Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!RELAY.CS.NET!"NGSTL1::DANNY%ti-eg.CSNET"
From: "NGSTL1::DANNY%ti-eg.CSNET"@RELAY.CS.NET (From the desk of Daniel Paul)
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: AI vs. RI
Message-ID: <8610240550.AA15402@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22-Oct-86 10:49:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8610240550.AA15402
Posted: Wed Oct 22 10:49:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Oct-86 04:44:15 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17
Approved: ailist@sri-stripe.arpa

In the last AI digest (V4 #226), Daniel Simon writes:

>One question you haven't addressed is the relationship between intelligence and
>"human performance".  Are the two synonymous?  If so, why bother to make
>artificial humans when making natural ones is so much easier (not to mention
>more fun)? 

This is a question that has been bothering me for a while.  When it is so much
cheaper (and possible now, while true machine intelligence may be just a dream)
why are we wasting time training machines when we could be training humans in-
stead.  The only reasons that I can see are that intelligent systems can be made
small enough and light enough to sit on bombs.  Are there any other reasons?

Daniel Paul

danny%ngstl1%ti-eg@csnet-relay