Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
Message-ID: <599@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 13:28:27 EST
Article-I.D.: philabs.599
Posted: Thu Feb 20 13:28:27 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Feb-86 05:37:23 EST
References: <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP> <4827@kestrel.ARPA> <591@philabs.UUCP> <4955@kestrel.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 47

> (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).
> 
> 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

I DID address the issue. I deleted your reference because reproducing
entire postings leads to extremely large postings. But I am addressing
his argument about areas of human experience which supposedly will
never be amenable to machine implementation. My whole point, which I
thought was rather obvious, is that he conjures up examples which are
poorly thought out, and experiments which are poorly executed. Thus,
his entire analysis is worthless to any investigators in the field.

I would welcome any analysis which would point out areas which I should
not waste time investigating. I receive this sort of input occasionally,
in the form of "it is better to investigate this than that, for this reason"
and this is very helpful. I certainly don't love wasting time looking at
dead ends. If Dreyfus' work were carefully constructed, it could be very
valuable. But all I see when I read his stuff is vague hypotheses, backed
up with bad research.

So I am not calling him names. I am characterizing his research, and
therefore AM addressing the issue.

Paul Benjamin