Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!yamauchi From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Cog Sci Fi (was: STRONG AND WEAK AI) Message-ID: <1989Dec12.082143.5735@cs.rochester.edu> Date: 12 Dec 89 08:21:43 GMT References: <11870@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <16033@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <1989Dec9.200649.28014@cs.rochester.edu> <691@visdc.UUCP> Reply-To: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department Lines: 29 In article <691@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: > >Intelligence is intelligence, no matter if it is accepting patterns in >{a,b}* or operating a fork lift on planet earth. It is only a matter of >degree. This strikes me as the core of what is wrong with a substantial proportion of AI research. The idea that the way to build intelligence is to start with abstract "language" (in the math logic sense of the word) recognizers on {a,b}* or theorem provers using FOPC and deciding that it is only "a matter of degree" to expand these systems to human intelligence. There is one clear example of how to develop intelligent systems incrementally -- it's called evolution. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop artificially intelligent systems in an analogous manner -- starting with simple, fully autonomous creatures, and progressively adding more advanced capabilities? True, the fact that nature used this course does not mean that it is the only course, but it does mean that it is a possible one. (And hopefully, the substitution of intelligent design for random mutations will cut down the required time by a few billion years.) _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________