Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!midway!msuinfo!frith!dailey
From: dailey@frith.uucp (Chris Dailey)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI - the real problem
Message-ID: <1991Feb8.230050.25212@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 91 23:00:50 GMT
References: <22951@well.sf.ca.us> <1991Feb5.165223.9584@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 50

Sorry for the long included quote, but I thought it best be kept:

In article <1991Feb5.165223.9584@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> punch@pleiades.cps.msu.edu (Bill Punch) writes:
>>John Nagle (nagle@well.sf.ca.us) writes:
>> [...] General ant level competence is very hard.

>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.
>
>Sometimes I feel that my colleagues look upon work like knowledge-based
>systems as a sort of fifth whell, at best an engineering feat at worst a
>simple hack to impress the uninformed. In fact, I think any number of
>KBS researchers pushing on particular themes of human cognition are
>investigating a basis for intelligence.

I think it is important to keep in mind, however, that human cognition
may not be the most proper route to look at for implementation on
traditional computer architecture.  I think we have a good shot of
coming up with some 'true' form of intelligent cognition (whatever that
may be...), but it will not be something that we would recognize as
modelled after natural/biological intelligence.

I don't think we need to be able to make a full model of ant
intelligence before we can say we've created something that has the
level of intelligence that an ant does.  Putting the limits of the known
on that which is unknown, although often helpful, is often just a
crutch.

A saying to demonstrate the pitfalls of conventional thinking:  "The
most intelligent creature in the universe is a rock.  Noone would know
it because they have lousy I/O."

>Further, I think that both ends
>working towards the middle is a good approach, and that progress will be
>more quickly forthcoming as a result.

Maybe it's more of a circle and we are working our way inward.  Or
perhaps a circle where we are in the center working our way out?

>				>>>bill<<<
>			punch@pleiades.cps.msu.edu
--
Chris Dailey   dailey@(frith.egr|cps).msu.edu
    __  __  ___       | "A line in the sand." -- The Detroit News
 __/  \/  \/ __:>-    |
 \__/\__/\__/         | "Allein in der sand." -- me