Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2893 talk.philosophy.misc:1729 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!husc6!contact!ileaf!io!mintz From: mintz@io.UUCP (Richard Mintz) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Message-ID: <859@io.UUCP> Date: 13 Dec 88 23:00:31 GMT References: <1985@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <2221@xyzzy.UUCP> Reply-To: eddie.mit.edu!ileaf!mintz (Richard Mintz) Organization: Interleaf, Cambridge, MA Lines: 28 In article <2221@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: >> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) >> Anyone who talks of computers "understanding" does so: >> a) to patronise users whom they don't know how to instruct properly; >> b) because they are AI types. >I dunno. The forms "the program knows ", or "the program will >try to " seem apt to me. No worse than "the moth knows its mate >is upwind" or "the moth will try to reach its mate". I don't think >these forms are necessarily silly anthropomorphisms. >Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw As a professional writer of user documentation, I heartily agree. Often the phrasing "if you do X, the software will do Y" is far preferable to the alternatives (usually "if you do X, you will see Y"). The former offers a more precise level of detail in an approximately equal number of words, with the added advantage of more active language. How (for example) can you concisely explain the steps in a complex software algorithm ("How a Document is Paginated") without resorting to constructions such as "First the software checks X, then it adjusts Y, then...."? The alternative ("The pagination algorithm consists of the following steps: [a] Verification of value X. [b] Adjustment of Y accordingly. [c]...") is likely to cause migraine headache in everyone except those who already understand, thus defeating the purpose of technical documentation. Rich Mintz eddie.mit.edu!ileaf!mintz The foregoing does not represent the opinion of Interleaf, Inc.