XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org   
      
   Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy  writes:   
      
   > Doc O'Leary  wrote in   
   > news:droleary-089A1F.11331707022014@news.eternal-september.org:   
   >   
   >> In article ,   
   >>  Walter Bushell  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Many moon ago, I heard that if something becomes possible to do   
   >>> by computer it's no longer AI. It's a simple matter of   
   >>> programming.   
   >>   
   >> The reverse is true in reality: most AI researchers gave up and   
   >> decided to instead busy themselves with with more simple   
   >> problems that *could* be solved with just a bit of programming.   
   >> This results-orient approach has gutted AI development over the   
   >> decades, actually leaving us farther away from the original   
   >> goals of AI.  The cheaters have given us increasingly   
   >> sophisticated tools, but nothing that could be called   
   >> intelligent.   
   >>   
   > The more we understand human like intelligence, the more hopeless it   
   > looks, trying to simulate it with silicon.   
      
   I see it slightly differently, although not incompatibly so. My view is   
   that although we keep learning more and more about how natural   
   intelligence works, we really haven't come closer to defining what   
   intelligence actually *is*.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)