Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!frank
From: frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Value of AI, was -> (Re: The Turing Test is no good!)
Keywords: AI
Message-ID: <2884@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Date: 19 Aug 90 15:40:36 GMT
References: <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <3156@gara.une.oz.au> <3231@psueea.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 74

In <3231@psueea.UUCP> erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Boleyn) writes:


>   I know that I am going off of the subject a bit, but I feel that this
>is relevant to the original question...

>In <3156@gara.une.oz.au> pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) writes:
<<In <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>, by frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen):

<<There are a thousand good reasons for pursuing AI...
<<                     ...Deep space exploration, deep sea exploration,
<<replacement of humans in life endangering jobs, etc, etc. I, for one,
<<will not stop thinking just because of the advent of AI...

>   Well, Frank, at this point it is good to ask what would AI be good for?
>Phillips list sounds more reasonable for the near future than yours...
>in fact your idea would probably not come into being (if at all) for a
>LONG time, and who knows, by then Linear technological progression may not
>be the norm any more.

I do think that AI is good - I just don't see the point (other than academic)
for AI's to imitate humans.  And I do think that being made obsolete by
AI's is a problem we will have to deal with eventually - but it's not a
problem to be avoided and it would be a stupid reason to avoid studying
AI.


>   Two things that I've learned from studying technology, science, and
>especially AI are:   1) technology does not advance into what are dreams of
>it were ...

But I think that humans being made obsolete by AI's is a general enough
senario that it is inevitable (i.e. I can't see how it can be avoided).

>   Back to what I was saying about what AI is good for...
Yes I agree there will be a great many wonderful benefits, both foreseen
and unforseen and I look forward to discovering what the future holds.

>...[human intelligence may keep pace with AI]
>Have you considered that some may use these AIs for forced evolution of the
>human race (or a subset of it)?

Yes this is a facinating idea and seems to be fairly likely, but it means
we are no longer human, it means the new 'super humans' have rendered
ordinary humans totally obsolete.  It sounds wonderful to me but, sadly,
I am not superhuman so even if my children are, I have still been left
behind in the evolutionary race towards greater intelligence (in human's
AI's and hybrids).

<<> ... The point is that the Turing test seems to me to be somewhat contrived
<<> and meaningless. ...

>   Out of its proper context, maybe, but when seen in the light of being
>a formalization of natural methods of evaluating intellectual flexibility,
>...  It is a test of the relative usefulness ... regardless [of] if you
>believe it is "really" intelligent of not, and that is the POINT of such
>a test in its natural context.

Yes I must agree with you when looking at it like this, it is an important
measure. I think that it's importance has been overated a bit (like IQ tests)


<<beings do best). It does not represent the definitive answer to what we
<<expect AI to give us. After all, who needs a machine that can imitate being
<<a human being?

>   Good point also.  As I mentioned earlier, what would be efficient about
>this kind of expansion, as compared to some other use of that kind of
>capability?

Yes - this was one of the points of my original posting (in a slightly 
round about way)

Frank Breen