It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
insecurity.
The same is true when we named the whole area of advanced
computer science as ARTIFICIAL Intelligence. When we should
be advancing the knowledge of computer science, that
effort is being grouped under the 1980's over-hyped
ARTIFICIAL intelligence, so what are we doing now, push
bits back and forth between machines and around the
world. Is that ANYTHING remotely interesting from the
intellectual point of view!?
Some of us have made a career on advanced computer science,
I just want you to think about what you are going to
leave behind after you die. Is it that no one will ever
read the papers you've published, in that rare occasion
when when one of your paper is being read by some graduate
student in the year 2056. Is she going to think to herself
"Geez, this is whole bunch of fru fru crap, what a waste of
my time."
We need to become more realistic and more productive.
As in a popular movie "Show me the MONEY!" We need to
remind ourselves daily "Show me the PROGRAM!"
--NKM
--
--NKM
From: Sergio Navega
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <362f8959.0@news3.ibm.net>
Norman Ma wrote in message <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu>...
>It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
>son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
>scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
>Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
>insecurity.
>
>The same is true when we named the whole area of advanced
>computer science as ARTIFICIAL Intelligence. When we should
>be advancing the knowledge of computer science, that
>effort is being grouped under the 1980's over-hyped
>ARTIFICIAL intelligence, so what are we doing now, push
>bits back and forth between machines and around the
>world. Is that ANYTHING remotely interesting from the
>intellectual point of view!?
>
>Some of us have made a career on advanced computer science,
>I just want you to think about what you are going to
>leave behind after you die. Is it that no one will ever
>read the papers you've published, in that rare occasion
>when when one of your paper is being read by some graduate
>student in the year 2056. Is she going to think to herself
>"Geez, this is whole bunch of fru fru crap, what a waste of
>my time."
>
>We need to become more realistic and more productive.
>As in a popular movie "Show me the MONEY!" We need to
>remind ourselves daily "Show me the PROGRAM!"
>
Norman touched an important point and I dare to complement
his thoughts with my own.
I'm appalled not only with the lack of practical results,
but on a greater scale with the lack of *continuity*
toward an ideal. I can name tens of AI projects developed in
the past with good to brilliant results, both theoretically
and practically.
As is common with AI, those projects touched only a small
part of the whole problem. What leaves me sad is that instead
of continuing toward the original ideal, building *over* the
obtained results, most of those projects shelved and
the researchers start another one, in another direction!
They should follow the same motivation that originated
their projects, and correct what went wrong and go on
modifying, adjusting, learning, reimplementing, until one
gets the desired goal (or until one loses his pants).
AI will only progress with continuing effort, without
diversions, toward one ideal. Sure, if the results of
one idea are not promising, one must change the direction
of research. But that should be done only on the case of
bad results. This is not what happens! Good and promising
results are obtained but nobody proceeds in that direction!
I am one of the "critics" of the CYC project, because I
believe they forgot some "details" in their project.
But no matter the deficiencies, they are one of the
few projects in AI today that defined a suficiently
clear aim and directed *all* their efforts
(and money ;-) to pursue that goal. This is enough to
raise my lifetime admiration for their efforts.
I would give a finger to have dozens of projects like
CYC, each one with differing targets (and methods)
but with the *same commitment*.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
Sergio Navega wrote:
> I'm appalled not only with the lack of practical results,
> but on a greater scale with the lack of *continuity*
> toward an ideal. I can name tens of AI projects developed in
> the past with good to brilliant results, both theoretically
> and practically.
>
> As is common with AI, those projects touched only a small
> part of the whole problem. What leaves me sad is that instead
> of continuing toward the original ideal, building *over* the
> obtained results, most of those projects shelved [snip]
Well I'm glad you said that. If everyone's AI project had of *stuck*, we
would have our robust AI by now. Makes you kind of wonder whether we are
looking in the right direction for our AI ideas, mechanisms, algorithms,
structures, and paradigms ... huh? Maybe we should be putting more
attention on the cultural environments and connections of our scattered
projects so that they can survive and bo of use to each other.
--
Seth
see Seth's Conjecture at http://www.clickshop.com/ai/conjecture.htm
And then on to the AI Jump List ...
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <70u0k1$42e$3@its.hooked.net>
In article <·················@clickshop.com>, Seth Russell <········@clickshop.com> wrote:
>Sergio Navega wrote:
>
>> I'm appalled not only with the lack of practical results,
>> but on a greater scale with the lack of *continuity*
>> toward an ideal. I can name tens of AI projects developed in
>> the past with good to brilliant results, both theoretically
>> and practically.
>>
>> As is common with AI, those projects touched only a small
>> part of the whole problem. What leaves me sad is that instead
>> of continuing toward the original ideal, building *over* the
>> obtained results, most of those projects shelved [snip]
>
>Well I'm glad you said that. If everyone's AI project had of *stuck*, we
>would have our robust AI by now.
What is "robust" AI?
> Makes you kind of wonder whether we are
>looking in the right direction for our AI ideas, mechanisms, algorithms,
>structures, and paradigms ... huh? Maybe we should be putting more
>attention on the cultural environments and connections of our scattered
>projects so that they can survive and bo of use to each other.
It is not a matter of culture. It is a matter of the very
essense of being.
Intelligence without emotion, feeling, intuition and purpose
has nothing to do with intelligence.
Bloxy's wrote:
> What is "robust" AI?
Artificial Intelligence that could pass the Turing test and is exemplified by Data of Star
Trek or Hal of 2001.
> > Makes you kind of wonder whether we are
> >looking in the right direction for our AI ideas, mechanisms, algorithms,
> >structures, and paradigms ... huh? Maybe we should be putting more
> >attention on the cultural environments and connections of our scattered
> >projects so that they can survive and bo of use to each other.
>
> It is not a matter of culture. It is a matter of the very
> essense of being.
What is "it"?
> Intelligence without emotion, feeling, intuition and purpose
> has nothing to do with intelligence.
Why do you feel that way about intelligence?
--
Seth
see Seth's Conjecture at http://www.clickshop.com/ai/conjecture.htm
And then on to the AI Jump List ...
Would it be possible to continue this thread ONLY on
comp.ai.philosophy where it belongs -- if it ever belonged anywhere?
It never belonged on comp.lang.lisp nor on comp.ai, whatever the
anonymous and highly opinionated "Bloxy's" may think.
Thank you.
-- Scott
===========================================================================
Scott E. Fahlman Internet: ···@cs.cmu.edu
Principal Research Scientist Phone: 412 268-2575
Department of Computer Science Fax: 412 268-5576
Carnegie Mellon University Latitude: 40:26:46 N
5000 Forbes Avenue Longitude: 79:56:55 W
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Mood: :-P
===========================================================================
In article <·················@clickshop.com>, Seth Russell
<········@clickshop.com> wrote:
>Bloxy's wrote:
>
>> What is "robust" AI?
>
>Artificial Intelligence that could pass the Turing test and is exemplified
by Data of Star
>Trek or Hal of 2001.
The traditional term for this is "Strong AI," FWIW.
>> > Makes you kind of wonder whether we are
>> >looking in the right direction for our AI ideas, mechanisms, algorithms,
>> >structures, and paradigms ... huh? Maybe we should be putting more
>> >attention on the cultural environments and connections of our scattered
>> >projects so that they can survive and bo of use to each other.
>>
>> It is not a matter of culture. It is a matter of the very
>> essense of being.
>
>What is "it"?
By my reading, the process of AI research. Of course, the very fact that it
is "research" mitigates against a level of commonality in methodology,
technology, and culture that might result in more uniform progress.
>> Intelligence without emotion, feeling, intuition and purpose
>> has nothing to do with intelligence.
>
>Why do you feel that way about intelligence?
Probably because the evidence supports it. You may wish to read "Descartes'
Error" for a good exposition of the idea. The bottom line would appear to
be that "rationality" is composed of what we might loosely call "logic" and
"emotions," and it does indeed appear to be the case that someone who is
seriously emotionally impaired but apparently not the least bit
"intellectually" impaired ceases to behave in a "rational" fashion.
>--
>Seth
>see Seth's Conjecture at http://www.clickshop.com/ai/conjecture.htm
>And then on to the AI Jump List ...
Paul
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Snively
<············@mcione.com>
"I had the sense, too, of the illicit side of the casbah, of a kind of
trade in human (or, in this case, executive) flesh." -- Michael Wolff,
"Burn Rate"
Paul F. Snively wrote:
>
> In article <·················@clickshop.com>, Seth Russell
> <········@clickshop.com> wrote:
>
> >Bloxy's wrote:
> >
> >> What is "robust" AI?
> >
> >Artificial Intelligence that could pass the Turing test and is exemplified
> by Data of Star
> >Trek or Hal of 2001.
>
> The traditional term for this is "Strong AI," FWIW.
No it isn't; you are seriously misinformed. Do a literature search
for "John Searle" and "Chinese Room" for greater insight.
--
<J Q B>
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71e2un$l6t$3@its.hooked.net>
In article <·················@sandpiper.net>, Jim Balter <···@sandpiper.net> wrote:
>Paul F. Snively wrote:
>>
>> In article <·················@clickshop.com>, Seth Russell
>> <········@clickshop.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bloxy's wrote:
>> >
>> >> What is "robust" AI?
>> >
>> >Artificial Intelligence that could pass the Turing test and is exemplified
>> by Data of Star
>> >Trek or Hal of 2001.
>>
>> The traditional term for this is "Strong AI," FWIW.
>
>No it isn't; you are seriously misinformed. Do a literature search
>for "John Searle" and "Chinese Room" for greater insight.
Star sucking treck exemplifies intelligence?
Must be outa yer idiotic mind, programmed to obivion.
The only thing star sucking treck exemplifies is the
violent nature of your utterly corrupt civilization,
interested in violence, destruction, domination and opression.
What is all the "action" about in that star sucking treck?
Ever though?
Or there are no active neurons on line left?
All ties up, processing the instruction pipleline?
In article <·················@sandpiper.net>, Jim Balter
<···@sandpiper.net> wrote:
>Paul F. Snively wrote:
>>
>> In article <·················@clickshop.com>, Seth Russell
>> <········@clickshop.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bloxy's wrote:
>> >
>> >> What is "robust" AI?
>> >
>> >Artificial Intelligence that could pass the Turing test and is exemplified
>> by Data of Star
>> >Trek or Hal of 2001.
>>
>> The traditional term for this is "Strong AI," FWIW.
>
>No it isn't; you are seriously misinformed. Do a literature search
>for "John Searle" and "Chinese Room" for greater insight.
Been there; done that; read the tripe; read the rebuttals ad nauseam.
"Strong AI" is the traditional term for a fully "conscious," "self-aware"
human-constructed intelligence.
>--
><J Q B>
Paul
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Snively
<············@mcione.com>
"I had the sense, too, of the illicit side of the casbah, of a kind of
trade in human (or, in this case, executive) flesh." -- Michael Wolff,
"Burn Rate"
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71gpf0$73q$3@its.hooked.net>
In article <·································@news.mci2000.com>, ·····@mcione.com (Paul F. Snively) wrote:
>In article <·················@sandpiper.net>, Jim Balter
><···@sandpiper.net> wrote:
>>Paul F. Snively wrote:
>>> In article <·················@clickshop.com>, Seth Russell
>>> <········@clickshop.com> wrote:
>>> >Bloxy's wrote:
>>> >> What is "robust" AI?
>>> >Artificial Intelligence that could pass the Turing test and is exemplified
>>> by Data of Star
>>> >Trek or Hal of 2001.
Robust AI is pure obscenity.
First of all, the issue of robustness relates to issues
of reliability, stability and consistency.
And these issues contradict with the very purpose
of creativity.
Creativity deals with unstable situations.
Only machines are hoped to be stable, and even then,
it is just a desire.
Creativity deals with NEW issues.
The new issues MUST contradict the old information
in the system, by definition.
There is no guarantee that new information arriving
at the input, then propagating throughout the system,
will not eventually lock up the entire system,
or is there?
And if there is such a guarantee, then on what basis?
The problem you will be dealing with is reducing the
new information to the level of obscenity in order
to fit it the known parameters and criterias,
in which case, you can not guarantee that you sucky
system is capable of learning ANYTHING of significance.
The whole thing is just obscene.
Requiring robustness from Mozart, VanGogh, Tchaikovsky,
Dostoyevski, Socrates, Pythagoras, Buddha, Einstein,
and ANY other trully creative person will simply kill
them.
Any active neurons on line?
>>> The traditional term for this is "Strong AI," FWIW.
Strong AI sucks strong.
That is all.
>>No it isn't; you are seriously misinformed. Do a literature search
>>for "John Searle" and "Chinese Room" for greater insight.
>Been there; done that; read the tripe; read the rebuttals ad nauseam.
And you are still blind as the deapths of the elefants ass.
>"Strong AI" is the traditional term for a fully "conscious," "self-aware"
>human-constructed intelligence.
Which is UTTER obscenity and blindness.
You know not of consciousness and self awareness
as you know not of the very purpose, intent and meaning.
You are doomed in this blind search for that,
which is a contradiction of terms.
Artificial "intelligence" is a delusion.
The only examples we have of intelligence are all biological,
and you fail to comprehend the scope of it.
Why don't you define the intelligence first and
we'll see what you got there.
>>--
>><J Q B>
>
>Paul
>
Bloxy's wrote:
> >>> >> What is "robust" AI?
> Robust AI is pure obscenity.
> First of all, the issue of robustness relates to issues
> of reliability, stability and consistency.
Well I looked up "robust" at word net and could find no such nuances.
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=robust
> The problem you will be dealing with is reducing the
> new information to the level of obscenity in order
> to fit it the known parameters and criterias,
> in which case, you can not guarantee that you sucky
> system is capable of learning ANYTHING of significance.
