XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com   
      
   On 1/24/14 1:24 AM, Greg Goss wrote:   
   > "Michael F. Stemper"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 01/23/2014 06:17 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   >   
   >>> There was an article in the newspaper not long ago about the experts   
   >>> working with robots etc. saying that getting to a point of having   
   >>> actual computer intelligence is stil decades away.   
   >>   
   >> It always has been. Kind of like fusion.   
   >   
   > Well, a lot of the skills that were defined as part of "AI" get   
   > redefined out once they're met.   
   >   
   > Expert Systems?   
   > Basic language translation?   
   > Grandmaster-level chess?   
   > Driving a car on public roads?   
   >   
   > Nope.  Those aren't AI after all.   
   >   
      
      
   	Aside from expert systems, which were one of the original AI approaches   
   rather than specific tasks, none of them ever really were. It was   
   sometimes assumed that you would need AI for them, but they didn't (with   
   the caveat that "driving a car on public roads" isn't actually solved   
   yet, no matter what claims Google and DARPA participants may make).   
      
      
   --   
                         Sea Wasp   
                           /^\   
                           ;;;	   
   Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog:   
   http://seawasp.livejournal.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)