Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
Message-ID: <4955@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 18-Feb-86 18:45:53 EST
Article-I.D.: kestrel.4955
Posted: Tue Feb 18 18:45:53 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Feb-86 00:01:36 EST
References: <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP> <4827@kestrel.ARPA> <591@philabs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 31


(ladkin on Dreyfus)
> > He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at
> > U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought
> > through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would
> > do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing
> > practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him
> > distinguished membership!
(benjamin)
> Baloney.
> [comments on Dreyfus on chess .....]
> It seems arrogant
> for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not
> accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI.

Before you cry *baloney*, how about addressing the issue?
As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that
there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.
Do you (or anyone) think that this statement is obviously false?
(Negate it and see if that sounds right).

People reach (good and bad) conclusions about fields in which
they are not accomplished all the time. That's how AI got started,
and that's how computers got invented. 

Why is it that people get so heated about criticism of AI that
they stoop to name-calling rather than addressing the points made?
(That question has probably also been asked by Dreyfus).

Peter Ladkin