But of course that is exactly what we are not trying to do. By subscribing to the multi independent agent
approach to ai, you just about guarantee that you will have sufficient diversity. By doing this you are
tapping into the same force which has molded the evolution of biological intelligence.
> The whole thing is just obscene.
Yes I hear that you do have an attitude towards AI, but for you attitude to survive outside of your own mind
requires that you communicate it in ways that your culture understands. As of now I am drawing a blank on
this attitude - insufficient data.
> Requiring robustness from Mozart, VanGogh, Tchaikovsky,
> Dostoyevski, Socrates, Pythagoras, Buddha, Einstein,
> and ANY other trully creative person will simply kill
> them.
The ideas of all those you mention were robust enough to survive in our culture. That is why you know about
them. Wimpy ideas don't cut the mustard - they usually die at the mouth of the person uttering them.
> Artificial "intelligence" is a delusion.
> The only examples we have of intelligence are all biological,
> and you fail to comprehend the scope of it.
Yes, many AI researchers do not comprehend the scope of intelligence. In fact it is just that comprehension
of the vastness of intelligence that the evolutionary approach to artificial intelligence is targeted. Hidden
between the words of my conjecture (below) is exactly that idea.
--
Seth
see Seth's Conjecture at http://www.clickshop.com/ai/conjecture.htm
And then on to the AI Jump List ...
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71ji5d$nhl$1@its.hooked.net>
In article <·················@clickshop.com>, Seth Russell <········@clickshop.com> wrote:
>Bloxy's wrote:
>
>> >>> >> What is "robust" AI?
>> Robust AI is pure obscenity.
>> First of all, the issue of robustness relates to issues
>> of reliability, stability and consistency.
>
>Well I looked up "robust" at word net and could find no such nuances.
>http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=robust
Ok, define "robust" then.
Not that dictionaries matter, but just as a reference,
from Oxford dictionary:
Robust - strong and sturdy.
So, strong and sturdy means first of all
RELIABLE. It does not break [under diverse conditions].
In order not to break, it has to be STABLE.
That is just a technical term from gadget making
industries for the same thing.
Now, in order for it to be stable, you need to assure
CONSISTENCY. That is the most important thing.
Else, how do you assure it is stable?
Can you take it from here?
This is very significant issue, worth looking into.
>> The problem you will be dealing with is reducing the
>> new information to the level of obscenity in order
>> to fit it the known parameters and criterias,
>> in which case, you can not guarantee that you sucky
>> system is capable of learning ANYTHING of significance.
Now, what it means that in order to assure robustness,
you would have to prefilter new information and fit it
into known descriptions, notions and principles,
CONSISTENT witht existing system "knowledge" or state
of development.
Which means the new informatin will have to be distorted
and limited, and, in fact, reduced to the point of the
same old ideas.
Else you can not guarantee robustness.
>But of course that is exactly what we are not trying to do.
Nope, you are still not seeing the entire picture.
The punch line is in the future.
What YOU are trying to do is to reduce intelligence to
a mechanical, consistent system, that violates the first
principle of creativity - instability.
Creativity is inherently unstable.
Try to work it all out.
> By subscribing to
> the multi independent agent
>approach to ai,
Multin independend agent is just a mouthful of confusion
at this junction.
> you just about guarantee that you will have sufficient
> diversity.
Nope, not the way you defined it at this point.
The way you defined it, you did not solve a SINGLE problem
[of robustness].
> By doing this you are
>tapping into the same force which has molded the evolution of biological
> intelligence.
That is just self justification.
Completely groundless at this point.
You need to provide evidence that by simply adding multi
ANYTHING you adress the issue of NEW information arriving
at the input, that does not fit existing definitions.
By looking at it from as many angles, as you want, it
still remains new.
>> The whole thing is just obscene.
I like that!
:)
Very puncy, to the point. Cryptic, and yet complete.
:)
Try to beat that one for a change.
You want to argue it?
Come on, bite Bloxy's output hole!
>Yes I hear that you do have an attitude towards AI,
Fuck that horseshit.
Keep your guilt to yourself.
You need to specify your exact argumentation, instead
of wasting the creative energy on dismissing the other's
arguments on the basis of guilt manipulation side effects.
Don't do that.
Else you'd have to talk to yourself.
> but for you attitude to
> survive outside of your own mind
>requires that you communicate it in ways that your culture understands.
Well, and you are so dumb, you could not compute anything, huh?
And little do you know that you already did.
:)
If you only comprehended what happened to your ideas ALREADY,
you'd be on your knees, grateful to ALL THERE IS
for providing you with such insights.
And what are you doing instead?
Are you trying to tell me that you have not seen
ANYTHING of significance in ANY of what you already read?
And why don't you just adress the specific points of concern,
instead of keeping to lay the guilt trip on Bloxy's?
> As of
> now I am drawing a blank on
>this attitude - insufficient data.
Well, that is YOUR sucky "problem".
You can draw a blank even if you stand in front
of god ITself.
It all depends on your honesty and sincerety.
Minus in yer column.
>> Requiring robustness from Mozart, VanGogh, Tchaikovsky,
>> Dostoyevski, Socrates, Pythagoras, Buddha, Einstein,
>> and ANY other trully creative person will simply kill
>> them.
>
>The ideas of all those you mention were robust enough to survive in our
> culture. That is why you know about
>them. Wimpy ideas don't cut the mustard - they usually die at the mouth of the
> person uttering them.
You are just twisting and manipulating the information,
just as you have been programmed to do
[in order to self justify your own little ego]
The point here is that all those people have been doing
the craziest things during their life.
NONE of that could be considered "stable".
Many of them simply died in the young age.
They did not give a fuck about that idiotic "stability".
They were enjoying the grandior of creative force,
and one moment of that is better, than entire useless
life of sucking and ass licking.
Nope, those people could care less about "consistency"
[with the same old horseshit], and the rest of it.
And so are you, only if you could see that.
:)
The only thing that holds you back is fear.
>> Artificial "intelligence" is a delusion.
I like that very much.
Yep, a pipe dream, a hallucination.
:)
>> The only examples we have of intelligence are all biological,
>> and you fail to comprehend the scope of it.
>
>Yes, many AI researchers do not comprehend the scope of intelligence.
Good. Can you comprehend how much is already there
in a sinlge point?
You see, this is the most significant point there is:
SCOPE.
Once you keep the scope open, you can not fall into a ditch.
:)
[cause you can not remain blind]
:)
> In fact
> it is just that comprehension
>of the vastness of intelligence that the evolutionary approach
Bullshit about evolutionary approach is completely insignificant.
At the very best, it is implied.
Secondly, it is utterly unclear what that very concept
of evo-sucking-lution is, on the first place.
Physicist already questioned the very notion of time,
and there must be at least something to it.
And if there is no time, as we know it,
the whole idea just sux worse than a black hole.
> to artificial
> intelligence is targeted.
Artificial "intelligence" is a contradiction of term.
Prove it, sucker!
Do you have any examples of artificial "intelligence",
especially if you talk about the SCOPE of it?
Do you at least connect to your own words?
> Hidden
>between the words of my conjecture (below) is exactly that idea.
Hidden between two of yer holes.
Thats fer sure.
From: Rick Harker
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <363F61A6.D72F2B55@usa.net>
Bloxy's wrote:
> Ok, define "robust" then.
No. Then you'll just disagree with any definition.
> Not that dictionaries matter,
They do. They provide a common ground for sharing information.
> Robust - strong and sturdy.
> So, strong and sturdy means first of all
> RELIABLE. It does not break [under diverse conditions].
Ok.
> In order not to break, it has to be STABLE.
Insert RANDOMLY after 'break'. Steel is strong, but it does break.
> That is just a technical term from gadget making industries for the same thing.
Er...uh...huh? Oh! Just more of the Big Brother complex.
> Now, in order for it to be stable, you need to assure CONSISTENCY. That is the most important thing.
Bloxy's, does (consistency=true) to you?
> Can you take it from here?
Egad! He's starting to sound like Microsoft!
No really. Where to? What do you mean?
> This is very significant issue, worth looking into.
Yes.
> Now, what it means that in order to assure robustness, you would have to prefilter new information and fit it into known descriptions, notions and principles, CONSISTENT witht existing system "knowledge" or state of development.
Nope. If a 'new' info does not agree with the 'old' info, then either
the 'new' info is deemed false or the 'old' info is 'updated'.
Confusion is not doing one or the other.
Ideas are built upon ideas.
They expand. Not the other way, Bloxy's.
> Which means the new informatin will have to be distorted and limited, and, in fact, reduced to the point of the same old ideas.
No. If what you say is true, then I already know Everything. Nothing new
makes any difference. -according to you-
> Else you can not guarantee robustness.
Pancakes aren't really cakes of pans. People coin a term to be able to
share that idea with other people. Redefining 'cake' doesn't change a
pancake. Same with 'Robust'.
> The punch line is in the future.
Er...Whew! Almost blew a few of the active neurons on line figuring out
that one.
> What YOU are trying to do is to reduce intelligence to a mechanical, consistent system, that violates the first principle of creativity - instability.
To me, creativity is the epitome of intelligence. The super-linking of
ideas into new ideas [where none were before]. If consistent=true then I
hereby use your past arguments against AI for AI.
> Creativity is inherently unstable.
I disagree. Creativity is reliable...at least for me.
> Try to work it all out.
We ARE trying to work it out. We know we don't know everything. That is
the first step of wisdom. Maybe you should use a few neurons to think
about it.
>> By subscribing to the multi independent agent approach to ai,
> Multin independend agent is just a mouthful of confusion at this junction.
Oh, too much for you to handle? So you just toss it away?
I believe Seth meant if we take many diverse 'tactics' to solve AI then
eventually one of them might work.
> The way you defined it, you did not solve a SINGLE problem [of robustness].
Wrong. The way YOU INTERPRETED it, you did not learn a SINGLE solution.
> That is just self justification.
There is a basic philsophy that EVERYTHING we do is for self
justification. Everything.
> You need to provide evidence that by simply adding multi
> ANYTHING you adress the issue of NEW information arriving
> at the input, that does not fit existing definitions.
You mean, adapting?
> Try to beat that one for a change.
But you -are- cryptic. With to most people it seems that your ideas are
not coherent/solid/consistent.
> You want to argue it?
Sure..I've got hours before work. I can spare a few minutes.
> Come on, bite Bloxy's output hole!
Yech. No thank you. Morning breath is bad enough.
> Fuck that horseshit.
<sarcasm>Ooh...so intelligent. So mature. I lay prone in envy of your
overwhelming brain power.</sarcasm>
> Keep your guilt to yourself.
Some do. Some don't. Seth isn't guilty for not knowing the true way of
AI.
Heck, you don't know the way.
Are you feeling guilty? Is that where all this anger is coming from?
Where you molested by butterflies as a kid?
Did you drop one too many ice cream cones?
> You need to specify your exact argumentation, instead
> of wasting the creative energy on dismissing the other's
> arguments on the basis of guilt manipulation side effects.
Uh...whoa. Now you're talking Bloxy's! "SPECIFY YOUR EXACT
ARGUMENTATION". Good advice.
> Else you'd have to talk to yourself.
Hey, i talk to myself all the time. Sometimes, I even answer...
>> but for you attitude to survive outside of your own mind requires that you communicate it in ways that your culture understands.
> Well, and you are so dumb, you could not compute anything, huh?
No, he's not dumb. It means he can't or doesn't want to read your mind.
You have to express ideas in terms that are familiar to everyone (or to
at least your target audience). Duh!
> And little do you know that you already did.
That he did not know that he did already not compute anything?
Man, talk about obfustification.
> If you only comprehended what happened to your ideas ALREADY,
> you'd be on your knees, grateful to ALL THERE IS
> for providing you with such insights.
You mean: Thank God for not knowing such insights?
> And what are you doing instead?
I'm eating popcorn.
> Are you trying to tell me that you have not seen
> ANYTHING of significance in ANY of what you already read?
Uh. Nope. I read your letters to the ng to remind me that there is
something to do in this world. That is: to educate people into civilized
beings.
> And why don't you just adress the specific points of concern,
> instead of keeping to lay the guilt trip on Bloxy's?
Whoa, where'd all this 'guilt' stuff come from? We're not blaming your
for us not have the answers to everything. We are just annoyed with the
way you present yourself.
> Minus in yer column.
Seth is sincere. Are you a mind reader, Bloxy's? Do you know otherwise?
Oh, you do? Because of his words? Oh well, they don't mean anything do
they? You knew everything because all of his ideas must fit into your
own old ideas. Isn't that what you said? I'd better Go get a Dictionary
to make sure bloxymoron is a word.
> >> Requiring robustness from Mozart, VanGogh, Tchaikovsky,
> >> Dostoyevski, Socrates, Pythagoras, Buddha, Einstein,
> >> and ANY other trully creative person will simply kill
> >> them.
And what was it that your other post said about people who name other
great people to prove their ideas?
Come on Bloxy's. You're ideas are bursting at the seems. They don't seem
very reliable. And are very inconsistent.
Are your ears not turning green?
> >them. Wimpy ideas don't cut the mustard - they usually die at the mouth of the
> > person uttering them.
I agree, Seth. If Bloxy's "knows All There Is", why can't he come out
and say it in the language pattern we all know and love.
> You are just twisting and manipulating the information, just as you have been programmed to do [in order to self justify your own little ego]
Warning. For references see: Self-gratifying philsophy; building upon
old ideas with new information. Also see: Reality. See also: Hypocrite,
aka Bloxyized information.
> The point here is that all those people have been doing the craziest things during their life.
Bach? Crazy? He created. He gave. He produced. He loved music. Music
inspires my soul. Now that doesn't sound very crazy to me. Sounds like a
sane person.
> NONE of that could be considered "stable".
You mean you can't tell if a piece of music is his or some other
composers? who needs mor e active neurons now?
> Many of them simply died in the young age.
And does this mean anything to do with this conversation?
No, more to the point I think you are a new age hacker-wannabe
antipolitical paranoid ItGod-loving crap spewing sucker.
Ooops, I fell to your level.
> They did not give a fuck about that idiotic "stability".
The ideas they churned out were Very stable.
> They were enjoying the grandior of creative force,
> and one moment of that is better, than entire useless
> life of sucking and ass licking.
Now, I do agree whole-heartedly with you on that. From BraveHeart: "All
men die. But not every man really lives." Be creative. Paint something.
Make music. Invent something. Create AI.
> The only thing that holds you back is fear.
Me? Nope. I'm only human.
> >> Artificial "intelligence" is a delusion.
And so....? We can still try if we want to.
Tell me, Bloxy's. What reason do you give for existing? I exist merely
because I know of no other way.
> Yep, a pipe dream, a hallucination.
You know lots about hallucinations do yahz? I would like to...
> >> The only examples we have of intelligence are all biological,
> >> and you fail to comprehend the scope of it.
So you are saying because all is bio then all that will ever be is bio?
From your own viewpoint(s) this is crap. You live in a four walled (well
actually six) room all your life and people who say there a round rooms
you say are crazy. You say round rooms can't exist because they don't
fit in with your old idea, the truth that all rooms are rectangles.
> >Yes, many AI researchers do not comprehend the scope of intelligence.
> Good. Can you comprehend how much is already there in a sinlge point?
You mean like an Aeleph point? Yes, the ramifications of it are mind
boggling. Doesn't that mean we shouldn't try to understand it?
> You see, this is the most significant point there is: SCOPE.
Yep.
> Once you keep the scope open, you can not fall into a ditch.
Yes. So open your own scope. See that besides your ideas being the only
ones correct that there is a also another viewpoint to see: that AI is
possible.
An open mind should be able to consider both viewpoints.
People working on AI know that AI might be impossible. So who's scope is
wider Bloxy's? (BTW, that IS a rhetorical question)
> [cause you can not remain blind]
Go tell Mr. Devin that. I'm sure he'd love to know that he can see
again. Maybe if you'd stop decrying everyone's efforts and help us, then
maybe we CAN make it possible.
> Artificial "intelligence" is a contradiction of term.
> Prove it, sucker!
Oh, Bloxy's remeber this: You cannot disprove something by a false. You
can only prove something by a truth.
Oh, and don't you mean "terms"? Two words..two TERMS. Duh.
> Do you have any examples of artificial "intelligence",
No, dumbass!
We are in the process of trying to create it! Wow, some people can be
really stupid sometimes!
> Do you at least connect to your own words?
I try to. But getting them from my mind into English is the hard part.
> Hidden between two of yer holes.
You are really obessed with people's holes aren't you?
> Thats fer sure.
Yep. You are.
--
"To mangle the Turing Test... If ya can't tell, it doesn't matter."
-a very wise comment from 'Tangent of the Arc' (·······@llahd)
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71ockk$gfp$1@its.hooked.net>
In article <·················@usa.net>, Rick Harker <·······@usa.net> wrote:
>Bloxy's wrote:
>> Ok, define "robust" then.
>No. Then you'll just disagree with any definition.
Yep, i will.
But what to do?
We still have to define the very subject of debate.
Else you talk about one thing, and others talk
about all other permutations
of the same horseshit.
Then we have a lot of confusion, as fundamental,
as where is ass and where is head.
You can not avoid definitions.
>> Not that dictionaries matter,
>They do. They provide a common ground for sharing information.
Well, then you just opened another pandora's box.
But let it slide for now.
Let us just say that they provide some definitions,
that correspond to the BELEIFE system
of the dominant creed.
By themselves, they are not necessarily true.
They are just pointers, or hints, at the very best.
>> Robust - strong and sturdy.
>> So, strong and sturdy means first of all
>> RELIABLE. It does not break [under diverse conditions].
>Ok.
You better!
:)
>> In order not to break, it has to be STABLE.
>Insert RANDOMLY after 'break'. Steel is strong, but it does break.
Well, you don't need to get that rigid.
Again, this is just general idea level we are covering now.
If you insert randomly, then you open up entire different
can of worms and people will start jumping all over your
face.
Why complicate things unnecessarily?
Secondly, it is not even clear that the term you bring in,
does correctly identify the issue.
The breakage, most likely is NOT random,
but a result of a very specific problem of consistency
in the system. When you you hit the the button at the
"wrong" time, the whole thing goes kapunk.
Lets call it a blue screen orgasm.
So, it may APPEAR as random, but it is not.
You don't have some evil logic inside your computer
randomly changing data at various locations in memory.
You have a buggie, sitting there and waiting to be
disturbed. Once you disturb it, it eats specific
locations in memory, and then the devil comes up
and cleans it all up.
That is why you have a blue screen orgasm.
Ok?
>> That is just a technical term from gadget making industries
>> for the same thing.
>Er...uh...huh? Oh! Just more of the Big Brother complex.
Man, you are beginning to suck.
And you start sucking real bad from the fist moment.
That is bad news, suckazoid.
If you do that crap, you'll have to read yer own sucky
posts.
Dig?
>> Now, in order for it to be stable, you need to assure CONSISTENCY.
> That is the most important thing.
>Bloxy's, does (consistency=true) to you?
Ok, will give ya one more chance.
>> Can you take it from here?
>Egad! He's starting to sound like Microsoft!
>No really. Where to? What do you mean?
Ok, do you still remember why we even started
talking about this jazz?
The issue is ROBUSTNESS.
The question is what is robustness.
Are you lost in your lil sucky ego preservation trip
to the point, where you don't even care what we are
talking about?
>> This is very significant issue, worth looking into.
>Yes.
Ok, now you have 2 chances. You added one just now.
>> Now, what it means that in order to assure robustness, you would have to
>> prefilter new information and fit it into known descriptions, notions and
>> principles, CONSISTENT witht existing system "knowledge" or state of
>> development.
>Nope. If a 'new' info does not agree with the 'old' info, then either
>the 'new' info is deemed false or the 'old' info is 'updated'.
Sure, but on what basis you update the old info?
How do you know which infor is "wrong", new or old?
Secondly, it may not be wrong, but simply expanding
the scope of the system and a knowledgebase.
It LOOKS "wrong" because it does not correspond to old,
but it is NOT wrong.
>Confusion is not doing one or the other.
>Ideas are built upon ideas.
>They expand. Not the other way, Bloxy's.
Huh?
>> Which means the new informatin will have to be distorted and limited, and, in
>> fact, reduced to the point of the same old ideas.
>No. If what you say is true, then I already know Everything. Nothing new
>makes any difference. -according to you-
Yes, that is the whole point here.
If you can not accomodate for the new information,
because it just can not be processed in such a way,
as to enlarge the scope of the system,
without bringing the whole system to a dead lock,
then what you have is a system that can not learn
anything new.
Again, by definition, NEW contradicts the old,
at least in some respects.
Even if the most of the aspects of new info could
somehow be described or understood in terms of
existing knowledge, there still remains at least
something, that does NOT fit into the old framework,
by definition.
Else that new info is not new on the first place.
So, the problem is inevitable.
And the problem is the core problem of intelligence,
biological or mechanical.
The question is: according to what principles or
criterias you are going to incorporate that NEW
information into existing framework,
and it there a guarantee that even if you somehow
manage to do it, it will not eventually break
the whole system, as sooner, or later you will
come upon the combination of conditions that will
cause undetermined state somewhere in the system?
>> Else you can not guarantee robustness.
>Pancakes aren't really cakes of pans. People coin a term to be able to
>share that idea with other people. Redefining 'cake' doesn't change a
>pancake. Same with 'Robust'.
Weak argument.
You'd have to follow the whole chain of reasoning
and come up with specific proof how the pankake
arises from the pan and what does it have to do
with it.
You can not just peddle the childish prejudices of this grade.
The system WILL deadlock on you one day.
It is certain.
>> The punch line is in the future.
>Er...Whew! Almost blew a few of the active neurons on line figuring out
>that one.
Hey, that helps.
>> What YOU are trying to do is to reduce intelligence to a mechanical,
>> consistent system, that violates the first principle of creativity -
>> instability.
>To me, creativity is the epitome of intelligence. The super-linking of
>ideas into new ideas [where none were before]. If consistent=true then I
>hereby use your past arguments against AI for AI.
Horseshit of the purest grade is what you got on your hands.
If you sniff my whiff, you are going to make it stiff.
>> Creativity is inherently unstable.
>I disagree. Creativity is reliable...at least for me.
Because you chose to be stupid, you see.
You LIMIT the scope of your intelligence and tailor
something, that does not fit, to make it fit,
just as outlined in the very beginning of argument.
If you could only comprehend what you just asserted,
you'd have to come to a conclusion, that it is time
to commit suicide, as you basically have no more freedom
left.
Secondly, to use "at least for me" in argument,
means that you completely misunderstand the issue.
>> Try to work it all out.
>We ARE trying to work it out. We know we don't know everything. That is
>the first step of wisdom.
Leave the wisdom along.
You are not even close to anything at the moment.
> Maybe you should use a few neurons to think
>about it.
One more chance i give ya, suckazoid.
>>> By subscribing to the multi independent agent approach to ai,
>> Multi independend agent is just a mouthful of confusion at this junction.
>Oh, too much for you to handle? So you just toss it away?
>I believe Seth meant if we take many diverse 'tactics' to solve AI then
>eventually one of them might work.
Ok, looks like a valid argument on the surface, but lets
see here.
Lets say that you use 5 different approaches or the ways
to look at the problem, or whatever you call independent.
Now, lets say that the probability of you finding a solution
is about .5 in each of those different alternatives,
which is extremely high. Usually, you have in the order
of 1 percent probability of finding the correct solution,
at the very best.
But ok, lest say you are of Einsteing grade.
You still basically have a gamble 50/50 chance of finding it.
Now, by using 5 different approaches, what do you do
to total probability of finding a solution?
Well, you'd have to do this:
p = .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 = very small chance,
much smaller than the single view approach.
Do you agree?
Uless we made some major mistake in this calculation,
or the very idea is now what we think it is,
by merely adding new alternatives you simply make it
worse, because those alternatives to not guarantee
the correctness in their own term. They are still
subject to distortions in the corresponding view.
That is the whole argument about multi-gulti-pulti.
It APPEARS you gain in stability, but what happens
is you LOOSE.
>> The way you defined it, you did not solve a SINGLE problem [of robustness].
>Wrong. The way YOU INTERPRETED it, you did not learn a SINGLE solution.
>> That is just self justification.
>There is a basic philsophy that EVERYTHING we do is for self
>justification. Everything.
Ok, that is enough, doc.
Once you start talking about justification,
you are talking about justifying no matter what.
It is a major rule of sucking.
----------------- end of input ---------------
[...]
Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>In article <·················@usa.net>, Rick Harker <·······@usa.net>
wrote:
>>Bloxy's wrote:
>>> Ok, define "robust" then.
>
Oh well to the discuss I can add meaningful input
robust defined:
1. bunch of college frat bro's eating caviar till they are senseless
2. mammary gland of a female robot
3.record size error in fixed length database
4. arabic gram pertaining to then consonants other than alif, waw and ya
5. a place you keep your rocaille
I am sure this pedagogical enlightenment will aide in your discussion.
Please excuse me while I get a bud lite.
Rusty
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71ol1h$2va$1@its.hooked.net>
In article <············@excalibur.flash.net>, "rusty craine" <········@flash.net> wrote:
>
>Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>>In article <·················@usa.net>, Rick Harker <·······@usa.net>
>wrote:
>>>Bloxy's wrote:
>>>> Ok, define "robust" then.
>Oh well to the discuss I can add meaningful input
>robust defined:
>1. bunch of college frat bro's eating caviar till they are senseless
>2. mammary gland of a female robot
>3.record size error in fixed length database
>4. arabic gram pertaining to then consonants other than alif, waw and ya
>5. a place you keep your rocaille
>
>I am sure this pedagogical enlightenment will aide in your discussion.
>Please excuse me while I get a bud lite.
Bud lite, huh?
Do you drink them by six packs before you start?
Regular size?
Or king size to match the size of our brain?
>Rusty
What kind of truck you drive?
>>Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>>wrote:
>Bud lite, huh?
>Do you drink them by six packs before you start?
>Regular size?
16 oz thank you, one @ 22:00 each night when possible.
>Or king size to match the size of our brain?
hmmm cranial capacity...thought that went out of vogue early this century?
Though the reference could be apt; I am proof the hard work and luck (luck
could be a function of hard work; i'm not sure) will prosper at least as
well as the intellectual rhetoricalist every time. Writing code (at least
in Texas pays better the writing philosophy). BTW do you write as much code
as you do News Group responses. Throw a sample up here. I am tring to
learn to write lisp properly. I am sure I could benefit from your examples.
>What kind of truck you drive?
Ford 1.5 ton dually...to pull the stock trailer. How did guess?
Deep in the heart of Texas. Where talks is cheap and writing code pays
Rusty
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71ot3s$oi6$1@its.hooked.net>
In article <············@excalibur.flash.net>, "rusty craine" <········@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>>Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>>>wrote:
>>Bud lite, huh?
>>Do you drink them by six packs before you start?
>>Regular size?
>
>16 oz thank you, one @ 22:00 each night when possible.
Yep, exactly right size.
>>Or king size to match the size of our brain?
>
>hmmm cranial capacity...thought that went out of vogue early this century?
