Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!corton!inria!seti!nuri!ziane
From: ziane@nuri.inria.fr (ziane mikal @)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: a naive idea
Keywords: intelligence, human, artificial
Message-ID: <2210@seti.inria.fr>
Date: 21 May 91 11:57:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: seti.2210
References: <1991May16.134123.6335@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it>
Sender: news@seti.inria.fr
Organization: INRIA Rocquencourt,Le Chesnay, France.
Lines: 23

In article <1991May16.134123.6335@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it> gin001@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it (Mauro Cicognini) writes:
>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.

Ridiculous !
First how can you forecast this cost so confidently ?
Second, computers may be able to do things that human beings cannot or
don't like. Computers may be able to do those things faster and better..
Third, you may duplicate computer knowledge much more easily than human
knowledge ! 
etc, etc, etc...


Mikal.