Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5307 sci.philosophy.tech:1834
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!oravax!ian
From: ian@oravax.UUCP (Ian Sutherland)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Thought and Utility
Message-ID: <1213@oravax.UUCP>
Date: 29 Dec 89 23:10:12 GMT
References: <31821@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <0cTG02uf793w01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <7462@cs.utexas.edu> <5cK702mf795h01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Reply-To: ian@oravax.odyssey.UUCP (Ian Sutherland)
Organization: Odyssey Research Associates, Ithaca, New York
Lines: 17

In article <5cK702mf795h01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes:
>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.

Doesn't the thermostat change its decision procedure when I turn the
dial?  Of course, I can't convince it to adopt a decision procedure which
ignores the setting on the dial entirely, but I probably couldn't
convince you to adopt a decision procedure which ignores which neurons
in your brain are firing either.  Both you and the thermostat change
withing certain limits defined by your construction.  The difference
seems to me to be one of degree rather than kind.
-- 
Ian Sutherland		ian%oravax.uucp@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu

Sans Peur