>Though the reference could be apt; I am proof the hard work and luck (luck
>could be a function of hard work; i'm not sure) will prosper at least as
>well as the intellectual rhetoricalist every time. Writing code (at least
>in Texas pays better the writing philosophy). BTW do you write as much code
>as you do News Group responses. Throw a sample up here. I am tring to
>learn to write lisp properly. I am sure I could benefit from your examples.
>
>>What kind of truck you drive?
>
>Ford 1.5 ton dually...to pull the stock trailer. How did guess?
That was easy.
Well, last kwestion, if you don't mind:
What kind of gun you gots fer entertainment?
>Deep in the heart of Texas. Where talks is cheap and writing code pays
>Rusty
>
Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>
>
>Well, last kwestion, if you don't mind:
>What kind of gun you gots fer entertainment?
>
As a guest of Uncle Sam, I pretty well got my fill of guns in the late 60's
killing folks I wasn't mad at. Not a vocation I recommend (or a vacation).
So today I leave the guns to hunter and psychotic killers. If I fill the
need to dispatch someone to the great internet in the sky, I guess I will
use my 9 iron; I'm apt to slice with my drive.
Deep in the heart of Texas. Where talks is cheap and writing code pays
Rusty
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71q2hs$916$1@its.hooked.net>
In article <············@excalibur.flash.net>, "rusty craine" <········@flash.net> wrote:
>
>Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>>
>>Well, last kwestion, if you don't mind:
>>What kind of gun you gots fer entertainment?
>>
>
>As a guest of Uncle Sam,
>I pretty well got my fill of guns in the late 60's
>killing folks I wasn't mad at.
Why did you kill them then?
You wanted to be a "hero"?
defending the free sucking world
from the "evil empire"?
Well, tell ya a secret.
The evil empire is not where they told ya.
Get the drift?
> Not a vocation I recommend (or a vacation).
And that is what they told ya,
lying as they ALWAYS do,
"this is going to be just a nice vacation fer ya,
heroes.
Free sigarettes, free beer, as much as you want,
free chicks. You can fuck ANY chick you like,
cause they are all evil anyways.
If you feel like killing someone,
don't even bother to ask permission,
or even think about whether it is "right" or "wrong".
Cause it IS right.
Go right ahead, and don't waste a valuable time
of the supermoron, aka yer sucking killer boss.
And then you have seen something,
you did not bargain to see,
and you fell down on the ground and cried
like a baby,
and you took the drugs
just to take your mind off of it,
as you could not understand
what is going on,
and what are you doing there,
so sick it all was.
And then it was all over,
and you came back "home",
and you thought they are going to carry you on their hands,
but instead,
they threw you on the street,
they called you evil,
and then they forgot all about you,
and you wondered again:
Where is that evil empire?
Yes.
Good kwestion, my humble friend.
>So today I leave the guns to hunter and psychotic killers.
Well, well, well.
And what about those royal protectors,
walking down your streets
with the arrogance of the all mighty dollar,
protecting the "law and order"
of the free sucking world?
Are they also psychotic killers?
Or they just "have" to have guns,
just like you did, doing your own royal job?
And what about those hard working citizens,
driving their truck
and never leaving home
without that gun,
that can blast a hole in the nukelar [recognise the spelling?]
plant wall?
Are they also psychotic killers?
And what about those, that make killing a sport
and entertainment?
Are they also psychotic killers?
> If I fill the
>need to dispatch someone to the great internet in the sky,
>I guess I will use my 9 iron;
>I'm apt to slice with my drive.
>Deep in the heart of Texas. Where talks is cheap and writing code pays
Yep, and where they burn yer arse if you don't follow
the family values, created by the biggest and fattest
parasites there are on this planet, huh?
In da name of free sucking werld, burn that ass!
Shoot his brains out!
Texas, the heartland of the free sucking werld
where reganoids win hands down even on this very day.
Texas, where they kill even their own presidents,
if they are not favored by the local fat cat
of the size of the godzilla monster,
with fat red shiny cheeks,
and a smile of a flinton.
Texas, where "down to earth people" live
and where they have orgies of mass killing
of snakes and other "undesirable" or undeserving
spiecies,
while good honest working people laugh at it
as loud, as godzilla monster.
Texas, where they brainwash you to the point
that you can not speak in non moronic language
of fear to be slauthered by these good honest,
hard working sub-morons with a hearty smile.
Yes, yes, yes.
Texas shall be remembered.
The land where they MUST drive a truck
and drink bear by the buckets
just to be called a human being.
Where they say:
"If I fill the need to dispatch someone to the great internet in the sky,
I guess I will use my 9 iron;
I'm apt to slice with my drive."
Now, my humble hero, that killed many
for no reason but to be ORDERED like a dog,
never questioning why,
tell me,
who the fuck you think you are to take that,
which you have not given?
And what kind of "need" could there be,
to send someone to the great sky?
What kind of overwhelming necessity there is,
to judge someone to the point,
where you even conceive of a "right" to kill?
You see, my humble hero, who killed many
in the name of free sucking world of the fat cat,
and the "national interests",
the fat cat has got you EXACTLY where he wants you,
Sucking his dick, never even suspecting so,
while proclaiming the freedom and honesty,
"hard" work and "family values",
and "respect" for the nationalism,
just the same,
as fascists did, during the 2nd world war.
"Deep in the heart of Texas.
Where talks is cheap and writing code pays"
You are still predictable, computable,
and controllable,
just like a robot
with remote control.
>Rusty
Rusty, you came to the right place.
Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>In article <············@excalibur.flash.net>, "rusty craine"
<········@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>>Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>>>
>>>Well, last kwestion, if you don't mind:
>>>What kind of gun you gots fer entertainment?
>>>
>>
>>As a guest of Uncle Sam,
>>I pretty well got my fill of guns in the late 60's
>>killing folks I wasn't mad at.
>
>Why did you kill them then?
>You wanted to be a "hero"?
>defending the free sucking world
>from the "evil empire"?
>
BTW so as not to mislead anyone save Mr B, I was not any the militray ever
nor have I been to SE Asia. We were baiting Bloxy's. She (being much more
observent) was convienced Bloxy's was canned, at least in part. For the
record...I do live in Texas and I do have a pickup. T'is true the only
weapon I have is a 9 iron. If my results on the golf course are in
indiction...the world is safe from me.
Rusty
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71qqte$dac$1@its.hooked.net>
In article <············@excalibur.flash.net>, "rusty craine" <········@flash.net> wrote:
>
>Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>>In article <············@excalibur.flash.net>, "rusty craine"
><········@flash.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>>>>
>>>>Well, last kwestion, if you don't mind:
>>>>What kind of gun you gots fer entertainment?
>>>>
>>>
>>>As a guest of Uncle Sam,
>>>I pretty well got my fill of guns in the late 60's
>>>killing folks I wasn't mad at.
>>
>>Why did you kill them then?
>>You wanted to be a "hero"?
>>defending the free sucking world
>>from the "evil empire"?
>>
>BTW so as not to mislead anyone save Mr B, I was not any the militray ever
>nor have I been to SE Asia.
Yup. It was not you.
:)
But you see, it does not matter, you or not you.
The story got already printed!
> We were baiting Bloxy's.
Yep, bite my ass.
[without realizing that you are biting yer own]
> She (being much more
>observent) was convienced Bloxy's was canned,
Canned?
Are you sure?
> at least in part. For the
>record...
Huh?
And who in their clear mind trust a single word
you say, once you yourself admit that you lie
yer teeth off?
Any active neurons on line?
You must be the right dude afterall!
>I do live in Texas and I do have a pickup.
Well, how bout that 16 oz. can of bear?
That is significan element of the puzzle.
That was the first kwestion, if you cherfully recall.
> T'is true the only weapon I have is a 9 iron.
Yep, playing with the fat cat, huh?
Well, they say in the evil emprire:
If you can not beat them, join them.
> If my results on the golf course are in
>indiction...the world is safe from me.
Yap, zo far, pretty sloppy.
All you gots is shit.
Hey, "don't take it personally".
[and dont ask but how "should" i take it?
I am not a robot!]
>Rusty
Sucking good, rusty?
Tell me, how sweet it is?
From: David Steuber "The Interloper
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <36430e99.277972873@news.newsguy.com>
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:02:06 -0600, "rusty craine" <········@flash.net>
claimed or asked:
% So today I leave the guns to hunter and psychotic killers.
Hey! What about the people who like to plink?
Never shot anybody I wasn't mad at.
--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.2a)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
"Ignore reality there's nothing you can do about it..."
-- Natalie Imbruglia "Don't you think?"
From: David Steuber "The Interloper
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <36420c9d.277464843@news.newsguy.com>
On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 06:47:20 GMT, ·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's)
claimed or asked:
% Well, last kwestion, if you don't mind:
% What kind of gun you gots fer entertainment?
What fool only has one gun?
Regular carry: Colt .45 C.C.O
The nine: Walther P99 (Tomorrow Never Dies)
The 380s: Walther PPK/S, S&W SW380
The wheel gun: Taurus 669
The shotgun: Mossberg 500A
Impress the neighbors: Colt AR-15 A-2 Govt Model (5.56 Nato)
A few other assorted pieces.
Someday I might become a collector.
--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.2a)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
"Ignore reality there's nothing you can do about it..."
-- Natalie Imbruglia "Don't you think?"
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71rlse$ngr$3@its.hooked.net>
In article <··················@news.newsguy.com>, ········@david-steuber.com wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 06:47:20 GMT, ·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's)
>claimed or asked:
>
>% Well, last kwestion, if you don't mind:
>% What kind of gun you gots fer entertainment?
>
>What fool only has one gun?
>
>Regular carry: Colt .45 C.C.O
>The nine: Walther P99 (Tomorrow Never Dies)
>The 380s: Walther PPK/S, S&W SW380
>The wheel gun: Taurus 669
>The shotgun: Mossberg 500A
>Impress the neighbors: Colt AR-15 A-2 Govt Model (5.56 Nato)
>
>A few other assorted pieces.
>
>Someday I might become a collector.
Scuze me, it was not you, who was asked this kwestion.
From: David Steuber "The Interloper
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <36424739.358004663@news.newsguy.com>
On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 08:02:11 GMT, ·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's)
claimed or asked:
% Scuze me, it was not you, who was asked this kwestion.
You are already scuzed.
--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.2a)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
"Ignore reality there's nothing you can do about it..."
-- Natalie Imbruglia "Don't you think?"
From: David Steuber "The Interloper
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <36410ab9.276980506@news.newsguy.com>
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:29:18 -0600, "rusty craine" <········@flash.net>
claimed or asked:
% I am sure this pedagogical enlightenment will aide in your discussion.
% Please excuse me while I get a bud lite.
I think you will find that a decent stout once in a while dramatically
improves your philosophical prowess. Sierra Nevada offers good taste
to price ratio. My personal favorite is Blue Fin Stout brewed by The
Shipyard in Portland, Maine. The best stout on Earth. I think it may
no longer be available though. If hard pressed, Guinness makes an
"Extra Stout" that is ok.
Hey, this is a Lisp group!
--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.2a)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
"Ignore reality there's nothing you can do about it..."
-- Natalie Imbruglia "Don't you think?"
From: Rick Harker
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <36418E4A.860FC5C2@usa.net>
Bloxy's wrote:
> Ok, that is enough, doc.
Hehe. I liked your reply. It had some very nice points
...I look forward to conversing some more.
P.S. Curious though, why do you call some people "doc"?
--
"To mangle the Turing Test... If ya can't tell, it doesn't matter."
-a very wise comment from 'Tangent of the Arc' (·······@llahd)
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <71tibp$gnr$1@its.hooked.net>
In article <·················@usa.net>, Rick Harker <·······@usa.net> wrote:
>Bloxy's wrote:
>> Ok, that is enough, doc.
>
>Hehe. I liked your reply. It had some very nice points
Sure, why not?
>....I look forward to conversing some more.
>
>P.S. Curious though, why do you call some people "doc"?
Well, can't tellya right now.
:)
Pretend it does not matter for now.
And it has several meanings.
It is not just one static thing.
"Man, you are beginning to suck. And you start sucking real bad from
the fist moment. That is bad news, suckazoid. If you do that crap,
you'll have to read yer own sucky posts ... Are you lost in your lil
sucky ego preservation trip to the point, where you don't even care
what we are
talking about? ... orseshit of the purest grade is what you got on your
hands. If you sniff my whiff, you are going to make it stiff ... One
more chance i give ya, suckazoid ..."
The above purports to be a reasoned argument. In between the above
phrases were others, denoting a sorry misunderstanding both of the
nature of knowledge and the nature of machine intelligence.
First, knowledge is not a collection of isolated facts each of which is
either right or wrong. It is a network of interconnected and (locally)
mutually-supportive facts. Science refers to it as the "paradigm", and
if new information doesn't fit the paradigm, it is rejected as false -
even though, as you say, it may later be found to be not false, in
which case as throughout modern history science adjusts its paradigm to
include the new area of research. Recent examples of rejected
knowledge which might nonetheless turn out to be correct are cold
fusion and the gay gene.
Second, a real AI (the approved term these days is "machine
intelligence") would not be a machine with a fixed program. It would
be a cognitive model of the human mind, and eventually probably an
improvement on the human mind. As soon as enough people have bought
Android version 1.0 to recoup the research costs, Microsoft will issue
an upgraded version 1.0.1 for a few thousand more dollars. In the new
version they'll have got the bugs out of its legs and feet.
We can already build convincing models of certain forms of human
cognitive activity: memory is a particularly simple one. More
precisely, we're building models of the psychological hypotheses which
currently give the best description we have of those processes. By
simple extrapolation, we should eventually be able to build models of
all those cognitive processes which can be analysed by psychological
investigation.
You also seem to be under the misapprehension that we would build the
whole thing, billions of lines of programming, right from scratch and
end up with an android which could pass the Turing etc. tests. In fact
it's much more likely that we would again emulate the human mind: we'd
program in certain basic abilites which a new-born human baby has
(which may be only the ability to perceive patterns amidst apparent
chaos) and then let it learn by interaction with its environment just
as a baby does. There are already such machines, known colloquially as
Connectionist Machines and more formally as Parallel Distributed
Processing. They consist of a parge array of cpus arranged in a
network much as human brain cells are arranged, and operating together
in much the same ways. Such machines do provably learn, in the sense
that after a learning session they "know" more facts than before.
Your vision of catastrophic failure in the presence of an unprogrammed
fact simply doesn't occur. As with humans, the machine makes a mistake
and learns not to make the same mistake again (or doesn't, and makes it
again).
Bloxy's: Now, by using 5 different approaches, what do you do
>to total probability of finding a solution?
>Well, you'd have to do this:
>p = .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 = very small chance,
>much smaller than the single view approach.
>Do you agree?
Tone: No. You could only use the multiplier if each test were
dependent upon the success of the one before it. With five different
approaches you end up with 0.5% every time regardless of which approach
you use.
There's some trouble at your end about "robust", too. You seem to
think it means a machine which cannot be broken, whereas of course what
it does mean is a machine which would continue to pass the Turing etc.
tests regardless of what you threw at it. And if the machine never
broke (i.e. never made a mistake as humans notoriously do) then it
would not pass the tests. I don't know anyone who is infallible, and I
doubt if you do either. Never breaking would be a sure sign that it
was a machine, and hence had failed the tests.
Bloxy's: The breakage, most likely is NOT random, but a result of a
very specific problem of consistency
>in the system. When you you hit the the button at the "wrong" time, the
>whole thing goes kapunk.
Tone: Perhaps it does, just as people do under the same circumstances.
And, just as people do, the machine would either learn not to go kapunk
next time or - if it lacked some other piece of knowledge or some other
problem-solving technique learned from interaction with the environment
- it would become permanently "touchy" in that area. And hence you
have the beginnings of machine personalities.
Something else you're probably not aware of is that self-awareness is
now thought to be an"emergent property" of a sufficiently complex
machine. (The argument is all about negative-feedback loops and
auto-control, but the details aren't relevant at the moment.) We are
complex biological machines, and as far as we can see self-awareness
develops in us as we begin to use the whole of the machine - primarily
the whole of the brain, of course.
Out of self-awareness necessarily comes awareness of others, awareness
of the not-me, and hence morals and ethics. (An infant's morals are
simple because its language and its concepts are simple. Later, when
it can grasp and communicate more complex concepts, its morals will
become more complex too.) There is nothing difficult here - in the
sense of being beyond rational imagination. We can see fairly clearly
how such things might work, and so the dream of an android which will
be indistinguishable from a human being is not a crazy or irrational
dream.
You make much of creativity, as though this were something which by
definition a machine could never achieve. Yet we have creative
machines. Every one of us has one, inside his or her skull. All we
have to do is find out how the process works, and build a computer
model of it.
Incidentally you are in any case ill-informed. Every year for some
number of years the US Defence Department has held a competition (I'm
sorry but I've forgotten the details) in which some military objective
is specified, for example to get such and such a weght of armed force
to some remote part of the globe, and contestants are invited to submit
computer programs to solve it with the utmost efficiency, least loss of
life or materials, etc. And every year for three years when I first
heard the story (about four years ago) the connectionist machines had
won. Remember, a connectionist machine is not programmed with anything
like an understanding of military strategy. They had learned it, and
devised the best solution from their new knowledge.
Similarly, a friend of mine at our university programmed a machine to
play music in the style of Coleman Hawkins. It could play any tune you
gave it, in the style of Coleman Hawkins, and could make up its own
"tunes" (usually dreadful) which to my uncultured ear still sounded
like Coleman Hawkins. And in this case the Coleman-Hawkins-ness was
preprogrammed in. If a future machine intelligence decided for itself
to compose music we might end up with a new Mozart, or more excitingly
a whole new kind of music to replace the constant damned rock, acid,
house, rap claptrap.
Another thing which connectionist machines share with humans is that
you can give them something to learn, but they won't necessarily learn
what you expect. A famous case of this is an experiment in which
connectionist machines were shown photos taken from U2 spyplanes of
some USSR military manoeuvres in Northern Europe. It was hoped that
the machines would learn to spot Russian tanks hiding in the
undergrowth, as human eyes could. And indeed they did, after a while.
After a bit longer they could do so infallibly.
Came the day of the big demo with lots of scrambled egg on lots of
important hats looking on, and the connectionist machines failed to
spot a single tank. On investigation it turned out that the day on
which the spyplanes had taken the photos for the demo had been bright
and warm and clear. And as you may well know, the weather in northern
Europe is usually grey, misty and raining. What the connectionist
machines had learned do so infallibly was to spot /wet/ Russian tanks
hiding in the undergrowth.
Both of those examples seem to me very close to, if not even exactly
the same thing as, creativity - which could reasonably be defined as an
unusual or unexpected cognitive result. Of course you may say that
"creativity" also implies usefulness or artistic value in the result.
That's fine by me - just a narrower definition of creativity. By my
definition human beings do an enormous amount of creative activity
which we don't normally class as creative via our (and your) everyday
definition of the word. As a trivial example, loading dirty dishes
into our dishwasher is an art form: my partner can get a good 25% more
dishes into one load than I can.
To sum up, it's a big mistake to mentally equate machine intelligence
with something like a talking tractor. The machines concerned are
nothing like any other machine except that they are in some very minor
respects (so far) like the human brain. It's a mistake to assume that
any one machine will be exactly the same as it was the day before, just
as it's a mistake to assume that a growing human being will be excatly
the same two days running. And it's a mistake to assume that a machine
intelligence will be any more perfect in any particular respect than
the human equivalent. Once we've built the human-equivalent, there's a
good chance that they'll start "reproducing" improved versions of
themselves and "bringing them up" to be their own superiors, just as we
try to do with our own children. In passing, it's highly probable that
the essentials of the computer you're reading this on were designed by
the previous generation of computers rather than by human engineers.
One more thing, which is really nothing to do with intelligent machines
but to do with human beings. We already refer to cars and ships and
planes as "she", and impute personalities, desires etc. to them. Of
course that's not very rational on our part, but the important fact is
that we do it. I predict that when we have such things as intelligent
hoovers, which work without human assistance and have enough
intelligence to polish the furniture without also polishing the cat;
and if such machines have a rudimentary language ability so that you
can say to it "Clear the place up a bit, would you? I'm going out for a
drink", to which it might reply "Enjoy yourself" (Please, not "Have a
nice day") we'll be very much keener to impute personalities, wishes
etc. to them.
In other words, I think it likely almost to the point of certainty that
we'll be falling over ourselves to attribute human-ness to intelligent
machines, long before they really deserve it. I'm even optimistic
enough to have a small hope that most of those who currently insist
with such heat that machines can never be intelligent will live to see
the day when intelligent machines are no more unusual a thing than
finding a pet animal in someone's house.
tone
From: Sergio Navega
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <36346c40.0@news3.ibm.net>
Seth Russell wrote in message <·················@clickshop.com>...
>Sergio Navega wrote:
>
>> I'm appalled not only with the lack of practical results,
>> but on a greater scale with the lack of *continuity*
>> toward an ideal. I can name tens of AI projects developed in
>> the past with good to brilliant results, both theoretically
>> and practically.
>>
>> As is common with AI, those projects touched only a small
>> part of the whole problem. What leaves me sad is that instead
>> of continuing toward the original ideal, building *over* the
>> obtained results, most of those projects shelved [snip]
>
>Well I'm glad you said that. If everyone's AI project had of *stuck*, we
>would have our robust AI by now. Makes you kind of wonder whether we are
>looking in the right direction for our AI ideas, mechanisms, algorithms,
>structures, and paradigms ... huh? Maybe we should be putting more
>attention on the cultural environments and connections of our scattered
>projects so that they can survive and bo of use to each other.
>
Yes, you're right in proposing the investigation other areas when
our current domains aren't paying off. But we should not forget
what we're looking at since the beginning: a way to allow the
machine to capture, perceive, correlate, condense, create
information from its environment, be it a single human being
in front of a keyboard or a host of humans and bots through
the Internet.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
In article <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu>,
Norman Ma <··@duncan.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
>son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
>scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
>Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
>insecurity.
>
>The same is true when we named the whole area of advanced
>computer science as ARTIFICIAL Intelligence.
The person who cointed the term "Artificial Intelligence" was
John McCarthy (who occasionally posts to this forum) in the
late 1950's, and it's *NOT* the entire area of advanced computer
science, and never has been.
"Artificial Intelligence," broadly speaking, is the study of
systems and problems that appear to require intelligence to
solve, and the related problem of the analysis and simulation
of human (and other) intelligences. In its origins, it was largely
the study of computers as applied to problems that psychologists
were interested in, and that's still where most of the work is.
If you pick up any reasonably complete CS graduate school prospectus,
you'll see that the non AI courses (and problems and topics)
outnumber the AI ones by at least 10:1.
Of course, a lot of techniques from AI have been adapted into
more mainstream computer science -- and similarly, a lot of
problems that were once AI are now non-AI subfields. For
instance, "automatic programming," how to get a computer to
program itself automatically, was a classic AI problem both
then and now. But in 1950, "automatic programming" meant
whether or not a program could be designed that would
"automatically" convert human-readable instructions into their
machine language equivalents (we call these assemblers and compilers
today) -- the fact that compiler theory is no longer AI is one of
the SUCCESSES of AI, not a failure. Similarly, in the 1970s, the
idea that a comptuter could correct grammar as well as spelling was
pure pie-in-the-sky artificial intelligence; today you buy the
program from Microsoft.
>We need to become more realistic and more productive.
>As in a popular movie "Show me the MONEY!" We need to
>remind ourselves daily "Show me the PROGRAM!"
Which isn't hard. Almost every program you've got on your machine
today qualified as AI at thirty or forty years ago.
-kitten
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <70odql$qoa$8@its.hooked.net>
In article <············@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>, ·····@mathcs.duq.edu (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>In article <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu>,
>Norman Ma <··@duncan.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>>It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
>>son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
>>scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
>>Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
>>insecurity.
>>
>>The same is true when we named the whole area of advanced
>>computer science as ARTIFICIAL Intelligence.
>
>The person who cointed the term "Artificial Intelligence"
Which is contradiction of terms on the first place.
> was
>John McCarthy (who occasionally posts to this forum) in the
>late 1950's, and it's *NOT* the entire area of advanced computer
>science, and never has been.
>
>"Artificial Intelligence," broadly speaking, is the study of
>systems and problems that appear to require intelligence to
>solve,
Which we don't even have an agreement on definition of.
> and the related problem of the analysis and simulation
>of human (and other) intelligences.
That is the KEY point.
At the very best, we can only approximate some LIMITED
aspects of real intelligence, which is biological in nature,
as real intelligence has a PURPOSE associated with it.
And the purpose is well beyond the scope of ANY so called
artificial intelligence. It is to know ITSELF.
Not to know the external. External is just a setting,
a lab of sorts, in which internal, can operate and obtain
all sorts of information as to the nature of itself.
Furhtermore, the very essence of "itself" is something
well beyond what we call acceptable in our, essentially
materialistic, definition of science.
The science since industrial age has completely gotten
away from the very issue of the subject. Once the
idea of absolute was invalidated, what we had left is
idea of material, as the only "real" thing "out there".
So, science created a new delusion of material, and now
we came to the point, where it does not hold any longer,
not that it ever held on the first place, but everybody
was busy accumulating objects.
It has been said:
"Being is substituted with having".
That is what we have at the moment.
[...]
>Of course, a lot of techniques from AI have been adapted into
>more mainstream computer science -- and similarly, a lot of
>problems that were once AI are now non-AI subfields. For
>instance, "automatic programming," how to get a computer to
>program itself automatically, was a classic AI problem both
>then and now. But in 1950, "automatic programming" meant
>whether or not a program could be designed that would
>"automatically" convert human-readable instructions into their
>machine language equivalents (we call these assemblers and compilers
>today) -- the fact that compiler theory is no longer AI is one of
>the SUCCESSES of AI, not a failure. Similarly, in the 1970s, the
>idea that a comptuter could correct grammar as well as spelling was
>pure pie-in-the-sky artificial intelligence; today you buy the
>program from Microsoft.
Which implies that what we call "intelligence", could
have NOTHING to do with intelligence, as such.
We are still to define the scope of intelligence and
its very purpose.
>>We need to become more realistic and more productive.
Illusion.
What is "realistic"?
Productive belongs to domain of machines, not humans.
>>As in a popular movie "Show me the MONEY!" We need to
>>remind ourselves daily "Show me the PROGRAM!"
[that proves the very existance of artificial "intelligence"]
>Which isn't hard. Almost every program you've got on your machine
>today qualified as AI at thirty or forty years ago.
Which implies that what we call intelligence, has NOTHING
to do with intelligence.
:)
> -kitten
In article <············@its.hooked.net>, Bloxy's <·······@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <············@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>, ·····@mathcs.duq.edu (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>>"Artificial Intelligence," broadly speaking, is the study of
>>systems and problems that appear to require intelligence to
>>solve,
>
>Which we don't even have an agreement on definition of.
>
>> and the related problem of the analysis and simulation
>>of human (and other) intelligences.
>
>That is the KEY point.
>At the very best, we can only approximate some LIMITED
>aspects of real intelligence, which is biological in nature,
>as real intelligence has a PURPOSE associated with it.
So what you're suggesting is that AI is a failure because one
of its primary findings is that it's improved and expanded
the definition of the problem? Part of the reason that we don't
have an agreement on what the definition of intelligence is is
because almost every definition proposed (generally by psychologists)
has been shown to be a problem solvable by techniques not
regarded as ``intelligent'' by those self-same psychologists.
There's a great story about how John McCarthy assigned "understanding
language" as a summer project to an undergraduate research assistant.
No one at the time thought this was unreasonable. Of course, with
the wisdom granted by forty years of research, it's laughable that
anyone could have been naive enough to believe that getting a
computer to understand language could be done by a single semi-skilled
programmer in three months. But, many scientific conclusions are
obvious IN RETROSPECT.
>And the purpose is well beyond the scope of ANY so called
>artificial intelligence. It is to know ITSELF.
This is, of course, your opinion of what constitutes intelligence.
This wouldn't be a mainstream opinion even among current psychologists
-- navel gazing isn't held in high regard among any of the major
theoretical groups. A more common opinion ranks intelligence as
one of the major components of problem solving -- problems, by
definition, being generally external to the solvers. Others
consider intelligence to be the ability to see connections between
otherwise disparate areas. But if there isn't any sort of uniformity
and theoretical agreement among people whose job it is to study
human intelligence, you can't expect unanimity among those whose job
it is to model it -- which theory should be modelled? Which of the
thousands of problems considered "important" (by different people)
should we solve?
>>Of course, a lot of techniques from AI have been adapted into
>>more mainstream computer science -- and similarly, a lot of
>>problems that were once AI are now non-AI subfields. For
>>instance, "automatic programming," how to get a computer to
>>program itself automatically, was a classic AI problem both
>>then and now. But in 1950, "automatic programming" meant
>>whether or not a program could be designed that would
>>"automatically" convert human-readable instructions into their
>>machine language equivalents (we call these assemblers and compilers
>>today) -- the fact that compiler theory is no longer AI is one of
>>the SUCCESSES of AI, not a failure. Similarly, in the 1970s, the
>>idea that a comptuter could correct grammar as well as spelling was
>>pure pie-in-the-sky artificial intelligence; today you buy the
>>program from Microsoft.
>
>Which implies that what we call "intelligence", could
>have NOTHING to do with intelligence, as such.
True. And, as I said before, that's one of the major findings of
AI, that the definitions of intelligence used in 1958 were
insufficient. Today we've got new definitions that are *also*
probably insufficient -- but we won't know that until we can
disprove them. Which is a major task of most AI scientists today.
The failures of the 1990s will probably guide psychologists of
2010 in their theories of intelligence.
But they'll have evidence to back up their beliefs, instead of
a naive, crystal-hugging faith in meaningless phrases like "know
the INTERNAL."
-kitten
In article <············@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>,
Patrick Juola <·····@mathcs.duq.edu> wrote:
>There's a great story about how John McCarthy assigned "understanding
>language" as a summer project to an undergraduate research assistant.
>No one at the time thought this was unreasonable. Of course, with
>the wisdom granted by forty years of research, it's laughable that
>anyone could have been naive enough to believe that getting a
>computer to understand language could be done by a single semi-skilled
>programmer in three months. But, many scientific conclusions are
>obvious IN RETROSPECT.
I remember when I was in high school and had been programming for just a
couple of years (mostly in BASIC and PDP-8 assembler) I thought I would try
to "throw together" a sentence parsing program. It seemed pretty obvious
(I was pretty good at diagramming sentences in English class, so I figured
I could just automate that) until I really started thinking about it....
--
Barry Margolin, ······@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <70r8fa$gdn$2@its.hooked.net>
In article <··················@burlma1-snr1.gtei.net>, Barry Margolin <······@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>In article <············@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>,
>Patrick Juola <·····@mathcs.duq.edu> wrote:
>>There's a great story about how John McCarthy assigned "understanding
>>language" as a summer project to an undergraduate research assistant.
>>No one at the time thought this was unreasonable. Of course, with
>>the wisdom granted by forty years of research, it's laughable that
>>anyone could have been naive enough to believe that getting a
>>computer to understand language could be done by a single semi-skilled
>>programmer in three months. But, many scientific conclusions are
>>obvious IN RETROSPECT.
>
>I remember when I was in high school and had been programming for just a
>couple of years (mostly in BASIC and PDP-8 assembler) I thought I would try
>to "throw together" a sentence parsing program. It seemed pretty obvious
>(I was pretty good at diagramming sentences in English class, so I figured
>I could just automate that) until I really started thinking about it....
And what are we doing here is exactly the same thing.
They are just pipe dreaming about this contradiction of terms,
artificial "intelligence".
Time to start LOOKING at it, not just thinking.
You will not be able to define intelligence by merely
thinking. You have to SEE something, that happens every
day in your lives.
They deny the validity of the most essential elements
of the entire idea of intelligence. They deny the very
purpose of it.
And yet they make claims, based on monkey [not to insult
monkeys] logic of limitations of scope.
·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes:
> They deny the validity of the most essential elements
> of the entire idea of intelligence. They deny the very
> purpose of it.
Intelligence is an "idea" and have a "purpose" as well? Sounds both
like a contradiction and an unjustified assumption to me. You'd better
crawl back to square one and start over again...
--
Tomas Arvidson md94-tar [at] nada.kth.se
tla [at] ebox.tninet.se
tomas [at] nohup.se
! Avoid the Gates of Hell - use Linux !
From: Gary Coen
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <3631C3D8.76A122F2@ibm.net>
Revisiting the initial point of discussion for this subthread, I would like to
reaffirm
one of the earliest definitions used by practicioners in the field: artificial
intelligence
is what to use when the real thing just won't do.
--Gary
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <············@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>,
> Patrick Juola <·····@mathcs.duq.edu> wrote:
> >There's a great story about how John McCarthy assigned "understanding
> >language" as a summer project to an undergraduate research assistant.
> >No one at the time thought this was unreasonable. Of course, with
> >the wisdom granted by forty years of research, it's laughable that
> >anyone could have been naive enough to believe that getting a
> >computer to understand language could be done by a single semi-skilled
> >programmer in three months. But, many scientific conclusions are
> >obvious IN RETROSPECT.
>
> I remember when I was in high school and had been programming for just a
> couple of years (mostly in BASIC and PDP-8 assembler) I thought I would try
> to "throw together" a sentence parsing program. It seemed pretty obvious
> (I was pretty good at diagramming sentences in English class, so I figured
> I could just automate that) until I really started thinking about it....
>
> --
> Barry Margolin, ······@bbnplanet.com
> GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
> *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
--
"There is hardly anything in the world that some man
cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper,
and the people who consider price only are this man's
lawful prey."
-- John Ruskin
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <70r87n$gdn$1@its.hooked.net>
In article <············@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>, ·····@mathcs.duq.edu (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>In article <············@its.hooked.net>, Bloxy's <·······@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <············@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>, ·····@mathcs.duq.edu (Patrick
> Juola) wrote:
>>>"Artificial Intelligence," broadly speaking, is the study of
>>>systems and problems that appear to require intelligence to
>>>solve,
>>Which we don't even have an agreement on definition of.
>>
>>> and the related problem of the analysis and simulation
>>>of human (and other) intelligences.
>>
>>That is the KEY point.
>>At the very best, we can only approximate some LIMITED
>>aspects of real intelligence, which is biological in nature,
>>as real intelligence has a PURPOSE associated with it.
>
>So what you're suggesting is that AI is a failure because one
>of its primary findings is that it's improved and expanded
>the definition of the problem?
Pure horseshit substitution of desirable for what actually
took place and provable.
Artificial "intelligence" has not improved anything or expanded
anything, just the other way around, limited the scope of the
real thing.
By hanging these lables you are not going to prove anything.
> Part of the reason that we don't
>have an agreement on what the definition of intelligence is is
>because almost every definition proposed (generally by psychologists)
So you don't even have a definition of the real thing, huh?
>has been shown to be a problem solvable by techniques not
>regarded as ``intelligent'' by those self-same psychologists.
Is it solvable by you, royal scientist's creed?
You blame someone else for fallability of definition.
You did not provide any so far,
and then you claim that someone else ought to solve it.
[and you just utilize the benefits of the solution]
>There's a great story
Great story?
What is so great about it?
> about how John McCarthy assigned "understanding
>language" as a summer project to an undergraduate research assistant.
>No one at the time thought this was unreasonable. Of course, with
>the wisdom
Wisdom?
Hello, anybody out there?
> granted by forty years of research, it's laughable
Because YOU are full of limitations. That is all.
> that
>anyone could have been naive enough to believe that getting a
>computer to understand language could be done by a single semi-skilled
>programmer in three months. But, many scientific conclusions are
>obvious IN RETROSPECT.
Yep, stock market is also predictable in retrospect.
>>And the purpose is well beyond the scope of ANY so called
>>artificial intelligence. It is to know ITSELF.
>
>This is, of course, your opinion of what constitutes intelligence.
And what is YOUR opinion?
And on what basis you claim "of course", sucker?
Do you have ANY evidence of ANYTHING?
>This wouldn't be a mainstream
Mainstream sucks, always sucked, and will do the same
in the forceable future.
The greatest solutions have not been proposed by this
sucky mainstream.
> opinion even among current psychologists
>-- navel gazing isn't held in high regard among any of the major
>theoretical groups.
You are just a cunt. Cunning little brat, twisting and distorting
things out of proportions, not even realizing that all you are
doing here is invalidating yourself.
What navel gazing bullshit are you peddling here?
What monkey ass did you pull it out of?
You reduce the eternal search for the very roots to "navel gazing"?
Man, even to call you a bio-robot would be insult to bio-robot.
> A more common opinion
Common prejudice is what common opinions are.
The majority vote by the ass licking "scientists" constitute
the "common opinion", that is FOREVER invalidated by the
further steps in any science.
> ranks intelligence as
>one of the major components of problem solving -- problems, by
>definition, being generally external to the solvers.
Stupid.
What problem is there to solve?
One thing is certain, you are going to dissapear into nothing,
and not trace will remain.
Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery.
Machines are already solving plenty of little "problems",
and will be solving many more, if you manage not to self
destruct within the next generation.
And all the odds are not in your favor so far.
> Others
>consider intelligence to be the ability to see connections between
>otherwise disparate areas.
But what do YOU consider?
Are you just a stupid dictionary of somebody else's definitions?
>But if there isn't any sort of uniformity
>and theoretical agreement among people whose job it is to study
>human intelligence, you can't expect unanimity among those whose job
>it is to model it -- which theory should be modelled? Which of the
>thousands of problems considered "important" (by different people)
>should we solve?
Man, this just plainly sux.
Delusion of the lowest grade.
Again, either you define [the very subjects of your
woodoo science of reduction of unlimited to the level
of a completely predictable machine],
or you just get off the pot.
What are you doing here if you don't even know the
very essense of what you attempt to "study"?
---------------- end of input --------------------
[...]
Bloxy's wrote:
[flamage excised]
I was wondering where all this foul language and flamage was coming from
until I realized that denizens of comp.ai.philosophy were crossposting.
*plonk*
Which is, for those of you who've never read the jargon file, the sound
of a newbie (or some other unpalatable poster) hitting the bottom of a
killfile.
Please remove comp.lang.lisp from the headers if you're not going to
talk about Lisp and friends or are simply going to flame people who are
clearly better educated than you are. (At least, judging from your
filthy keyboard I suspect you haven't any formal education. I could be
wrong, as there are colleges out there that give degrees away for the
low, low price of only US$125.95, or at least that's what one spammer
told me.)
not yours at all,
james
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <710r4m$jc5$4@its.hooked.net>
In article <·················@saturn.math.uaa.alaska.edu>, "James A. Crippen" <········@saturn.math.uaa.alaska.edu> wrote:
>Bloxy's wrote:
>[flamage excised]
>
>I was wondering where all this foul language
When the scientist concerns himself with language,
then that scientist is not a scientist on the first place.
Foul language belongs to the domain of priests and "family
values", as it is a domain of morality.
Fear and guilt.
That is how you tick.
> and flamage was coming from
>until I realized that denizens of comp.ai.philosophy were crossposting.
Why are YOU crossposting?
>*plonk*
Yup.
[...] Garbage in, garbage -> OUT
>not yours at all,
>james
From: Klaus Schilling
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <87btn4hyww.fsf@ivm.de>
·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes:
>
> Furhtermore, the very essence of "itself" is something
> well beyond what we call acceptable in our, essentially
> materialistic, definition of science.
Only materialists accept materialistic definitions. Pythagorized Platonists
don't accept those lies.
Klaus Schilling
From: David Steuber "The Interloper
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <363c67b7.11326376@news.newsguy.com>
On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:08:43 GMT, ·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's)
claimed or asked:
% At the very best, we can only approximate some LIMITED
% aspects of real intelligence, which is biological in nature,
% as real intelligence has a PURPOSE associated with it.
Why do I allow myself to be dragged into such a discussion? Why do I
cross-post it to 3 different news groups?
Scratch that. This is just going to cll.
I would like to know the 'purpose of 'real intelligence.
I can easily describe the 'purpose of 'artificial intelligence. At
least, I can describe the purpose of any program I write. For my paid
work, I always have some task to accomplish that is sometimes defined.
For my unpaid work, I simply do it for fun.
Since biological organisms are composed of the same material as
machines, I find it hard to imagine that they have some intrinsic
quality that can not be simulated by a sufficiently sophisticated
machine. If the simulation of any given property of a biologic is
achieved, then I guess there is nothing magical about it. We would at
least understand one possible implementation of that property.
A definition for 'intelligence would be another issue. I don't
propose to contrive one. As for the use of the word 'simulated, feel
free to substitute any word from the following list: '(duplicated
emulated imitated faked mimicked).
--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.2a)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
"Ignore reality there's nothing you can do about it..."
