Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!uceng!dmocsny
From: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Sound and complete definitions of intelligence.
Summary: Constructing a Human-equivalent Intelligence.
Message-ID: <495@uceng.UC.EDU>
Date: 10 Dec 88 16:12:28 GMT
References: <Dec.8.18.59.38.1988.10409@klaatu.rutgers.edu> <Dec.9.15.13.42.1988.10600@klaatu.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg.
Lines: 25

In article <Dec.9.15.13.42.1988.10600@klaatu.rutgers.edu>, josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes:
> It is the consensus of people I have
> read and heard on the subject (respected in their fields) that the
> state of the technology will produce a one-rack, $100K, human-
> processing-power-equivalent machine around the year 2000.  *It is
> much less likely that the appropriate software will be available*.

If my right arm is as strong as Da Vinci's was, will I now paint _The
Last Supper?_

I'm glad you included the disclaimer about software. Perhaps we will
find that gross computational power is even less of an issue than we
now believe.

Since we have essentially no understanding of how much leverage the
brain gets from its emergent properties, time domain multiplexing,
or analog processing, I regard such comparisons with some suspicion.
Nonetheless, I greedily await the opportunity to own and program
such a machine as you predict, even if I cannot reproduce my own 
thoughts on it.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu