Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!tristan!loren
From: loren@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What Has Traditional AI Accomplished?
Message-ID: <85040@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 29 Oct 90 16:39:21 GMT
References: <1990Oct16.135631.6444@cbnewsj.att.com> <69929@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Oct27.194719.1005@mdbs.uucp>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 75
Nntp-Posting-Host: tristan.llnl.gov

In article <1990Oct27.194719.1005@mdbs.uucp> zed@mdbs.UUCP (Bill Smith) writes:
>>>... 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?

	Do they have to?

	The point is to try to set up pattern recognition on a system
that will never get tired, and that will be influenced by preconceived
ideas as little as possible.

>>	Specialized hardware?????
>
>A person sure seems specialized to me.

	We're talking about artificial, not biological systems here.

>>	Even that is still only in the experimental stage.
>
>Hah!   Pure poppy cock. Lies! Blasphemy before God!

	Why is that so?

	Are you serious??

>>	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!

	What's so TERRIBLE????

	I still don't get what you are getting at.

	I'm only stating something derived from my personal experience
in the NN field.

>>	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.

	Try finding two even numbers that add up to an odd one
sometime.

	Or try to patent a perpetual-motion machine.

	And maybe then you will not laugh so hard at theoretical
arguments.

>Thank you for your idiotic approach to what is a simple problem.

	What's this all about???

	Is this a joke??????

>God (Obviously, I am lying)

	No comment.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
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