Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5306 sci.philosophy.tech:1833
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!turpin
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Thought and Utility
Summary: Not only do I argue, I usually persuade.
Keywords: utility, decision theory
Message-ID: <7466@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 89 23:02:19 GMT
References: <31821@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <0cTG02uf793w01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <5cK702mf795h01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Followup-To: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 23

In article <5cK702mf795h01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes:
> I would go so far as to grant that the thermostat uses a public language -
> the setting dial is calibrated in print. ...
> 
> The big deficiency in the thermostat, the worm, and every attempt at AI
> I know of, is that you can't get them to alter their decision procedure
> by inputting arguments via the interface that recognizes the public
> language. ...

I guess I'll have to play the devil's advocate here, even if it
is just to point out that you want to be more specific in your
criticism. 

I happen to argue with my thermostat quite frequently.  Quite
often it thinks it is just right when I think it is too cold, or
vice versa.  It has a neat device, a lever calibrated in the same
public language, that permits me to tell it what I think "too
cold" means. 

Sometimes my arguments even work, and the thermostat modifies its
decision procedure to become more to my liking. 

Russell