XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article <44bnygawvv.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>, Lowell Gilbert   
    wrote:   
   > 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*.   
      
   Intelligence is the ability to recognise when you don't know what   
   intelligence is ... hence all the dumbasses on the Internet who   
   self-claim to be intelligent.  ;-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)