Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!quiche!eagle
From: eagle@cs.mcgill.ca (Anatol ORLOVSKY)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: MORE THOUGHTS ON THE TURING TEST AND NATURAL LANGUAGE
Summary: conditions for performance beyond competence
Message-ID: <1991Jun3.003423.3594@cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 3 Jun 91 00:34:23 GMT
References: <9105300027.AA15172@lilac.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@cs.mcgill.ca (Netnews Administrator)
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Lines: 18

In article <9105300027.AA15172@lilac.berkeley.edu> ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) writes:
>In article <1991May29.130917.26459@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
>cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu (cameron shelley) writes:
>>
>>The other thing that comes to mind is a recent remark I heard from
>>Richard Smolensky at a conference: that he is pursuing the view that
>>the relationship between competence and performance is one of
>>reconciling and optimizing the interaction among several, possibly
>>conflicting preferences.  In other words (and I hope he would find my
>>paraphrase apt), individual competence contains quite a number of
>>directives which may either act in concert or conflict (or not
>>interact at all) depending on circumstances.

This suggests a level of meta-competence, i.e. knowledge about the
optimal exploitation of given competence to produce desired performance.
Will meta-competence then need to be controlled by a further competence
level, and if so, would control overhead decrease (monotonically?) at
successively higher levels of the meta-competence chain?