "An algorithm which usually, but not always, works or which gives nearly the right answer." Not quite the wealth of information I was looking for on the web, but we'll work with it. Another way to describe heuristics as I understand it, is a non-linear method for arriving at a conclusion. While this algorythm won't necessarily come to a logical conclusion, it has the strength of being capable of reaching conclusions impossible to achieve with linear-based algorythms due to insufficient data. In short, the human brain (the only known source of "true" intelligence we can point to) works on a heuristic basis.
The programming for Eliza mimics human behavior, but Eliza never came to its own conclusions. It merely spouted back random, pre-programmed responses in such a way that it imitated a human well enough that the test subjects were unable to determine who was mechanical and who was chemical.
Ultimately, we don't really understand the chemical processes in our brains well enough to find a way to mimic them in solid-state. At present, our solid-state processors are capable of two modes: on or off, yes or no. That doesn't really allow for the range of possibilities that the chemicals in our brains allow for, which can possibly explain why our brains aren't locked into "yes/no" programming (though some individuals I can think of make me wonder). With IBM's breakthrough quantum computer, we're not only looking at computers that could (combined with the solid-state electronics we have now) not only mimic human behavior, but could legitimately come to valid or semi-valid conclusions based on limited information.
Ultimately, the best test of intelligence I ever heard was a system (biological or mechanical) that was capable of conceiving of "self." Again, that opens a whole new can of worms in attempting to identify and verify true conception of "self" and what "self" is to begin with (thousands of years of philosophy aside, we're looking at a "Short Circuit" scenario). A system that is able to grasp the concept of self as opposed to others and the inter-relation between that disparity is as close to Intelligence as to make no difference.
Getting back on topic, would the "infinite computer" be capable of heuristics merely by dint of pure processing power/time? I think it's highly unlikely. A photon traveling at the speed of light is still traveling in a straight line. Once that path is modified due to gravitational forces or because it bounces off an object (such as your computer screen to your retina), it's still moving in a straight line, just on a new course. Therefore such a computer operating on linear processes will still have all of the strengths and weaknesses of linear thinking. It will be able to perform pre-programmed tasks as quickly as you might wish, but it will never make the leap into heuristic programming, which is what I believe to be a far better test of intelligence.
"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan
[ Parent ]