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]