-- Natalie Imbruglia "Don't you think?"
David Steuber The Interloper wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:08:43 GMT, ·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's)
> claimed or asked:
>
> % At the very best, we can only approximate some LIMITED
> % aspects of real intelligence, which is biological in nature,
> % as real intelligence has a PURPOSE associated with it.
>
> Why do I allow myself to be dragged into such a discussion? Why do I
> cross-post it to 3 different news groups?
>
> Scratch that. This is just going to cll.
>
> I would like to know the 'purpose of 'real intelligence.
The purpose of naturally evolved intelligence is to enable an animal to
leave many nth generation descendants in a changing world.
...
>
> --
> David Steuber (ver 1.31.2a)
> http://www.david-steuber.com
> To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
>
> "Ignore reality there's nothing you can do about it..."
> -- Natalie Imbruglia "Don't you think?"
From: David Steuber "The Interloper
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <363630ea.7741842@news.newsguy.com>
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:43:11 -0800, Charles Hixson
<············@earthlink.net> claimed or asked:
% The purpose of naturally evolved intelligence is to enable an animal to
% leave many nth generation descendants in a changing world.
Insects seem to be among the most successful at this.
Just like there are more VB programmers than Lisp programmers. I'm
afraid.
--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.2a)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
"Ignore reality there's nothing you can do about it..."
-- Natalie Imbruglia "Don't you think?"
In article <············@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>,
Patrick Juola <·····@mathcs.duq.edu> wrote:
>Which isn't hard. Almost every program you've got on your machine
>today qualified as AI at thirty or forty years ago.
I've heard it said that Artificial Intelligence is anything we don't yet
know how to program. Once we figure it out, it just becomes part of
ordinary computer science. For instance, you can now buy speech
recognition software off the shelf, so no one considers it AI. Also, many
things that once required "clever" AI programming have been solved simply
by brute force as computer power has grown. For instance, while there's
undoubtedly some AI in Deep Blue, you can't discount its ability to search
an enormous game tree very quickly as being a major factor in its success;
it's clearly not doing as much pattern recognition as human chess players.
Another example is that GIB, which recently won a computer bridge
tournament, has as its primary algorithm a monte carlo simulation, rather
than using the inference methods that human bridge players use.
What makes human intelligence still pretty unique is that a single system
made up of fairly slow components (the brain) is able to perform so many
different tasks in solving problems. It's still the case that computer
applications are lots of specialists and no generalists -- you have
programs that do speech recognition, programs that act as autonomous
network agents, programs that do data analysis, etc., but it still takes a
human to combine the results of each to solve a real-world problem. I
believe the concensus among cognitive scientists is that the brain is
composed of separate subsystems for specific tasks, but they all seem to
have access to a common data store and there are good processes for setting
them all working on a common goal. That level has still not been achieved
in AI.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Barry Margolin <······@bbnplanet.com> writes:
> ordinary computer science. For instance, you can now buy speech
> recognition software off the shelf, so no one considers it AI.
whatever the achievements of the new speech recogntition software might be
(I haven't tried anything the last couple of years except for
Apple's software, which is really hard to use for a non-native speaker),
I'm quite sure that it still has a long way to go, and I think that way
at some point has to - again - enter the really hard realms of AI
and Computational Linguistics, the problems of semantics and pragmatics.
AI and CL research, I think, has constantly lived in the gap between the
commercially employable and the almost utopic, and this is probably
the main reason for the credibility problems: In order to work on
problems that don't seem "already solved" to the funders, AI researchers
are promising to get closer to utopia than they really can.
> things that once required "clever" AI programming have been solved simply
> by brute force as computer power has grown.
In fact, these days many problems that could use "clever" programming
are solved by brute force programming and depending on the willingness
of users to constantly replace their expensive hardware :-(
--
(espen vestre)
In article <··············@gromit.nextel.no>, Espen Vestre <··@nextel.no> wrote:
> Apple's software, which is really hard to use for a non-native speaker),
AFAIK, the new version should be a bit better, since it now samples
the sound with a high resolution.
Btw., some guys have written a cool interface for using the speech
software with Macintosh Common Lisp. Use your Lisp editor with spoken
commands. ;-)
--
http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig
Patrick Juola wrote:
[snip]
> Similarly, in the 1970s, the
> idea that a comptuter could correct grammar as well as spelling was
> pure pie-in-the-sky artificial intelligence; today you buy the
> program from Microsoft.
Heh. Possibly the greatest shame^H^H^H^H^Hhonor for someone in an AI
field could be seeing Micro$oft sell^H^H^H^Hrip off a clone of their
work without reference or royalties. That could be a true measure of
success, though somewhat of a bitter pill to swallow.
> Which isn't hard. Almost every program you've got on your machine
> today qualified as AI at thirty or forty years ago.
I dunno... EMACS wasn't really considered an AI program, though the
people who worked on it were involved. And besides, can any program
originally written in TECO (insert ritual expression of disgust) be
considered in any frame of reference to AI without loads of derision?
On a side note, the lab admin and I recently discovered a dusty copy of
the TECO-11 manual hidden beneath the floor tiles. I've been reading it
and remembering my TECO using days on the school VAX. Barf. Perhaps
I'll write a TECO emulator in XEmacs. That would be fitting. Then
possibly I could work on an INTERCAL mode. It'd have to do automatic
insertion of the correct number of PLEASEs for the DOs (1:3 IIRC).
Hehehe...
cheers,
james
From: ····@kana.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <7124ov$di5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
I think it is a legetimate inquiry as the origin of the terminology.
Sometimes it depends on what was fashionable at a given time, much like
the terms "visual" or "virtual" or "open" is used these days.
History also sheds light on the competing efforts or terms that lost out,
but still might have a lot of substance to it.
The sad thing is that much of the under-informed new generation believes
most of computer science was invented by Bill Gates, and history may end up
recording that too. But this phenomena is nothing new. A century ago
T. Edison was commercially leverage his own and rivals ideas and acheived
historical pedominance.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
From: Omar Haneef
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <715hfj$rnm$1@paul.rutgers.edu>
"When we write programs that 'learn', it turns out that we do and they
don't."
-Old quip, relevant to this discussion
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <715r8d$hf6$2@its.hooked.net>
In article <············@paul.rutgers.edu>, ·······@paul.rutgers.edu (Omar Haneef) wrote:
>
>"When we write programs that 'learn', it turns out that we do and they
>don't."
Yup, that is the holey sucking truth on the subject
of artificial "intelligence",
which is a contradiction of terms
on the first place.
> -Old quip, relevant to this discussion
Norman Ma wrote in message <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu>...
>We need to become more realistic and more productive.
>As in a popular movie "Show me the MONEY!" We need to
>remind ourselves daily "Show me the PROGRAM!"
>
Keeping up with the quest for the Higgs Boson is a hobby of mine but a
useless endeavour on my part and the researchers most likely. A partical
use for the "god particle", a "black hole", or a solution to ferment's (sp?)
last theorem (opps that one has been done). Meaning no oppostions to your
statement in content but to it's spirit.....pure intellectual endeavours do
have a place in compture science as in anyother discipline (sans
appologies).
no pun intended
Rusty Craine
rusty craine wrote:
> Meaning no oppostions to your
> statement in content but to it's spirit.....pure intellectual endeavours do
> have a place in compture science as in anyother discipline (sans
> appologies).
Here's a Perlisism that seems to apply:
112. Computer Science is embarrassed by the computer.
I suppose that refers to the amount of time CS people (esp those with a
heavy bg in mathematics) spend fiddling with Turing machines on paper.
The few implementations of Tmachines that I've seen on actual computers
seem to be ignored, if not actually vilified.
We often see CS grouped into the Mathematical Sciences, along with
Statistics, and sometimes Information Theory. CS is actually a highly
mathematical field (which is why so many undergrads switch to MIS at
some point) though many people involved outside of the institutions seem
to try to forget that. I suppose at some point people will find some
solution to that somewhat schizophrenic aspect of the science; perhaps
Software Engineering will finally split off into the engineering
disciplines (thus requiring engineers to pollute their work with lousy,
lowly programmers ;-) and CS will continue onward towards its lofty
mathematical goals. Maybe then mathematicians won't make so many bad
jokes about CS geeks.
On a side note, I was once going to attempt a highly flammable
regrouping of the Sciences that dispensed with the often hated 'soft'
and 'hard' separation and included quite a number of highly ambient
domains (arf she said) like Public Communication and Literary
Criticism. I never got around to it since only my fellow undergrads
actually encouraged me. The profs that I chatted with urged me to spend
my time on more productive things, like finishing their homework
assignments.
james
From: ····@kana.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <70ptnu$8h7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Prof. McCarthy circa 1958 about the time he invented LISP.
He is still around.
The competing terms at the time were cybernetics, invented by another
MIT professor Norbert Weiner, and robotic intelligence. Both of those
terms have a strong mechanical flavor to them.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
From: Klaus Schilling
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <87btn3yzjf.fsf@ivm.de>
····@kana.stanford.edu writes:
> Prof. McCarthy circa 1958 about the time he invented LISP.
> He is still around.
Lisp was not invented, it was at most discovered.
Klaus schilling
In article <··············@ivm.de>,
Klaus Schilling <···············@home.ivm.de> wrote:
>····@kana.stanford.edu writes:
>
>> Prof. McCarthy circa 1958 about the time he invented LISP.
>> He is still around.
>
>Lisp was not invented, it was at most discovered.
Odd suggestion. Are you suggesting that Prof. McCarthy opened
a drawer of his desk and found a LISP interpreter sitting there?
The mathematics behind lamda calculus are/were as platonic and
preexistant as any mathematics ever are. But LISP isn't a set of
mathematics, it's a programming language, and as such was designed,
built, debugged -- yea, verily, *INVENTED* by Prof. McCarthy.
Similarly, Mathematica was *invented* by Wolfram, despite the fact
that it's got no new mathematics in it that wasn't known at the
time he built the program.
-kitten
Patrick Juola wrote:
>
> Odd suggestion. Are you suggesting that Prof. McCarthy opened
> a drawer of his desk and found a LISP interpreter sitting there?
Well of course he was! ;-)
> The mathematics behind lamda calculus are/were as platonic and
> preexistant as any mathematics ever are. But LISP isn't a set of
> mathematics, it's a programming language, and as such was designed,
> built, debugged -- yea, verily, *INVENTED* by Prof. McCarthy.
Bah. He wasn't getting at that, IINM. I think that Klaus was implying
that if McCarthy didn't invent Lisp then someone else would have. The
parentheses have their own devious ways of doing things, usually through
methods^H^H^H^H^H^Hgeneric functions that we Know Not Of. You should
read the
Friends of the Schememonster page for more enlightenment, then purchase
a copy of the Principia Discordia (fnord).
> Similarly, Mathematica was *invented* by Wolfram, despite the fact
> that it's got no new mathematics in it that wasn't known at the
> time he built the program.
Speaking of that, I was wondering where I might find a free-ish copy of
MACSYMA that I could browse and hack on. I was thinking of using it to
avoid getting lost in proofs for my Modern Algebra teacher. Anyone
know?
cheers,
james
From: David Steuber "The Interloper
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <363558ad.7476801@news.newsguy.com>
On 23 Oct 1998 19:10:44 +0200, Klaus Schilling
<···············@home.ivm.de> claimed or asked:
% ····@kana.stanford.edu writes:
%
% > Prof. McCarthy circa 1958 about the time he invented LISP.
% > He is still around.
%
% Lisp was not invented, it was at most discovered.
Depending on how you think about things, that probably applies to
everything. At least in math and physics.
P.S. This is <em>not</em> cross-posted.
--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.2a)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
"Ignore reality there's nothing you can do about it..."
-- Natalie Imbruglia "Don't you think?"
From: William Paul Vrotney
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <vrotneyF1Bo7A.M9H@netcom.com>
In article <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu> ··@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Norman Ma)
writes:
>
> It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
> son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
> scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
> Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
> insecurity.
>
> The same is true when we named the whole area of advanced
> computer science as ARTIFICIAL Intelligence. When we should
> be advancing the knowledge of computer science, that
> effort is being grouped under the 1980's over-hyped
> ARTIFICIAL intelligence, so what are we doing now, push
> bits back and forth between machines and around the
> world. Is that ANYTHING remotely interesting from the
> intellectual point of view!?
>
> Some of us have made a career on advanced computer science,
You will have just as difficult a time defining "advanced computer science"
as we have defining AI. At least AI has a focus on practical computer
problems that really need an intelligence boost, for example pathetic
unintelligent web browsers.
This old worn out notion that AI diffuses into simply "advanced computer
science" is counter productive and meaningless. It is like arguing
"Chemistry is really only physics after all, so let's throw out all of our
chemistry books." If we want to we can diffuse all of computer science into
interpretation of strings of 1's and 0's. So what. The fact that
everything physical breaks down into atoms and energy does not stop me from
enjoying a Beethoven symphony.
--
William P. Vrotney - ·······@netcom.com
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <70u015$42e$2@its.hooked.net>
In article <·················@netcom.com>, ·······@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney) wrote:
>
>In article <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu> ··@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Norman Ma)
>writes:
>
>>
>> It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
>> son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
>> scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
>> Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
>> insecurity.
>>
>> The same is true when we named the whole area of advanced
>> computer science as ARTIFICIAL Intelligence. When we should
>> be advancing the knowledge of computer science, that
>> effort is being grouped under the 1980's over-hyped
>> ARTIFICIAL intelligence, so what are we doing now, push
>> bits back and forth between machines and around the
>> world. Is that ANYTHING remotely interesting from the
>> intellectual point of view!?
>>
>> Some of us have made a career on advanced computer science,
>
>You will have just as difficult a time defining "advanced computer science"
>as we have defining AI. At least AI has a focus on practical computer
>problems that really need an intelligence boost,
That has NOTHING to do with intelligence.
You just keep pellding the same idea and refuse
to see the absurdity of it.
You see, at least it is the same old shit. Smells familiar,
you know ALL about it.
You'll be arguing the this obscene idea untill everybody
recognizes the stupidity of it, and then you'll come and
say: "i always thought there is somethig funny about that
stupid ide".
And then you'll go back to peddling the NEW idea, just in
the same way you peddled the old one.
And you will be fighting viciously, destroying any other
view, but your own idiotic definitions, programmed into
your cockpit since day one of your life.
Again, there is no such thing as artificial "intelligence".
You reduced the intelligence to the most idiotic and rudimentary
level of manipulation of the matter via means of stupid logic,
reducing that, which is beyond description to the level of
horseshit.
Intelligence includes feelings as a very fuel, intuition
and purpose.
You threw it all away except of the most limited view
of dry "reason", which is not a reason on the fist place,
but a byproduct of non-ending brain conditioning, meant to
stear you away from the "trouble" issues and keep you
functioning on the most primitive phisical level of an object,
predictable and manipulatable.
That is all.
[...]
From: William Paul Vrotney
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <vrotneyF1EpGG.JLC@netcom.com>
In article <············@its.hooked.net> ·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's)
writes:
>
> In article <·················@netcom.com>, ·······@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney) wrote:
> >
> >In article <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu> ··@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Norman Ma)
> >writes:
> >
> >>
> >> It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
> >> son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
> >> scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
> >> Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
> >> insecurity.
> >>
> >> The same is true when we named the whole area of advanced
> >> computer science as ARTIFICIAL Intelligence. When we should
> >> be advancing the knowledge of computer science, that
> >> effort is being grouped under the 1980's over-hyped
> >> ARTIFICIAL intelligence, so what are we doing now, push
> >> bits back and forth between machines and around the
> >> world. Is that ANYTHING remotely interesting from the
> >> intellectual point of view!?
> >>
> >> Some of us have made a career on advanced computer science,
> >
> >You will have just as difficult a time defining "advanced computer science"
> >as we have defining AI. At least AI has a focus on practical computer
> >problems that really need an intelligence boost,
>
> That has NOTHING to do with intelligence.
> You just keep pellding the same idea and refuse
> to see the absurdity of it.
>
Your thesis, if we can even call it that, is difficult to discern let alone
test. This makes it difficult for people reading these groups (sorry
comp.lang.lisp for propagating) to interpret your posts as anything other
than opinion. At least you try to demonstrate more of what you are trying to
say below (see comments below to your idea of feelings and intuition).
> You see, at least it is the same old shit. Smells familiar,
> you know ALL about it.
>
> You'll be arguing the this obscene idea untill everybody
> recognizes the stupidity of it, and then you'll come and
> say: "i always thought there is somethig funny about that
> stupid ide".
>
> And then you'll go back to peddling the NEW idea, just in
> the same way you peddled the old one.
> And you will be fighting viciously, destroying any other
> view, but your own idiotic definitions, programmed into
> your cockpit since day one of your life.
>
> Again, there is no such thing as artificial "intelligence".
> You reduced the intelligence to the most idiotic and rudimentary
> level of manipulation of the matter via means of stupid logic,
> reducing that, which is beyond description to the level of
> horseshit.
>
> Intelligence includes feelings as a very fuel, intuition
> and purpose.
>
At least here, you give us some clues to what it is that you are trying to
say. The idea that feelings, intuition and purpose have something to do
with intelligence is indeed interesting. But help us understand what that
something is. Otherwise, your posts will continue to be interpreted as
shallow opinion. For example ""intuition" seems to play a role in inductive
reasoning. And is intuition more than just reacting to data collection
guided by heuristics?"
--
William P. Vrotney - ·······@netcom.com
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <710fkj$9cd$3@its.hooked.net>
In article <·················@netcom.com>, ·······@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney) wrote:
>
>In article <············@its.hooked.net> ·······@hotmail.com (Bloxy's)
>writes:
>
>>
>> In article <·················@netcom.com>, ·······@netcom.com (William Paul
> Vrotney) wrote:
[...]
>> Again, there is no such thing as artificial "intelligence".
>> You reduced the intelligence to the most idiotic and rudimentary
>> level of manipulation of the matter via means of stupid logic,
>> reducing that, which is beyond description to the level of
>> horseshit.
>>
>> Intelligence includes feelings as a very fuel, intuition
>> and purpose.
>>
>
>At least here, you give us
Learn to speak for yourself.
When you have an issue, YOU have an issue.
> some clues to what it is that you are trying to
>say. The idea that feelings, intuition and purpose have something to do
>with intelligence is indeed interesting.
Interesting?
:)
> But help us
Again, ME, not us.
> understand what that
>something is.
Then on what basis those ideas seem to be interesting?
> Otherwise, your posts will continue to be interpreted as
>shallow opinion.
By who?
By US?
Do you claim to be a profit?
How do you know how those ideas are GOING to be interpreted
[in the future], and not only by yourself, but by others?
On what basis?
Conspiracy of the majority?
> For example ""intuition" seems to play a role in inductive
>reasoning.
Intuition is at the very core of your higest inspirations.
It is a leap into the future.
It is alignment with the most essential aspects of
ALL THERE IS.
Inductive reasoning is a subject in itself.
Intuition is BEYOND any reasoning.
> And is intuition more than just reacting to data collection
>guided by heuristics?"
Oh, you bet it is.
You see, the language of intuition is the language
of the very essense of your own being.
:)
You deny it or reduce it to some stupid "reasoning" of ANY
kind, and all you did is closed the doors and reduced yourself
to the level of machine.
The most significant events of your life sprang to life not
on the basis of ANY kind of reasoning.
Reasoning comes later.
Bloxy's wrote in message <············@its.hooked.net>...
>In article <·················@netcom.com>, ·······@netcom.com (William Paul
Vrotney) wrote:
>>
>>In article <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu> ··@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Norman
Ma)
>You'll be arguing the this obscene idea untill everybody
>recognizes the stupidity of it, and then you'll come and
>say: "i always thought there is somethig funny about that
>stupid ide".
>
>And then you'll go back to peddling the NEW idea, just in
>the same way you peddled the old one.
>And you will be fighting viciously, destroying any other
>view, but your own idiotic definitions, programmed into
>your cockpit since day one of your life.
>
You are viewing the iceberg as if the visual 1/10 were the iceberg. As with
the iceberg below the water, there is an industrial-military complex, unseen
to view, where advanced paradigms meet super hardware and lots of money.
Programming for a far different "cockpit" than your conotation. Perhaps a
military use is not what academia had in mind for the software "inventions"
but they are well represented.
I would not think a system could track 1000+ objects and their attributes
(some at 10k+ mphs) with a bubble sort.
rusty
rusty craine wrote in message <············@excalibur.flash.net>...
>
>You are viewing the iceberg as if the visual 1/10 were the iceberg. As
with
>the iceberg below the water, there is an industrial-military complex,
unseen
>to view, where advanced paradigms meet super hardware and lots of money.
>Programming for a far different "cockpit" than your conotation. Perhaps a
>military use is not what academia had in mind for the software "inventions"
>but they are well represented.
for example (as taken for the Navy Facts Sheet Web Site) note last
paragraph. every wonder what algorithms these things are runnning?
Description: The Aegis system was designed as a total weapon system, from
detection to kill. The heart of the system is an advanced, automatic detect
and track, multi-function phased-array radar, the AN/SPY-1. This high
powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track and missile
guidance functions simultaneously with a track capacity of over 100 targets.
The first Engineering Development Model (EDM-1) was installed in the test
ship, USS Norton Sound (AVM 1) in 1973.
The computer-based command and decision element is the core of the Aegis
combat system. This interface makes the Aegis combat system capable of
simultaneous operation against a multi-mission threat: anti-air,
anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare.
hmmmmm?
>
>I would not think a system could track 1000+ objects and their attributes
>(some at 10k+ mphs) with a bubble sort.
>
>rusty
>
>
Norman Ma wrote in message <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu>...
<big big snip>
>As in a popular movie "Show me the MONEY!" We need to
>remind ourselves daily "Show me the PROGRAM!"
>
>--NKM
Ah, no offense, but I belive you missed the point of that movie entirely...
likewise that of AI research.
The movie centered around the realization that money was not everything,
that the company was too commercialized, and a connection with the clients,
a human and ethical approach to the business was more important than net
profit.
SHOW ME THE PROGRAM take AI down the route of guided missile programs and
fancy microwaves ovens. Now, a smart Microwave is not, by far, a bad
thing... but it's rather a paltry accomplishment in comparison to
understanding human intelligence. Much less improving upon it.
From: Bloxy's
Subject: Re: Who Coined the term ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
Date:
Message-ID: <7165t5$pii$4@its.hooked.net>
In article <··········@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Crystal Entropy" <··················@cheerful.com> wrote:
>Norman Ma wrote in message <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu>...
><big big snip>
>>As in a popular movie "Show me the MONEY!" We need to
>>remind ourselves daily "Show me the PROGRAM!"
>>--NKM
>Ah, no offense, but I belive you missed the point of that movie entirely...
>likewise that of AI research.
>The movie centered around the realization that money was not everything,
>that the company was too commercialized, and a connection with the clients,
>a human and ethical approach to the business was more important than net
>profit.
>SHOW ME THE PROGRAM take AI down the route of guided missile programs
Well, you'd be surprised.
There are plenty of programs already.
Hopefully, after this civilization self destructs,
the next one will be able to find out about those programs.
> and
>fancy microwaves ovens. Now, a smart Microwave is not, by far, a bad
>thing... but it's rather a paltry accomplishment in comparison to
>understanding human intelligence. Much less improving upon it.
These dudes don't seem to even grasp what they've got under their
own hood. The capabilities of their own brains within such a small
space, with such an advanced methods of perception and storage
of external reality.
Anything, even remotely resembling it, would cost billions
of dollares and be a size of an empire state building.
The only problem is, how do you move that thing?
G'day...
[snipped]
> SHOW ME THE PROGRAM take AI down the route of guided missile programs and
> fancy microwaves ovens. Now, a smart Microwave is not, by far, a bad
> thing... but it's rather a paltry accomplishment in comparison to
> understanding human intelligence. Much less improving upon it.
Funny thing... I was watching telly the other day, and they've
integrated user software with microwaves. (I am not joking!)
The front door of the microwave is a touch-screen display. The user can
select what task they would like to do (eg home finance, etc).
Just a little side-issue curio...
Michael -- coming back from the tangent.
Norman Ma wrote in message <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu>...
>It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
>son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
>scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
>Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
>insecurity.
>
>The same is true when we named the whole area of advanced
>computer science as ARTIFICIAL Intelligence. When we should
>be advancing the knowledge of computer science, that
>effort is being grouped under the 1980's over-hyped
>ARTIFICIAL intelligence, so what are we doing now, push
>bits back and forth between machines and around the
>world. Is that ANYTHING remotely interesting from the
>intellectual point of view!?
>
>Some of us have made a career on advanced computer science,
>I just want you to think about what you are going to
>leave behind after you die. Is it that no one will ever
>read the papers you've published, in that rare occasion
>when when one of your paper is being read by some graduate
>student in the year 2056. Is she going to think to herself
>"Geez, this is whole bunch of fru fru crap, what a waste of
>my time."
>
>We need to become more realistic and more productive.
>As in a popular movie "Show me the MONEY!" We need to
>remind ourselves daily "Show me the PROGRAM!"
>
>--NKM
>--
>
>--NKM
>
Norman Ma wrote in message <············@duncan.cs.utk.edu>...
>It is unfortunate that Mr. Buckett named his new born
>son Rusty; Rusty could have became a productive computer
>scientist, an entrepreneur, a great philosopher, but,
>Rusty has been destined to a life of self-consciousnss and
>insecurity.
hmmmm somebody with money is doing something..not sure what. Oh.... it is
the military-industrail complex again. Maybe there the only one that has
enough money. I guess a BS in pharmacy and MS in math doesn't qualify me
(even if i'll work real hard)? dang!
Postdoc Employment Opportunity
Numerical Analysis and Parallel Computing Team
The Scientific Computing Group at Los Alamos National Laboratory
invites outstanding candidates to apply for a postdoctoral research
associate position to conduct research and development on the program
optimizing/transformational tool ROSE.
ROSE seeks to perform source-level transformation of C++ code that
uses one of several array-class libraries, to improve performance and
introduce parallelism in applications to be deployed on very large
scale parallel architectures. ROSE is at an early stage of
development, offering considerable scope for theoretical development,
innovative design, and disciplined implementation.
The position entails working in an environment of numerical analysts,
applied mathematicians, computer scientists, and computational
physicists contributing to the development of large-scale physical
modeling and simulation applications.
The successful candidate will pursue the full range of activities
entailed by this project, from theoretical development to programming,
and is expected to participate in publishing reportable results.
Required Skills:
Expertise in compiler technology,
program transformation,
software engineering, and programming;
ability to work effectively in a team effort;
effective verbal and writing skills as demonstrated by
record of publication and oral presentation.
Desired Skills:
Experience in formally-based (formal-semantics based) program analysis
and transformation;
experience with object-oriented scientific computing;
experience programming for parallel and/or vector supercomputers;
ability to obtain a "Q" clearance.
Education:
PhD in computer science or closely related field.
How To Apply:
For consideration please submit a curriculum vitae, publication list,
and a cover letter outlining relevent experience and research
interests to:
Kei Davis
Numerical Analysis and Parallel Computing Team
Scientific Computing Group (CIC-19), MS B256
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545
···@lanl.gov
General questions about the position may be addressed to ···@lanl.gov.