Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!ucsd!rutgers!sunybcs!lammens
From: lammens@sunybcs.uucp (Johan Lammens)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Limits of AI
Keywords: Intelligence
Message-ID: <2501@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 7 Nov 88 15:29:36 GMT
References: <1651@ndsuvax.UUCP> <1666@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <3802@cs.utexas.edu> <2413@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <3833@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: nobody@cs.Buffalo.EDU
Reply-To: lammens@sunybcs.UUCP (Johan Lammens)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 42

In article <3833@cs.utexas.edu> berleant@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant) writes:
>In article <2413@cs.Buffalo.EDU> lammens@sunybcs.UUCP (Johan Lammens) writes:
>>In article <3802@cs.utexas.edu> berleant@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant) writes:
>>>If we can create a machine more intelligent than we, there is
>>>real science fiction in pursuing the implications -- it means
>>>we can then create a machine of infinite intelligence! Think
>>>about it...
>>>
>>No we can't. At least, this inductive reasoning does not hold (which
>>does not mean the conclusion is invalid): by the same reasoning one
>>could "prove" that we can build machines of infinite strength,
>>precision, size, whatever.
>>JL.
>
>Yes it does! First of all, we can build machines of maximum (or
>close to maximum) strength, precision, size, etc., and to do it
>requires other, lesser, machines.
>
>Second of all, I define intelligence as "the ability to build
>intelligent machines" (but see footnote 1).
>
>Dan Berleant


Does this imply that maximum = infinite? Seems rather strange to me.
One can define the maximum performance of a machine (the maximum
weight it will lift, or the maximum number of computations it will
perform in a second), but this does not imply that this performance is
infinite does it? By definition infinity does not have a maximum, and
no matter how clever or strong or precise we build our machines, a
more clever, strong, precise one will always be possible (at least in
theory).  
	But if your point is that using a machine that's more
intelligent than we are, we (or the machine) could build an even
better one, I do not disagree. The problem, of course, is to build the
first one...
	Anyway, this is kind of a non-issue I think, as we have
problems enough already trying to build one that's even moderately
intelligent (say like an ape or so), let alone more intelligent than
we are.

JL.