Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!adobe!greid
From: greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Proposed: a split of this group
Message-ID: <1991@adobe.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Dec-86 14:05:55 EST
Article-I.D.: adobe.1991
Posted: Thu Dec  4 14:05:55 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Dec-86 03:53:15 EST
References: <13316@glacier.ARPA> <76600001@uiucdcsp>
Reply-To: greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid)
Organization: Adobe Systems, Palo Alto
Lines: 20
Summary: No Split

>>     I would like to suggest that this group be split into two groups;
>>one about "doing AI" and one on "philosophising about AI", the latter
>>to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers,
>>and suchlike.
>
>Good idea.  I was beginning to think the discussions of "when is an
>artifice intelligent" might belong in "talk.ai."  I was looking for
>articles about how to do AI, and not finding any.  The trouble is,
>"comp.ai.how-to" might have no traffic at all.

How do you "do" AI without talking about what it is that you are
trying to do?  

Seems to me that discussions about cognitive modeling and Turing
tests and whatever else are perfectly acceptable here, if not
needed.  But I could live without the "sentient computers" book
lists.

But you're right.  Maybe we should post data structures or
something.  Doesn't it always come down to data structures?