Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!apple!well!nagle
From: nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: If it does not pass TT it is not intelligent????
Keywords: TT, intelligence
Message-ID: <25586@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 22 Jun 91 02:05:26 GMT
References: <3727@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> <1991Jun19.050512.27413@news.media.mit.edu> <3737@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> <1991Jun20.051851.14377@news.media.mit.edu>
Lines: 18


    We don't know enough yet to frame this question properly.  It's like
trying to talk about aerodynamics a century ago.

    We can, just maybe, build an insect-level brain today.  Even Brooks'
insects are much dumber than real ones.  This reflects how shallow our 
understanding of the basic concepts of brain design is.

    It's fun to speculate about human-level AI.  But progress to date
indicates that trying to develop "abstract intelligences" that don't
have the underpinnings of animal-level capabilities probably won't work.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but that progress is very slow; some would
stay "stalled".  Recent real progress is at the low end.  We at least
have the advantage there that we know a whole hierarchy of dumb creatures
is possible.  We have no existence proof that an abstract intelligence is
possible, and as a more practical matter, none to observe and dissect.

					John Nagle