Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!well!nagle
From: nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI - the real problem
Message-ID: <23020@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 6 Feb 91 18:32:07 GMT
References: <22951@well.sf.ca.us> <1991Feb5.165223.9584@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Distribution: comp
Lines: 24

punch@pleiades.cps.msu.edu (Bill Punch) writes:

>While the point is well taken (ant intelligence is hard and we are far
>from a full simulation of it) I question the "hubris" of working from
>the other end of the spectrum. That is, I agree fully with the
>difficulty and necessity of working at the "simpler" levels of
>intelligence, but question why working at pieces of the "complicated"
>levels isn't also revealing.

      The question is whether effective "abstract" high-level intelligences
can be built without the underpinnings of the machinery that allows animals
to deal with the real, physical world.  Based on results in AI to date,
the answer appears to be no.  Expert systems have not begun to exhibit
"common sense", or even understanding of the consequences of their actions.
AI is still stalled on the common sense front.  

      This may all be to the good.  It has taken thirty years for AI to
dispose of most the debris of several thousand years of philosophy on
what is "intelligence".  Now we know that none of the classical ideas
(intelligence is arithmetic, intelligence is logic, intelligence is
language, intelligence is chess...) lead anywhere.  With the decks
cleared, we can now begin to work.

					John Nagle