Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!mit-eddi!mit-vax!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!zaumen@Sri-Tsc
From: zaumen%Sri-Tsc@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re:  Natural Language Application
Message-ID: <2239@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jun-83 16:50:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.2239
Posted: Thu Jun 16 16:50:00 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jun-83 17:00:11 EDT
Lines: 17

Sorry, it has to be parsed by a program (I assume you are a person,
not a machine), so you don't get a real physical can of Coors Lite.

You mentioned that a program that could parse legalese (as convoluted
as in my example) would not pass the Turing test, as most people could
not parse it.  Lawyers claim to be able to parse it, thereby leading 
me to suspect that lawyers cannot pass the Turing test.  This leads to
an interesting question--are lawyers intelligent?  If lawyers are
intelligent, what does this imply about the Turing test?

Bill


[The lawyer could pass the test by pretending not to understand the
test sentence.  It has always been assumed that an intelligent machine
would similarly hide its superior arithmetic skill.  This requirement
for duplicity is a major failing of the Turing test.  -- KIL]