From: Ted.Warring@Artificialingenuity.com   
      
   David Harmon  wrote in message news:<40291618   
   1@news.unimelb.edu.au>...   
   > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:30:46 GMT in comp.ai, Randy Crawford   
   >  was alleged to have written:   
   > >- Why hasn't the field made more progress in 50 years toward the holy   
   > >grail of AI -- creating a sentient being?   
   >   
   > Uhm, because that's exactly what we don't want.  We already have   
   > sentient beings.  What we want is to solve more problems that formerly   
   > required the use of sentient beings without the use of sentient beings.   
      
   I am not sure that is a homogenous viewpoint.  Dr. Minsky seems to   
   feel that we should still be trying for human level (or human like)   
   intelligence.  I would say at the least that the "holy grail" is still   
   a general intelligence system capable of operating in a dynamic and   
   wide scope of environments.  The robot butler and such...  yes?   
      
   Besides, wouldn't your definition just as easily include automation as   
   it would artificial intelligence?  Once upon a time it took a sentient   
   being to create copies of documents, that doesn't mean that our Xerox   
   machine is AI...   
      
   [ comp.ai is moderated.  To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]   
   [ that fails mail your article to , and ]   
   [ ask your news administrator to fix the problems with your system. ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)