Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!tippy!sawmill!mdbs!zed
From: zed@mdbs.uucp (Bill Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What Has Traditional AI Accomplished?
Message-ID: <1990Oct27.194719.1005@mdbs.uucp>
Date: 27 Oct 90 19:47:19 GMT
References: <69609@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Oct15.143325.26044@unislc.uucp> <1990Oct16.135631.6444@cbnewsj.att.com> <69929@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Reply-To: zed@mdbs.UUCP (Bill Smith)
Organization: mdbs, Inc.
Lines: 54

In article <69929@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> loren@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) writes:
>In article <1990Oct16.135631.6444@cbnewsj.att.com> jwi@cbnewsj.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes:
>>
>>I worked on the Mark I Perceptron (Rosenblatt model) in 1959 
>>at Cornel Aeronautical Laboratories, Inc. (defunct) under contract
>>to Office of Naval Research (ONR). That makes the field at least
>>30 years old. Neural Nets have been inconvenient to work with until 
>>recently when specialized hardware has become available.

I guess people just don't count the value of wet ware, now do they?

>
>	Specialized hardware?????

A person sure seems specialized to me.
>
>	Even that is still only in the experimental stage.

Hah!   Pure poppy cock. Lies! Blasphemy before God!
>
>	Most Neural Nets now exist only in software form for the
>traditional brand of computer. And it is on such software Neural Nets
>that designs of hardware Neural Nets will ultimately depend -- it is
>much easier to rewrite a program than to design a new chip. And even a
>Neural Net chip would need to be controlled by such a computer.

FuckF*ck you!
>
>	The simplicity of the basic algorithms keep making me wonder
>why NN's did not take off earlier -- the basic code for one takes up
>only a couple pages of Fortran or C. Try writing one yourself. I guess
>that (in)famous book by Minsky and Papert, _Perceptrons_, with its
>seemingly airtight theoretical arguments, is what had squelched the
>field for so long.
>
Airtight theoretical arguments are to life as a vacuum is to a toy balloon.
Academia is an accretion of SHITsh*t.

>	I wonder what the fellow who had worked on the Rosenblatt Mark
>I Perceptron has to say about this question. What does he have to say
>about the work of Minsky and Papert?
>
Good question.   I want to see then answer posted next week.
>
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov
>
>Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:
>
>loren%sunlight.llnl.gov@star.stanford.edu
Thank you for your idiotic approach to what is a simple problem.

God (Obviously, I am lying)
pur-ee!mdbs!zed