Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!gatech!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1
From: marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Job Hunt
Message-ID: <1380@houdi.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Oct-87 13:07:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: houdi.1380
Posted: Fri Oct 16 13:07:02 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Oct-87 02:44:00 EDT
References: <15196@topaz.rutgers.edu> <1368@houdi.UUCP> <1377@houdi.UUCP> <333@odyssey.ATT.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 51
Summary: Anger is suboptimally constructive at best

In article <333@odyssey.ATT.COM>, gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) writes:
> 
> You misunderstood me.  I suggested not that X *seemed* to get angry, but
> that he genuinely got angry.  Emotions are not some kind of side effect--
> they serve a constructive purpose.  Anger, in particular, drives away
> or destroys things that threaten your well-being.
> 
> Most likely Mr. X wants to avoid getting a job, but wants people in
> general or certain people in particular to think he wants a job.  It
> happens all the time!  You're wasting your time when you pontificate
> to Mr. X.  He's not going to tell a back-seat driver like you what he
> really wants.

Do we need a definition of anger?  Anger, as I understand it, is  an
emotion  that catalyzes physical actions but interferes with reason.
I agree that Mr. X may rationalize his action, but I  don't  believe
it was his best choice.

> > > By this criterion, we are all flawed.
>
> > That's exactly what I meant.
>
> Well, it's a useless and insulting criterion.

Pardon me.  I thought what we all needed was a little humility.   If
Col.  G. L. Sicherman thinks either that he is perfect, or that I am
perfect, I disagree.  Tentatively.

In my simplistic view, the mind is a complex system that came to  be
what  it  is  through  variation  and  natural  selection.   It  has
functions that we don't  understand,  adaptations  for  purposes  we
don't understand, and adaptations for purposes that no longer exist.
If it's perfect, that's a marvelous coincidence.

If the aim of artificial intelligence is to model  the  human  mind,
Col.  Sicherman  and I seem to agree that it's not enough.  To model
anger, for instance, we also need artificial emotion.   But  if  the
aim  of  artificial  intelligence  is to create a purely intelligent
entity without maladaptive emotions,  Col.  Sicherman  and  I  would
disagree.   I  believe  that  at  least some emotional responses are
maladaptive and would not exist in a perfect intelligence, while  he
apparently believes the human mind is perfect and cannot be improved
upon.

So let us agree to disagree, and,  as  I  suggested  in  an  earlier
article,  let some AI researchers model the human mind, while others
build something better adapted to specific tasks.

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	ihnp4!houdi!marty1