Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpwala!hpavla!woodruff
From: woodruff@hpavla.HP.COM (Terry Woodruff)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: An Alternative to Strong and Weak AI (was Re: STRONG AND WEAK AI)
Message-ID: <1830001@hpavla.HP.COM>
Date: 8 Dec 89 18:54:49 GMT
References: <1989Dec3.185506.22039@cs.rochester.edu>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Avondale Division
Lines: 26

/ hpavla:comp.ai / arshad@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Arshad Mahmood) /  3:22 pm  Dec  3, 1989 /
In article <11870@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>Chris Malcolm asked for a definition:
>
>Those who believe in Strong AI believe that thinking is computation
>(i.e., symbol manipulation). Those who believe in Weak AI believe that
>computation is a means of studying and testing theories of (among other
>things) thinking, which need not be just computation (i.e., not just
>symbol manipulation).

I suspect Chris already knew this! I thought his question was do you feel 
comfortable if asked which school you belong to, and if not what would be
your response.

Chris was perhaps hinting at a hierachy of possible definitions, where
each person can sit at the position at which they feel comfortable, 
(week-AI, strong-AI, strong-AI without thermostats, ....). 
There may well be such a hierarchy but I have seen no evidence of it,
but then again I am a neo-Strong AIite (well you have to be, among so many
disbelievers!!).

A. Mahmood
Laboratory fo Foundations of Computer Science
Edinburgh University
Scotland
----------