Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!AI.AI.MIT.EDU!NICK From: NICK@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Nick Papadakis) Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: [attcan!houdi!marty1@uunet.uu.net: Re: this is philosophy ??!!?] Message-ID: <19880527050159.5.NICK@MACH.AI.MIT.EDU> Date: 27 May 88 05:01:00 GMT Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 37 Approved: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu Date: Wed, 4 May 88 10:28 EDT From: M.BRILLIANT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel Subject: Re: this is philosophy ??!!? References: <3200014@uiucdcsm>, <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, <1588@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Sender: ailist-request@ai.ai.mit.edu To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu In article <1588@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, Anurag Acharya writes: > In article crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Gilbert Cockton writes: > ... > > Your system should prevaricate, stall, duck the > >issue, deny there's a problem, pray, write to an agony aunt, ask its > >mum, wait a while, get its friends to ring it up and ask it out ... > > Whatever does all that stuff have to do with intelligence per se ? > .... Pardon me for abstracting out of context. Also for daring to comment when I am not an AI researcher, only an engineer waiting for a useful result. But I see that as an illuminating bit of dialogue. Cockton wants to emulate the real human decision maker, and I cannot say with certainty that he's wrong. Acharya wants to avoid the pitfalls of human fallibility, and I cannot say with certainty that he's wrong either. I wish we could see these arguments as a conflict between researchers who want to model the human mind, and researchers who want to make more useful computer programs. Then we could acknowledge that both schools belong in AI, and stop arguing over which should drive out the other. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1 Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.