Path: utzoo!censor!geac!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!decwrl!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!mimsy!midway!msuinfo!pleiades.cps.msu.edu!punch
From: punch@pleiades.cps.msu.edu (Bill Punch)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI - the real problem
Message-ID: <1991Feb5.165223.9584@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 91 16:52:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: msuinfo.1991Feb5.165223.9584
References: <22951@well.sf.ca.us>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Reply-To: punch@pleiades.cps.msu.edu (Bill Punch)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Computer Science, Michigan State University, E. Lansing
Lines: 36

>John Nagle (nagle@well.sf.ca.us) writes:
>     There is a bit of hubris in trying to address human-level intelligence
>from our present level of ignorance.  We now understand that just getting an
>ant though a minute of life is hard.  Walking over rough ground is hard.
>Avoiding obstacles is hard.  Picking up things is hard.  Piling things up
>is hard.  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. 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.

Finally, I think the problem with much of the work of AI is not its
fractured, nonuniform nature. I think exploration of problems/solutions
in this way is good and to be expected. What it lacks is some unifying
theme/work to bring these various groups together. Research is focusing
only on little, discrete problems and not focusing on
unification/integration of these pieces in a bigger whole. There are
those who are doing it, but this work is just beginning. It is this next
stage of research, if and when it occurs, that will bring AI some more
coherent lines of thought. My opinion.

				>>>bill<<<
			punch@pleiades.cps.msu.edu

	"Call on God, but row away from the rocks", Indian proverb.