Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ysub!psuvm!auvm!tkuster
From: TKUSTER@auvm.auvm.edu (Todd)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: a naive idea
Message-ID: <91141.100530TKUSTER@auvm.auvm.edu>
Date: 21 May 91 14:05:30 GMT
References: <1991May16.134123.6335@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it>
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Lines: 26

In article <1991May16.134123.6335@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it>,
gin001@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it (Mauro Cicognini) says:
>
>It may be a naive idea, but my assertion is that artificial intelligence
>is not worth for any economical results it may produce. In fact, it will
>always be less expensive to train a human being to do a certain intel-
>lectual job than to devise an artificial system to do the same thing.
>This because the machine has first to be imbued with "artificial" intel-
>ligence; and this task has yet to prove itself easy. I doubt that it ever
>will, though this is only a personal opinion.
>
>My point is that, even if we reach the point where we can "make" intellig-
>ence out of silicon (or gallium arsenide), it will always be more costly
>than to have intelligence produced to old way, that is, to make babies.
>

The main reason it's still worth researching AI is because while it currently
cheaper to produce a human to do the thinking in the future it will become
cheaper to have the machine do the thinking.  You also have to consider the
cost and time from pre-birth to the time you have a thinking person capable
of doing an intellectual job.  Now consider once you devise an AI system
that can do the job they can be mass produced at a fraction of the cost and
time.


Just a thought...