Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!se-sd!jim
From: jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What AI is exactly.
Message-ID: <3815@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 7 Sep 90 17:56:47 GMT
References: <25392@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <3797@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <3543@gara.une.oz.au>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 97

In article <3543@gara.une.oz.au> pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) writes:
>I think it is a terribly poor definition, actually, for the following reasons:
>a)	Human Intelligence is NOT the only form of intelligence. This is an
>	extremely one eyed view point. Dolphins are extremely intelligent and
>	the only reason we cannot communicate with them to date is because of
>	the extreme differences in our vocal ranges and auditory senses. There
>	is also a huge cultural gap. What concerns do dolphins have? What form
>	does their communication take? We need to know these BEFORE we can
>	even look at syntax and semantics. Hence their intelligence is very
>	alien to ours.

Intuitivly, I'd agree.  But lets keep this rigorous.  We have no indication
that human intelligence isn't the only form of intelligence.  Admittedly,
our definition (flimsy as it is) doesn't incorporate much beyond what we
observe in humans.  But so far, it's the only example we've got. 
There's also no solid indication that Dolphins are intelligence (I
believe they have some ability for it, but they haven't done much to
demonstrate it in human terms).  I don't think we haven't communicated
with them simply because of vocal ranges.  That's a problem easily 
remedied.  There seems to be little common semantics between our two
species, at least, if not a lack of ability to communicate on the part
of the Dolphins.
I wouldn't say that just because they surf in the wake of boats and
copulate multiple times daily that they're intelligent (on the other hand,
maybe they're lots MORE intelligent than humans...).


>Saying that AI is modelling "Human Intelligence" is totally inadequate. It
>may not even be possible because we have such a limited understanding of the
>processes involved. Artificial Intelligence means:

Human intelligence is the only example of intelligence we've identified.
The tasks we try to make computers do are tasks that humans are good at.
What other modelling could it be?

>Please no arguments about:
>	What is intelligence?
>This has been discussed ad nauseum, and obviously, we don't know. However,
>it must exibit intelligence behaviour. With regards to intelligent human
>behaviour, we can test this with the Turing Test. As for intelligent animal
>behaviour, there is no appropriate test. And what is intelligent behaviour
>for a machine? It could be quite alien in appearance from the other two.

Then how can you say Dolphins are intelligent?
Just because a machine passes the Turing Test doesn't mean it's intelligent.
As Turing said, we must simply assume that it is intelligent, because we
can't tell the difference between its actions and the actions of an
entity we know to be intelligent.

>Let us produce a general requirement for intelligent behaviour:
>a)	The system MUST be able to learn. This implies that the system MUST have
>	a memory for learning to be maintained. Also learning comes in a
>	number of varieties:

I would reject this.  There are many ways to exhibit intelligence without
learning.  Learning is, in fact, a subset of the field call "AI".
Neural Nets, once they are trained, no longer learn.  Their training doesn't
come from within them either.  It's imposed by support software on the
outside.  Similarly with expert systems.
Information retrieval is the same story.  The search heuristics are
written by a programmer.  Some systems have the ability to adapt to
user's needs, but most are, at heart, deterministic.

>b)	The system MUST be autonomous. This can be disected as:
>	i)	The system MUST be able to effect its environment based on
>		its own independent conclusions.
>	ii)	The system MUST be its own master and therefore doesn't
>		require operator intervention.
>	iii)	The system MUST be motivated. It must have needs and
>		requirements that can to be satisfied by its own actions.

I would reject this too.  Intelligent systems can exist that are
supported and maintained by others, and are unable to effect its environment
(e.g., systems that only give advice or conclusions).

>c)	The system MUST be able to reason. That is to say, it must use some
>	form of deductive reasoning, based on known facts and capable of
>	producing insights (deductions) which later become known facts.

Reasoning is a cognitive tools developed by civilized Man.  Before Man was
civilized, he was intelligent.  It took intelligence to develop reason.

>d)	The system MUST be self aware. This is related to autonomy, reasoning
>	and learning, but also embodies the need for external senses. Without

The is the common confusion between "being", "soul",or "self" and 
intelligence.  Many think these two issues can be separated.

>It is clear to see that a human easily satisfies these requirements and so is
>an intelligent system. A cat also satisfies these requirements. So we now have

Umm, a cat can't reason, or learn in any human sense.  You can train it
(not very well - dogs are easier), but the kind of cognition requried by
the animal for this I think is different from "learning".


- Jim Ruehlin