[jgfoot]

Salon published in 2003 a great series of articles by John Sundman about the Loebner Prize. He describes a two-time winner, "ALICE," in a way that doesn't inspire awe for the creator's programming achievements:

"""Wallace’s theory of A.I. is no theory at all. It’s not that he doesn’t believe in artificial intelligence, per se; rather, he doesn’t much believe in intelligence, period. In a way that oddly befits a contest sponsored by a bunch of Skinnerians, Wallace’s ALICE program is based strictly on a stimulus-response model. You type something in, if the program recognizes what you typed, it picks a clever, appropriate, “canned” answer. ... There is no representation of knowledge, no common-sense reasoning, no inference engine to mimic human thought. Just a very long list of canned answers, from which it picks the best option. Basically, it’s Eliza on steroids. ... And this strategy works, Wallace says, because that’s what people are: mindless robots who don’t listen to each other but merely regurgitate canned answers."""

http://www.salon.com/2003/02/26/loebner_part_one/

[3pt14159]

If Wallace's theory is correct, then there is no reason for me to consider it, since it is just a canned response devoid of thinking, and my response would be similar. If his theory is false, then there is no reason for me to believe it.

The only logical response to his theory is to ignore it.

[khafra]

If Wallace's theory is correct, your internal monologue about believing or ignoring his theory is an illusion; the only logical response to his theory is to trot it out in conversation if it seems clever, and otherwise ignore it.

[JulianMorrison]

Tell me more about mindless robots who don’t listen to each other but merely regurgitate canned answers?

[mietek]

> ...mindless robots who don’t listen to each other but merely regurgitate canned answers

This only serves to sweep the definition of intelligence under the carpet. What is the algorithm by which people determine the most appropriate canned answer? The Chinese Room argument is similarly flawed.

[AsylumWarden]

I am by no means as smart as these people but I did recently made this observation myself while visiting Google+. I try to avoid political discussions but someone always finds a way to insert them. This time, as I glanced over one such discussion it made me realize... People don't think, they just repeat things that have been told to them, fact or not, as long as it sounds like a good fit. No one involved in these discussions is going to convince the other to change their mind. AIs should be this easy!

[underwater]

That is very true. Most of what I say is phrasing or idioms I've unconciously absorbed. However I obviously don't randomly repeat anything I hear. The things that I absorb are ideas that resonate with my existing world view, which has been crafted by original thought over a much longer time. So behind those memes and tired phrasing in the arguments you heard there is porbably a kernel of unique thought.

This is why I prefer online forums and other forms of asynchronous communication over face to face debates. The former allows me to form an opinion - which can often change as I try to articulate myself. The later relies on my initial reaction, which is always much less refined.