Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
>> [PFB] I would argue whether the examples you cite are evidence
>> > of artificial intelligence or just well-designed transactional
>> > systems.
>>
>> [JS]The boundary of AI is not well defined.
>
> [KBL]
>
> I have heard it said, not entirely tongue in cheek, that the
> definition of artificial intelligence is that which computers cannot
> yet do. The moment we succeed at automating a capability, many will
> no longer consider it AI. Therefore, by definition, the field of AI
> is doomed to failure. (01)
and this opinion is by no means the result of armchair philosophy. (02)
what is (perhaps) sad, is that when one gets struck by the intelligent
behaviour of an artifact, he/she attributes the intelligence to the
constructors, not to the device. (03)
on the other hand, i hope not to experience ai such as that envisioned
by lem in his 'peace on earth'. (04)
vQ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|