Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!karln!karln!karln
From: karln@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Discover magazine's "Invasion of the Insect Robots"
Message-ID: <1991Mar19.225113.15536@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 19 Mar 91 22:51:13 GMT
References: <92995@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1991Mar12.201920.18088@evax.arl.utexas.edu> <1991Mar17.063506.28939@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Reply-To: karln@karln.UUCP ()
Organization: Sam76 - Pennington NJ
Lines: 30

In article <1991Mar17.063506.28939@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>	I agree that trying to create low intelligence is a good start,
>yet there is no purpose in having 80 artificial cows.  They can't
>do anything better than us, so why use them? (Or were you joking?)
>
 
	I do not think that is true. An artificial cow could be 'programed'
to eat more at the right time to produce more meat come market time. An artificial
cow might be able to have two calves. The error of that statement is glaring.

	Anyway we should ask a farmer about that one ...

        "Mr Farmer, what would you do with a programable cow?"

	"Well, could I run my Nintendo games on it?!?!" ....

      Also, I do not think that many people would argue that the
first computer, made from spinning wheels and brass bars, couldn't
do math better than us .... you gotta start somewhere.



	I keep waiting for someone to wonder why there is a problem with
two types of AI. I seem to get the impression that the insect neural net
application is like the motor control center of the brain. Why ask a symbol
processor to move legs when it could just 'think' I wanna go there and let the
neural net solve the specifics of motivation, which it is doing quite well.

	Karl Nicholas
	karln!karln@uunet.uu.net