Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pcserver2!ddsw1!zane
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Discover magazine's "Invasion of the Insect Robots"
Message-ID: <1991Mar25.173925.21895@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 25 Mar 91 17:39:25 GMT
References: <1991Mar12.201920.18088@evax.arl.utexas.edu> <1991Mar17.063506.28939@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Mar19.225113.15536@uunet.uu.net>
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Lines: 19

In article <1991Mar19.225113.15536@uunet.uu.net> karln@karln.UUCP () writes:
>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.
	
	The idea of artificial cow, I had thought, was a robotic being
with the intelligence of a cow.  Making an artificial cow that
is EDIBLE, in my belief, would be tougher than designing a human-level
intelligence.


-- 
The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM