Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!houem!marty1
From: marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Proposed: a split of this group
Message-ID: <726@houem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Dec-86 11:55:54 EST
Article-I.D.: houem.726
Posted: Fri Dec  5 11:55:54 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Dec-86 18:12:09 EST
References: <13316@glacier.ARPA> <720@houem.UUCP> <76600001@uiucdcsp>, <1991@adobe.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 31

In <1991@adobe.UUCP>, greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid) replies to a
suggestion by jbn@glacier.UUCP (John Nagle)...

"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."
 
... with the question: "How do you 'do' AI without talking about what
it is that you are trying to do?"

Maybe we ought to split on the basis of what we are trying to do.  I
suggested in my own response <720@houem.UUCP> that "we just try always
to create something more intelligent than we created before...  That
way we can not only claim nearly instant success, but also continue to
have further successes without end."

That joke has a serious component.  What some of us are trying to do
is imitate known intelligence, and particularly human intelligence.
Others (including myself) are just trying to do artificially as much as
possible of the work for which we now depend on human intelligence.
Actually, I am looking at an application, not inventing methods.

Those of us who are not trying to imitate human intelligence may
ultimately surpass human intelligence.  But we can pursue our goal
without knowing how to measure or test artificial intelligence.  My
main problem is that I don't know how the people who do it think about
their methods, so I want to hear about methods.

						Marty
M. B. Brilliant		(201)-949-1858
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	houem!marty1