Concerning the Turing test, I find that the requirements toward _generic language output_ should be definite and that the programming needs to _not_ extend certain limits of size so that the computer _really_ generates language of human quality and not that it is allowed such extension that one enters all sorts of typical pattern of human behaviour that the programming by this notion *defeats itse...lf*, making the whole programming ridiculous and more apt for artificial intelligence _emulating_ human behaviour *only*!!! One should also take into account the phenomenon of "Truthiness" and "telepathy" so as to see that the "Turing test" is now utterly defeated regardless, because computers can't pick up these extraordinary capacities of human kind!!! Good?
Urls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test !
Url2: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truthiness?rdfrom=Truthiness !
Quote: "truthy + -ness. First attested in 1824."
Quote: American Dialect Society's Word of the Year (2005)
Url3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness ! Quote from this: "Truthiness, although a "stunt word", was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster.[7][8] Linguist and OED consultant Benjamin Zimmer[2][9] pointed out that the word truthiness[10] already had a history in literature and appears in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), as a derivation of truthy, and The Century Dictionary, both of which indicate it as rare or dialectal, and to be defined more straightforwardly as "truthfulness, faithfulness".[2]"
Conclusion either way is that the Turing test is forever defeated, given all honesty, and that the matters that remain now is how long the computer can hold and "small questions" of challenges merely for having the computer to behave like a human being in being engaged in a speech, very advanced, all allowed, or not!
First written to Facebook, both under my profile and as a note with the same header as above.
