Re: [s-d] [s-b] nday 2: The State of Play

[Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Jamie Ahloy Dallaire wrote:
> >> I agree with comex. turing.py certainly -can- pass at least "a" Turing Test
> >> of some sort, at least once in 10^something times.
> >
> > The rule itself can be read either "there is at least one
> > carefully constructed Turing Test that turing.py can pass" OR
> > "turing.py can [in general] pass a generally reasonable version
> > of a Turing Test".
> 
> I am suggesting an interpretation in the middle: "turing.py can
> [occasionally] pass a generally reasonable version of a Turing Test".
> That is, e is capable of passing a Turing test in the same way I am
> capable of winning the lottery.

I think, then, the question is on where the burden of proof lies.
Administrator has spoken, I think...

[A reverse Turing attempt would be interesting, btw...]



_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss