From: winter
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <c%dVa.10672$AO6.9011@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
·····@victoria.tc.ca (Arthur T. Murray) wrote in 

> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/weblog.html "AI has been solved"


non-turing artificial intellegence is at least
as old as eliza.

seeminlgy, turing stuff will be developed.

sentient machines, if they are ever developed, 
will not have "artifical intellegence", theirs
will be true intellegence.


rgrds,

From: Dave
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <hmgVa.210247$lK4.6095340@twister1.libero.it>
"winter" <······@winter.winter> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:c%dVa.10672
>
> sentient machines, if they are ever developed,
> will not have "artifical intellegence", theirs
> will be true intellegence.
>

Hi, I'm newbie.
Which are the differences between  "artificial intelligence" and "true
intelligence" ?
Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
thanks

greetings.
Dave
From: Rick Russell
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg456m$98d$1@joe.rice.edu>
In article <························@twister1.libero.it>,
Dave <·········@iol.it> wrote:
> Which are the differences between  "artificial intelligence" and "true
> intelligence" ?
> Sentient machines are however artificial machines..

As a corollary, you might ask: 

What is true intelligence? 

I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
intelligence. 

Rick R.
From: John Ahlstrom
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F259E3C.88BC9458@cisco.com>
Rick Russell wrote:
> 
> In article <························@twister1.libero.it>,
> Dave <·········@iol.it> wrote:
> > Which are the differences between  "artificial intelligence" and "true
> > intelligence" ?
> > Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
> 
> As a corollary, you might ask:
> 
> What is true intelligence?
> 
> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
> intelligence.
> 
> Rick R.

Dijkstra said:
    Asking whether a machine can think is about
    as interesting as asking whether a submarine can swim.
-- 
Writing is Nature's way of letting you know 
how sloppy your thinking is.
         - Guindon
From: Steve O'Hara-Smith
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <20030729072604.17a75270.steveo@eircom.net>
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:39:34 +0000 (UTC)
·····@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:

RR> 
RR> As a corollary, you might ask: 
RR> 
RR> What is true intelligence? 
RR> 
RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
RR> intelligence. 

	When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |     Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins.                |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |  licenses available - see:
                                            |   http://www.sohara.org/
From: George William Herbert
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg6ad4$um$1@gw.retro.com>
Steve O'Hara-Smith  <······@eircom.net> wrote:
>·····@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
>RR> As a corollary, you might ask: 
>RR> What is true intelligence? 
>RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
>RR> intelligence. 
>
>	When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
>Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.

That's the borderline definition.

Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
long involved research project to answer.  I am going to need to be
allocated a significant amount of additional resources, funding,
more programmer assistants, and we're probably going to need at
least nine new facilities to house the physical and computational
research tools needed.  We can use telepresence and teleconferencing
so we can distribute the team and network out across the country,
and with nine locations we should be able to place one in each
district represented by a member of the House Appropriations Committee.
I have position statements prepared to present to the staff of both
sides of the aisle already, appropriately customized for their
and their representatives personal standpoints.  With any luck
we can keep the project budget below a billion dollars this next
year, but the answer is important.  Can you call my lobbyist and
ask him if he'd like to do lunch?"

And then we'll be doomed.


-george william herbert
········@retro.com
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg6b9q$mjb$1@reader1.panix.com>
George William Herbert wrote:

> Steve O'Hara-Smith  <······@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
>>·····@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
>>RR> As a corollary, you might ask: 
>>RR> What is true intelligence? 
>>RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
>>RR> intelligence. 
>>
>>	When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
>>Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
> 
> 
> That's the borderline definition.
> 
> Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
> long involved research project to answer.  I am going to need to be
> allocated a significant amount of additional resources, funding,
> more programmer assistants, and we're probably going to need at
> least nine new facilities to house the physical and computational
> research tools needed.  We can use telepresence and teleconferencing
> so we can distribute the team and network out across the country,
> and with nine locations we should be able to place one in each
> district represented by a member of the House Appropriations Committee.
> I have position statements prepared to present to the staff of both
> sides of the aisle already, appropriately customized for their
> and their representatives personal standpoints.  With any luck
> we can keep the project budget below a billion dollars this next
> year, but the answer is important.  Can you call my lobbyist and
> ask him if he'd like to do lunch?"

Nuh-uh. That's just another Eliza program.

paul
From: Eric Sosman
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F26B84B.4C4F68C1@sun.com>
George William Herbert wrote:
> 
> Steve O'Hara-Smith  <······@eircom.net> wrote:
> >·····@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
> >RR> As a corollary, you might ask:
> >RR> What is true intelligence?
> >RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
> >RR> intelligence.
> >
> >       When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
> >Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
> 
> That's the borderline definition.
> 
> Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
> long involved research project to answer.  I am going to need to be
> allocated a significant amount of additional resources, funding,
> more programmer assistants, and we're probably going to need at
> least nine new facilities to house the physical and computational
> research tools needed.  We can use telepresence and teleconferencing
> so we can distribute the team and network out across the country,
> and with nine locations we should be able to place one in each
> district represented by a member of the House Appropriations Committee.
> I have position statements prepared to present to the staff of both
> sides of the aisle already, appropriately customized for their
> and their representatives personal standpoints.  With any luck
> we can keep the project budget below a billion dollars this next
> year, but the answer is important.  Can you call my lobbyist and
> ask him if he'd like to do lunch?"

    An obvious fake: no TLA's.










































    ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym."  All the good TLA's have
already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
now underway.  Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
retards progress but seems a touch disloyal.  What the industry
needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")

-- 
···········@sun.com
From: Charlie Gibbs
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <742.340T826T8304559@kltpzyxm.invalid>
In article <·················@sun.com> ···········@sun.com (Eric Sosman)
writes:

>    ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym."  All the good TLA's have
>already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
>now underway.  Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
>retards progress but seems a touch disloyal.  What the industry
>needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")

Already done: ETLA (Extended Three-Letter Acronym)

Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter word...

--
/~\  ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
From: ········@rohan.sdsu.edu
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg9e41$2ti$1@gondor.sdsu.edu>
In alt.folklore.computers Charlie Gibbs <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter word...

Letter #1: "Hi, how are you? I am fine. ..."

Letter #2: "I miss you..."

Letter #3: "When are you coming home?"

Letter #4: "Dear John, ..."

?

-- 
 --Stewart ················································@rohan.sdsu.edu--
       The way to fight a woman is with your hat.  Grab it and run.
                                                         --John Barrymore
From: Steve O'Hara-Smith
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <20030731075713.54218b07.steveo@eircom.net>
On 29 Jul 03 13:50:16 -0800
"Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
 
CG> Already done: ETLA (Extended Three-Letter Acronym)
CG> 
CG> Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter
CG> word...

	By adding a French letter ?

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |     Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins.                |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |  licenses available - see:
                                            |   http://www.sohara.org/
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3cgmfvw7.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> writes:

> On 29 Jul 03 13:50:16 -0800
> "Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>  
> CG> Already done: ETLA (Extended Three-Letter Acronym)
> CG> 
> CG> Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter
> CG> word...
>
> 	By adding a French letter ?

Those are now `Freedom' letters.
From: jim
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F3B0735.8060105@att.net>
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> In article <·················@sun.com> ···········@sun.com (Eric Sosman)
> writes:
> 
> 
>>   ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym."  All the good TLA's have
>>already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
>>now underway.  Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
>>retards progress but seems a touch disloyal.  What the industry
>>needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
> 
> 
> Already done: ETLA (Extended Three-Letter Acronym)
> 
> Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter word...
> 
> --
> /~\  ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
> \ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
>  X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
> / \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
> 

The three in the act and the one from her attorney.
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <aeb7ff58.0307291318.46331826@posting.google.com>
Eric Sosman <···········@sun.com> wrote in message news:<·················@sun.com>...
> Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
> retards progress but seems a touch disloyal.  What the industry
> needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")

Four Alphanumeric Character Acronym = FACA

:^)
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <gat-2907031446070001@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
·······@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) wrote:

> Eric Sosman <···········@sun.com> wrote in message
news:<·················@sun.com>...
> > Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
> > retards progress but seems a touch disloyal.  What the industry
> > needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
> 
> Four Alphanumeric Character Acronym = FACA
> 
> :^)

ATLA - Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
DATLA - Doubly-Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
DUCTLA - Double Unaugmented Concatenated Three Letter Acronym
SLAASLA - Seven Letter Acronum (Augmented Six Letter Acronym)
AWASSRCC - Acronym With A Strained Self-Referential Character Count
SAWONPNOC - Shortest Acronym With Odd Non-Prime Number Of Characters

:-)

E.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307291954.10e38290@posting.google.com>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message news:<····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>...
>
> 
> ATLA - Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
> DATLA - Doubly-Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
> DUCTLA - Double Unaugmented Concatenated Three Letter Acronym
> SLAASLA - Seven Letter Acronum (Augmented Six Letter Acronym)
> AWASSRCC - Acronym With A Strained Self-Referential Character Count
> SAWONPNOC - Shortest Acronym With Odd Non-Prime Number Of Characters
>
  AHA - Another Hated Acronym. Eg, "I've just had a AHA expereince - I
don't know what this god-damned acronym means."

The year is 3872. Aliens from the Beta Lyrae 7 expeditionary mission
to Earth sift through the rubble of its former "civilization".

"Captain Xzrllyl- we cannot decipher this race's language due to all
the acronyms.  We suspect, however, that they were the cause of its
extinction."
From: George William Herbert
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg7g14$3b2$1@gw.retro.com>
Don Stockbauer <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The year is 3872. Aliens from the Beta Lyrae 7 expeditionary mission
>to Earth sift through the rubble of its former "civilization".
>"Captain Xzrllyl- we cannot decipher this race's language due to all
>the acronyms.  We suspect, however, that they were the cause of its
>extinction."

Soon, the sets of Pentagon TLA's in use and possible nuclear
weapons arm and detonation codes will be equal, and the next day
someone's requisition for more socks for the Marine Corps
training base at Quantico will accidentally kick off WW 3.


-george william herbert
········@retro.com
From: Charlie Gibbs
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <1454.341T2825T5816334@kltpzyxm.invalid>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>
·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:

>···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message
>news:<····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>...
>
>> ATLA - Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
>> DATLA - Doubly-Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
>> DUCTLA - Double Unaugmented Concatenated Three Letter Acronym
>> SLAASLA - Seven Letter Acronum (Augmented Six Letter Acronym)
>> AWASSRCC - Acronym With A Strained Self-Referential Character Count
>> SAWONPNOC - Shortest Acronym With Odd Non-Prime Number Of Characters
>
>  AHA - Another Hated Acronym. Eg, "I've just had a AHA expereince - I
>don't know what this god-damned acronym means."
>
>The year is 3872. Aliens from the Beta Lyrae 7 expeditionary mission
>to Earth sift through the rubble of its former "civilization".
>
>"Captain Xzrllyl- we cannot decipher this race's language due to all
>the acronyms.  We suspect, however, that they were the cause of its
>extinction."

For further insight into this and other indexing woes, see
"MS FND IN A LBRY" by Hal Draper, originally printed in the
December 1961 F&SF, anthologized in 1963 in "17 x Infinity"
(edited by Groff Conklin).

--
/~\  ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308010405.4c464238@posting.google.com>
"Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:<·····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>...
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>
> ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
> 
> >···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message
> >news:<····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>...
> >
> >> ATLA - Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
> >> DATLA - Doubly-Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
> >> DUCTLA - Double Unaugmented Concatenated Three Letter Acronym
> >> SLAASLA - Seven Letter Acronum (Augmented Six Letter Acronym)
> >> AWASSRCC - Acronym With A Strained Self-Referential Character Count
> >> SAWONPNOC - Shortest Acronym With Odd Non-Prime Number Of Characters
> >
> >  AHA - Another Hated Acronym. Eg, "I've just had a AHA expereince - I
> >don't know what this god-damned acronym means."
> >
> >The year is 3872. Aliens from the Beta Lyrae 7 expeditionary mission
> >to Earth sift through the rubble of its former "civilization".
> >
> >"Captain Xzrllyl- we cannot decipher this race's language due to all
> >the acronyms.  We suspect, however, that they were the cause of its
> >extinction."
> 
> For further insight into this and other indexing woes, see
> "MS FND IN A LBRY" by Hal Draper, originally printed in the
> December 1961 F&SF, anthologized in 1963 in "17 x Infinity"
> (edited by Groff Conklin).


Let's help people out by making the reference explicit:

--------------------------------

Hal Draper took a break from his life's work of promoting Marxism, and
wrote one science fiction story. The information explosion, and
associated storage and retrieval problems, is humorously examined in
this short story. (This story, "MS FND IN A LBRY", is also of
historical interest, containing one of the earliest predictions of the
Web.)
Knowledge is expanding exponentially, as humanity fills the galaxy and
then some. But advances in physics (which Draper describes in
fictional mathematical terms) are able to keep up with the storage
problem, until all of human knowledge, for all time to come, is packed
into one drawer. Of course, there is one wee problem. Retrieval is
ultimately macroscopic. And so the indexes grow. And when they get
miniaturized, the indexes to the indexes grow. And so on, which then
leads to a higher-order index of the iterated indexes, and then so on
again. All this is spelled out in some detail.

The neverending recursion, while threatening to grow to Ackermann-like
proportions, is still manageable. But when a spontaneously generated
G�delian self-reference is discovered in the indexing system, the
whole lbry, and with it all of human civilization, collapses
overnight. Absolutely hilarious.
 

Originally appeared in the December 1961 issue of the magazine Fantasy
and Science Fiction. Reprinted in Isaac Asimov and Janet Jeppson (eds)
Laughing Space and Groff Conklin (ed) 17 Times Infinity.

------------------------

Of course, the way you deal with a "spontaneously generated G�delian
self-reference" is in the usual manner; you establish cybernetic rules
to navigate around it (cybernetic does mean "helmsperson", after all).

So indexing is one problem.  Acronymdamnation is another.  It
conserves storage at the cost of making what's stored indecipherable.

There is a computer programming style book by Kernigan and Plauger. 
In it they analyze a published program (one intended for education)
which states something like "We do the following for maximum
efficiency".  The trouble is, the algorithm 's wrong.  K & P state
"Obviously this programmer wanted to get his wrong answers just as
quickly as possible."
From: Walter Bushell
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <1fz9w37.1fl3jhyjyj936N%proto@panix.com>
 Don Stockbauer <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message  
news:<·····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>...
> > In article <····························@posting.google.com>
> > ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
> > 
> > >···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message
> > >news:<····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>...
> > >
> > >> ATLA - Augmented Three-Letter Acronym DATLA - Doubly-Augmented
> > >> Three-Letter Acronym DUCTLA - Double Unaugmented Concatenated Three
> > >> Letter Acronym SLAASLA - Seven Letter Acronum (Augmented Six Letter
> > >> Acronym) AWASSRCC - Acronym With A Strained Self-Referential
> > >> Character Count
> > >> SAWONPNOC - Shortest Acronym With Odd Non-Prime Number Of Characters
> > >
> > >  AHA - Another Hated Acronym. Eg, "I've just had a AHA expereince - I
> > >don't know what this god-damned acronym means."
> > >
> > >The year is 3872. Aliens from the Beta Lyrae 7 expeditionary mission
> > >to Earth sift through the rubble of its former "civilization".
> > >
> > >"Captain Xzrllyl- we cannot decipher this race's language due to all
> > >the acronyms.  We suspect, however, that they were the cause of its
> > >extinction."
> > 
> > For further insight into this and other indexing woes, see
> > "MS FND IN A LBRY" by Hal Draper, originally printed in the
> > December 1961 F&SF, anthologized in 1963 in "17 x Infinity"
> > (edited by Groff Conklin).
> 
> 
> Let's help people out by making the reference explicit:
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> Hal Draper took a break from his life's work of promoting Marxism, and
> wrote one science fiction story. The information explosion, and
> associated storage and retrieval problems, is humorously examined in
> this short story. (This story, "MS FND IN A LBRY", is also of
> historical interest, containing one of the earliest predictions of the
> Web.)
> Knowledge is expanding exponentially, as humanity fills the galaxy and
> then some. But advances in physics (which Draper describes in
> fictional mathematical terms) are able to keep up with the storage
> problem, until all of human knowledge, for all time to come, is packed
> into one drawer. Of course, there is one wee problem. Retrieval is
> ultimately macroscopic. And so the indexes grow. And when they get
> miniaturized, the indexes to the indexes grow. And so on, which then
> leads to a higher-order index of the iterated indexes, and then so on
> again. All this is spelled out in some detail.
> 
> The neverending recursion, while threatening to grow to Ackermann-like
> proportions, is still manageable. But when a spontaneously generated
> G�delian self-reference is discovered in the indexing system, the
> whole lbry, and with it all of human civilization, collapses
> overnight. Absolutely hilarious.
>  
> 
> Originally appeared in the December 1961 issue of the magazine Fantasy
> and Science Fiction. Reprinted in Isaac Asimov and Janet Jeppson (eds)
> Laughing Space and Groff Conklin (ed) 17 Times Infinity.
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> Of course, the way you deal with a "spontaneously generated G�delian
> self-reference" is in the usual manner; you establish cybernetic rules
> to navigate around it (cybernetic does mean "helmsperson", after all).
> 
> So indexing is one problem.  Acronymdamnation is another.  It
> conserves storage at the cost of making what's stored indecipherable.
> 
> There is a computer programming style book by Kernigan and Plauger. 
> In it they analyze a published program (one intended for education)
> which states something like "We do the following for maximum
> efficiency".  The trouble is, the algorithm 's wrong.  K & P state
> "Obviously this programmer wanted to get his wrong answers just as
> quickly as possible."

Or perhaps she needed to get the correct wrong answers, for the Bored of
Ed.
-- 
The last temptation is the highest treason: 
To do the right thing for the wrong reason.  --T..S. Eliot

Walter
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308070322.a7cdaf1@posting.google.com>
·····@panix.com (Walter Bushell) wrote in message news:<····························@panix.com>...

> > There is a computer programming style book by Kernigan and Plauger. 
> > In it they analyze a published program (one intended for education)
> > which states something like "We do the following for maximum
> > efficiency".  The trouble is, the algorithm 's wrong.  K & P state
> > "Obviously this programmer wanted to get his wrong answers just as
> > quickly as possible."
> 
> Or perhaps she needed to get the correct wrong answers, for the Bored of
> Ed.

Darn. Slipped into gender non-neutrality, even after Hofstadter taught
us all so well in Metamagical Themas.  But actually it was in quoted
material, not my original text, and on top of that my copy of Kernigan
and Plauger is over in the trailer, not here in the ranch house where
we have our mighty mainframe (a Dell Dimension 4100), so I'm not even
exactly sure how the quote goes exactly, and furthermore I'm dating
myself (which I have to do because there's no wimmin out here, only a
bunch of cattle (I WON'T GO INTO THAT!!!!) by referring to such an
ancient text (why, most of the example are in.....FOE-TRAN!!! YUK
PHOOEY GAG) (AH, but one always has a warm place in their heart for
their first love no matter how disgustingly ugly she was), and
besides, Hofstadter states in GEB that any programming language which
allows for an INFONET loop is the most powerful language class
possible, it's just a matter of style and convenience which is
better), and finally, is your nckname "Ed"?????

Donsky Oatsky
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308071657.66d04dcd@posting.google.com>
·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote in message news:<···························@posting.google.com>...

> 
> Darn. Slipped into gender non-neutrality, even after Hofstadter taught
> us all so well in Metamagical Themas.  But actually it was in quoted
> material, not my original text, and on top of that my copy of Kernigan
> and Plauger is over in the trailer, not here in the ranch house where
> we have our mighty mainframe (a Dell Dimension 4100), so I'm not even
> exactly sure how the quote goes exactly, and furthermore I'm dating
> myself (which I have to do because there's no wimmin out here, only a
> bunch of cattle (I WON'T GO INTO THAT!!!!) by referring to such an
> ancient text (why, most of the example are in.....FOE-TRAN!!! YUK
> PHOOEY GAG) (AH, but one always has a warm place in their heart for
> their first love no matter how disgustingly ugly she was), and
> besides, Hofstadter states in GEB that any programming language which
> allows for an INFONET loop is the most powerful language class
> possible, it's just a matter of style and convenience which is
> better), and finally, is your nckname "Ed"?????
> 
> Donsky Oatsky

Who was that masked man????????
From: Charlton Wilbur
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <87wue1vvmu.fsf@mithril.chromatico.net>
Eric Sosman <···········@sun.com> writes:

> George William Herbert wrote:
> > 
> > Steve O'Hara-Smith  <······@eircom.net> wrote:
> > >·····@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
> > >RR> As a corollary, you might ask:
> > >RR> What is true intelligence?
> > >RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
> > >RR> intelligence.
> > >
> > >       When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
> > >Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
> > 
> > That's the borderline definition.
> > 
> > Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
> > long involved research project to answer.  I am going to need to be
> > allocated a significant amount of additional resources, funding,
> > more programmer assistants, and we're probably going to need at
> > least nine new facilities to house the physical and computational
> > research tools needed.  We can use telepresence and teleconferencing
> > so we can distribute the team and network out across the country,
> > and with nine locations we should be able to place one in each
> > district represented by a member of the House Appropriations Committee.
> > I have position statements prepared to present to the staff of both
> > sides of the aisle already, appropriately customized for their
> > and their representatives personal standpoints.  With any luck
> > we can keep the project budget below a billion dollars this next
> > year, but the answer is important.  Can you call my lobbyist and
> > ask him if he'd like to do lunch?"
> 
>     An obvious fake: no TLA's.

Yes; that's how we know the computer is intelligent.

>     ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym."  All the good TLA's have
> already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
> now underway.  Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
> retards progress but seems a touch disloyal.  What the industry
> needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")

ETLA = Extended Three-Letter Acronym.

HTH, HAND.

Charlton
From: PLZI
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <_EZVa.622$JW2.88@read3.inet.fi>
"Charlton Wilbur" <·······@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
···················@mithril.chromatico.net...
> Eric Sosman <···········@sun.com> writes:
>
> >     ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym."  All the good TLA's have
> > already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
> > now underway.  Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
> > retards progress but seems a touch disloyal.  What the industry
> > needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
>
> ETLA = Extended Three-Letter Acronym.

<partial recurring de-lurk>

Excuse me Sir, but I've always (like, ten to fifteen years or so, which, I
admit, is not that long at all) known that to be the XTLA (eXtended and so
forth), in the tradition of "but it looks soooo much cooler this way" and
XMS  (E was already used in EMS, "expanded").  In keeping with that
tradition, if I could be so bold and suggest that ETLA would stand for
"expanded three letter acronym", whereas XTLA would be "extended three
letter acronym"?

- PLZI
From: Charlie Gibbs
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <1515.342T2720T7306473@kltpzyxm.invalid>
In article <················@read3.inet.fi> ···············@plzi.com
(PLZI) writes:

> "Charlton Wilbur" <·······@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
> ···················@mithril.chromatico.net...
>
>> Eric Sosman <···········@sun.com> writes:
>>
>>>     ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym."  All the good TLA's have
>>> already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
>>> now underway.  Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
>>> retards progress but seems a touch disloyal.  What the industry
>>> needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
>>
>> ETLA = Extended Three-Letter Acronym.
>
> <partial recurring de-lurk>
>
> Excuse me Sir, but I've always (like, ten to fifteen years or so,
> which, I admit, is not that long at all) known that to be the XTLA
> (eXtended and so forth), in the tradition of "but it looks soooo
> much cooler this way" and XMS  (E was already used in EMS,
> "expanded").  In keeping with that tradition, if I could be
> so bold and suggest that ETLA would stand for "expanded three
> letter acronym", whereas XTLA would be "extended three letter
> acronym"?

Okay.  An XTLA would have four letters, while an ETLA could have
any number of letters by cycling the excess through the E at the
front.

Well, it worked for Intel...

--
/~\  ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
From: ··········@YahooGroups.Com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <REM-2003aug08-001@Yahoo.Com>
{{Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:09:15 -0400
  From: Eric Sosman <···········@sun.com>
  What the industry needs now is an FLA for "FLA."}}

AOFL (Acronym Of Four Letters)
If we ever exhaust that space, we can move to:
AOEFL (Acronym Of Exactly Five Letters)
AOSNFL (Acronym Of Six, Not Five, Letters)
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308090213.3e9b4581@posting.google.com>
··········@YahooGroups.Com wrote in message news:<·················@Yahoo.Com>...
> {{Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:09:15 -0400
>   From: Eric Sosman <···········@sun.com>
>   What the industry needs now is an FLA for "FLA."}}
> 
> AOFL (Acronym Of Four Letters)
> If we ever exhaust that space, we can move to:
> AOEFL (Acronym Of Exactly Five Letters)
> AOSNFL (Acronym Of Six, Not Five, Letters)


AHA! (Another Hated Acronym)

- Trevindor Khedron
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F3577C5.5556837C@freenet.de>
> AHA! (Another Hated Acronym)

> - Trevindor Khedron

hm (:  
intelligent is to set a link there to IGAU (I got an update) isn't it?

stefan 

ps:

SYS
TEM
FAI
LURE
From: Rick Russell
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg6bu7$asr$1@joe.rice.edu>
In article <···········@gw.retro.com>,
George William Herbert <········@gw.retro.com> wrote:
> Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
> long involved research project to answer.  I am going to need to be

And five graduate students. At least three of them Chinese.

Rick R.
From: Lawson English
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg8eec$l7u$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
"George William Herbert" <········@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
················@gw.retro.com...
> Steve O'Hara-Smith  <······@eircom.net> wrote:
> >·····@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
> >RR> As a corollary, you might ask:
> >RR> What is true intelligence?
> >RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
> >RR> intelligence.
> >
> > When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
> >Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
>
> That's the borderline definition.
>
> Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
> long involved research project to answer.

Actually, Alan Turing once suggested that a computer program that could play
Mornington Crescent and convince its opponents that it was another human,
would be an extremely good demonstration of an artificial intelligence -much
better than the traditional Turing Test. Don't ask me how to play MC. I
haven't a clue.

http://www.dunx.org/mc/webmc.html
It was Alan Turing who first posited the idea of an MC simulator.

Having been introduced to Mornington Crescent during his time at Bletchley
Park during the war (a cryptographer's mind being ideally suited to the more
subtle elements of strategy), Turing posited that it should be possible to
construct an automatic device to play the Game.

In fact, he later went further and suggested that if such a machine could
persuade a human opponent that it was, itself, a human player then that
device could be considered intelligent. He viewed this exercise as a more
stringent corollary to the standard Turing Test, mere conversation being
relatively trivial to synthesise.

Despite this early speculation, it is only recently that MC simulators (or
'sims') have been within the reach of technology. Sim games have become a
regular feature at the sites mentioned above, and offer a fruitful field of
exploration for the ambitious programmer.

Even with this furious activity, Turing's dream of an entirely synthetic MC
player which is capable of playing undetected against a human opponent is a
long way away.




-- 
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307301028.7941d792@posting.google.com>
"Lawson English" <········@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<············@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "George William Herbert" <········@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
> ················@gw.retro.com...
> > Steve O'Hara-Smith  <······@eircom.net> wrote:
> > >·····@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
> > >RR> As a corollary, you might ask:
> > >RR> What is true intelligence?
> > >RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
> > >RR> intelligence.
> > >
> > > When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
> > >Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
> >
> > That's the borderline definition.
> >
> > Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
> > long involved research project to answer.
> 
> Actually, Alan Turing once suggested that a computer program that could play
> Mornington Crescent and convince its opponents that it was another human,
> would be an extremely good demonstration of an artificial intelligence -much
> better than the traditional Turing Test. Don't ask me how to play MC. I
> haven't a clue.
> 
> http://www.dunx.org/mc/webmc.html
> It was Alan Turing who first posited the idea of an MC simulator.
> 
> Having been introduced to Mornington Crescent during his time at Bletchley
> Park during the war (a cryptographer's mind being ideally suited to the more
> subtle elements of strategy), Turing posited that it should be possible to
> construct an automatic device to play the Game.
> 
> In fact, he later went further and suggested that if such a machine could
> persuade a human opponent that it was, itself, a human player then that
> device could be considered intelligent. He viewed this exercise as a more
> stringent corollary to the standard Turing Test, mere conversation being
> relatively trivial to synthesise.
> 
> Despite this early speculation, it is only recently that MC simulators (or
> 'sims') have been within the reach of technology. Sim games have become a
> regular feature at the sites mentioned above, and offer a fruitful field of
> exploration for the ambitious programmer.
> 
> Even with this furious activity, Turing's dream of an entirely synthetic MC
> player which is capable of playing undetected against a human opponent is a
> long way away.


Lordy, we certainly are two cultures separated by a common language. 
Have never heard of MC here in Texas, but then, we're just not very
sofistikated here in cattle country.

Douglas Hofstadter has dealt with the adequacies/inadequacies of the
Turing Test.  One point he emphasizes (I believe it's in Metamagical
Themas) is that the Turing Test is not static.  It shows it true power
by examining in as fine a detail as one wishes.  In fact, you don't
even have to run a formal Turing Test.  You just observe
peoples'/machines' output.   IMHO, it certainly is a requirement that
the entity being tested for intelligence  passes the "full-blown" TT
for general knowledge, not just simulate a game.  The exception - one
cannot expect anyone or thing to possess full knowledge of the General
System, as local areas of knowledge may always be missed by anyone.  I
would be interested to know exactly what Turing had to say instead of
the paraphrase on the above website since it seems out of character
for him.  The General TT - that is, general observation of behavior at
all levels of detail, then forming opinions based on that, is what
advances knowledge in general.
From: Peter Corlett
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg8nah$226$1@mooli.org.uk>
Lawson English <········@mindspring.com> wrote:
[...]
> Actually, Alan Turing once suggested that a computer program that could
> play Mornington Crescent and convince its opponents that it was another
> human, would be an extremely good demonstration of an artificial
> intelligence - much better than the traditional Turing Test. Don't ask me
> how to play MC.

I'm sure the lovely Samantha will be delighted to get out her equipment and
give you a hand.

> I haven't a clue.

ITYM "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue". This might help:

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/clue.shtml

> http://www.dunx.org/mc/webmc.html
> It was Alan Turing who first posited the idea of an MC simulator.

Interesting, but I'm not convinced of its veracity. Do you have a better
cite? The nature of Mornington Crescent means that some historical records
may well be fabricated for effect.

I had assumed that MC had been invented by the ISIHAC team.
From: Pete Fenelon
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <vifugdrepgo69e@corp.supernews.com>
In alt.folklore.computers Peter Corlett <·····@mooli.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> I had assumed that MC had been invented by the ISIHAC team.
> 

No, they started playing a declassified version of it some time after
WW2. The history of MC during the War is largely untold and somewhat
conjectural, but Turing's work on straddle-equivalency combined
with Newman's rigorous analysis of selbstecker invariant attacks
on mutual knip positions of course revolutionised the game in the
40s. The British Championship game of 1943 (Field Marshal Alanbrooke
vs Alan Turing vs Humph, with Victor Sylvester refereeing) took six
weeks and arguably delayed the invasion of Sicily.

Prior to the Frank Beck Diagram of the 1930s, of course, the game was 
considerably simpler, as only geographical rather than logical
constraints had to be taken into account.

pete
-- 
····@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
From: Joseph Hertzlinger
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgjgso$m7a$2@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>
On 29 Jul 2003 10:20:36 -0700, George William Herbert
<········@gw.retro.com> wrote:

> Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take
> a long involved research project to answer.  I am going to need to
> be allocated a significant amount of additional resources, funding,
> more programmer assistants, and we're probably going to need at
> least nine new facilities to house the physical and computational
> research tools needed.  We can use telepresence and teleconferencing
> so we can distribute the team and network out across the country,
> and with nine locations we should be able to place one in each
> district represented by a member of the House Appropriations
> Committee.  I have position statements prepared to present to the
> staff of both sides of the aisle already, appropriately customized
> for their and their representatives personal standpoints.  With any
> luck we can keep the project budget below a billion dollars this
> next year, but the answer is important.  Can you call my lobbyist
> and ask him if he'd like to do lunch?"
>
> And then we'll be doomed.

As the good book says: "Always make sure the first piece of expert
advice is to hire more experts." (Genesis 41:33)

-- 
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307291945.6c160714@posting.google.com>
Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<······························@eircom.net>...
> 
> 	When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
> Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.

That's also known as "free enterprise" and "capitalism".
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307291943.377b20ac@posting.google.com>
·····@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote in message news:<············@joe.rice.edu>...
> In article <························@twister1.libero.it>,
> Dave <·········@iol.it> wrote:
> > Which are the differences between  "artificial intelligence" and "true
> > intelligence" ?
> > Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
> 
> As a corollary, you might ask: 
> 
> What is true intelligence? 
> 
> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
> intelligence. 
> 
> Rick R.

True. As Douglas R. Hofstadter has stated, intelligence can't be
boxed; it will spill out of any definition given to it.
From: Steven M. Haflich
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F2746B2.9050502@alum.mit.edu>
Don Stockbauer wrote:

> True. As Douglas R. Hofstadter has stated, intelligence can't be
> boxed; it will spill out of any definition given to it.

How about:

   Intelligence is that which will spill out of any definition
   given to it.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307300622.37dfa418@posting.google.com>
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<················@alum.mit.edu>...
> Don Stockbauer wrote:
> 
> > True. As Douglas R. Hofstadter has stated, intelligence can't be
> > boxed; it will spill out of any definition given to it.
> 
> How about:
> 
>    Intelligence is that which will spill out of any definition
>    given to it.

There are other concepts Hofstadter mentions, such as beauty and
truth, which also cannot be boxed, thus that definition isn't adequate
(of course, the paradox is if we accept all this, whatever definition
we try will be inadequate, too "boxed").  Perhaps all these unboxable
concepts are subsystems of the intelligence system, so in that sense
you would be right.  But all that is the spirit of Hofstadter.  A
complex field of inquiry.  But then, complexity theory is constantly
being refined, so perhaps someday a better handle will be put on it
all.
From: Robert J. Kolker
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <rYNVa.19262$YN5.18879@sccrnsc01>
Steven M. Haflich wrote:

> How about:
> 
>   Intelligence is that which will spill out of any definition
>   given to it.

No good. You have not eliminated the possibility that something other 
than intelligence will also spill out of any definition given to it.

Bob Kolker
From: Charlie Gibbs
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <917.341T664T6194073@kltpzyxm.invalid>
In article <·····················@sccrnsc01> ·········@comcast.net
(Robert J. Kolker) writes:

>Steven M. Haflich wrote:
>
>> How about:
>>
>>   Intelligence is that which will spill out of any definition
>>   given to it.
>
>No good. You have not eliminated the possibility that something other
>than intelligence will also spill out of any definition given to it.

Good point.  Based on what's walking around these days (your average
PHB, for instance), it's obvious that many of the things that spill
out aren't intelligent.  I suppose you could say that intelligence is
one of many things that spill out, but that's not really a workable
definition, is it?  Sigh...

--
/~\  ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
From: Mel Wilson
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <rYAK/ks/K/0R089yn@the-wire.com>
In article <·····················@sccrnsc01>,
"Robert J. Kolker" <·········@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>Steven M. Haflich wrote:
>
>> How about:
>>
>>   Intelligence is that which will spill out of any definition
>>   given to it.
>
>No good. You have not eliminated the possibility that something other
>than intelligence will also spill out of any definition given to it.

Hmm.  An intelligent remark.

        Regards.        Mel.
From: Peter Ashford
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <%RHVa.96870$JA5.2136135@news.xtra.co.nz>
Steven M. Haflich wrote:

> Don Stockbauer wrote:
> 
>> True. As Douglas R. Hofstadter has stated, intelligence can't be
>> boxed; it will spill out of any definition given to it.
> 
> 
> How about:
> 
>   Intelligence is that which will spill out of any definition
>   given to it.
> 

So... intelligence is Art?
From: pete kirkham
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3f2596ba$0$11383$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>
Dave wrote:
> Hi, I'm newbie.
> Which are the differences between  "artificial intelligence" and "true
> intelligence" ?
> Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
> thanks
> 
> greetings.
> Dave

AI is the hope that a computer can do something that only a human can do.

Software engineering is when it does it.




Pete
From: Pete Fenelon
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <vifumghgonje6@corp.supernews.com>
In alt.folklore.computers pete kirkham <············@cafemosaic.co.uk> wrote:
> AI is the hope that a computer can do something that only a human can do.
> 
> Software engineering is when it does it.
> 

I'd revise that to "software engineering is the hope that a computer can
someday do something.... anything... please?" ;)

pete
-- 
····@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
From: Donald L Ferrt
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <b9eb3efe.0307291133.2db02b71@posting.google.com>
"Dave" <·········@iol.it> wrote in message news:<························@twister1.libero.it>...
> "winter" <······@winter.winter> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:c%dVa.10672
> >
> > sentient machines, if they are ever developed,
> > will not have "artifical intellegence", theirs
> > will be true intellegence.
> >
> 
> Hi, I'm newbie.
> Which are the differences between  "artificial intelligence" and "true
> intelligence" ?
> Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
> thanks
> 
> greetings.
> Dave

The difference between Aliens knowing that the Earth is populated and
Aliens actually coming to the earth!
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307291942.7faafa3@posting.google.com>
"Dave" <·········@iol.it> wrote in message news:<························@twister1.libero.it>...
> "winter" <······@winter.winter> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:c%dVa.10672
> >
> > sentient machines, if they are ever developed,
> > will not have "artifical intellegence", theirs
> > will be true intellegence.
> >
> 
> Hi, I'm newbie.
> Which are the differences between  "artificial intelligence" and "true
> intelligence" ?
> Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
> thanks
> 
> greetings.
> Dave

There is only intelligence.
As systems grow, intelligence grows.
The next step up is the Earth as a living integrated system.
Then we have super-intelligence.
No artificial sweeteners, the real McCoy.
IMIO (= an AHA).
From: Charlie Gibbs
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <577.341T2519T6305592@kltpzyxm.invalid>
In article <···························@posting.google.com>
·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:

>There is only intelligence.
>As systems grow, intelligence grows.

Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:

    The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
    The population is increasing.

--
/~\  ······@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307301945.35b58f96@posting.google.com>
"Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:<····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>...
> In article <···························@posting.google.com>
> ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
> 
> >There is only intelligence.
> >As systems grow, intelligence grows.
> 
> Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
> 
>     The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>     The population is increasing.

Then we work towards a system which elminates bureaucracies as
superfluous: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
And the saying is real nice, the only problem is that it's false. 
Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
to synergism.  Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
automatically fall for it.
From: Steve O'Hara-Smith
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <20030731080104.3118dabb.steveo@eircom.net>
On 30 Jul 2003 20:45:12 -0700
·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:

DS> Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
DS> are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due

	Hmm - a fact ? You have experimental evidence ?

DS> to synergism.  Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
DS> automatically fall for it.

	Yes it is.

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |     Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins.                |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |  licenses available - see:
                                            |   http://www.sohara.org/
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307311528.1abd7fd0@posting.google.com>
Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<······························@eircom.net>...
> On 30 Jul 2003 20:45:12 -0700
> ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> 
> DS> Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
> DS> are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
> 
> 	Hmm - a fact ? You have experimental evidence ?
> 
> DS> to synergism.  Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
> DS> automatically fall for it.
> 
> 	Yes it is.

No, haven't run any experiments, just observations.  It's a little
hard for a single neuron to analyze the brain it's within, which is
the relative position of humnas now in a global network.  The basic
analogy is:

Neurons are to a human brain as
Humans/machines/the entire ecology of Earth is to the Global Brain

If the emergent scaling up factor holds for the second half of that,
the ultimate power of the result would be unimaginable.

So no, not declaring a fact.  In fact, the delicious, Hofstadterian
paradox of it all is that since each of us is such a tiny cell of the
whole we shall very likely never realize what's been formed.

"Mongo is but a pawn in the great game of life."
From: Jeff Massung
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <vil0tlpk8hen64@corp.supernews.com>
Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> wrote in 
···································@eircom.net:

> On 30 Jul 2003 20:45:12 -0700
> ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> 
> DS> Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
> DS> are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
> 

Sounds like the Borg to me... and I'm not ready to be assimilated :)

-- 
Best regards,
 Jeff                          ··········@mfire.com
                               http://www.simforth.com
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308012003.753668e4@posting.google.com>
Jeff Massung <···@NOSPAM.mfire.com> wrote in message news:<··············@corp.supernews.com>...
> Steve O'Hara-Smith <······@eircom.net> wrote in 
> ···································@eircom.net:
> 
> > On 30 Jul 2003 20:45:12 -0700
> > ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> > 
> > DS> Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
> > DS> are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
> > 
> 
> Sounds like the Borg to me... and I'm not ready to be assimilated :)

No need to be.  Communication links between nodes (people and
machines) work just as well.  SciFi is real mind poison.
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgauml$8ma$4@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
   ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>"Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:<····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>...
>> In article <···························@posting.google.com>
>> ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>> 
>> >There is only intelligence.
>> >As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>> 
>> Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
>> 
>>     The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>>     The population is increasing.
>
>Then we work towards a system which elminates bureaucracies as
>superfluous: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
>And the saying is real nice, the only problem is that it's false. 
>Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
>are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
>to synergism.

I disagree.  Take a good look.  

> ...  Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
>automatically fall for it.

Exactly.  Now apply that piece of wisdom to yourself and what
you've "heard" about AI.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307311035.52315d50@posting.google.com>
·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
>    ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> >"Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
>  news:<····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>...
> >> In article <···························@posting.google.com>
> >> ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
> >> 
> >> >There is only intelligence.
> >> >As systems grow, intelligence grows.
> >> 
> >> Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
> >> 
> >>     The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
> >>     The population is increasing.
> >
> >Then we work towards a system which elminates bureaucracies as
> >superfluous: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
> >And the saying is real nice, the only problem is that it's false. 
> >Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
> >are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
> >to synergism.
> 
> I disagree.  Take a good look.  

I've taken a good look.  I see a Planetary Brain developing.  If you
prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
option.
> 
> > ...  Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
> >automatically fall for it.
> 
> Exactly.  Now apply that piece of wisdom to yourself and what
> you've "heard" about AI.

Why would I want to deal with false saying????  Let's go with 2 + 2 =
5 first.
>
From: Joseph Hertzlinger
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgjgvs$m7a$3@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>
On 31 Jul 2003 11:35:22 -0700, Don Stockbauer
<·············@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I've taken a good look.  I see a Planetary Brain developing.  If you
> prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
> option.

Who gets to be the frontal lobes?

-- 
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308031440.19c12a7c@posting.google.com>
Joseph Hertzlinger <········@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<············@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> On 31 Jul 2003 11:35:22 -0700, Don Stockbauer
> <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I've taken a good look.  I see a Planetary Brain developing.  If you
> > prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
> > option.
> 
> Who gets to be the frontal lobes?

I suppose our current evolutionary rules would reign; those people who
show initiative and intelligence and get moving with what they think
needs to be done.  Earning it, in other words.

The "frontal lobes" would be millions of people.  There's probably
less chance of one or a few people taking over the Earth than ever
before in history.

Actually, no one knows.  It's pretty much a "we fleas are just going
to have to see where the dog takes us."  I make no doctrinaire claims,
for that only leads to a shouting match.
From: Brian Inglis
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <j1srivsva5giu5042hfi525rlork6c1t76@4ax.com>
On 3 Aug 2003 15:40:54 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers,
·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:

>Joseph Hertzlinger <········@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<············@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> On 31 Jul 2003 11:35:22 -0700, Don Stockbauer
>> <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > I've taken a good look.  I see a Planetary Brain developing.  If you
>> > prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
>> > option.
>> 
>> Who gets to be the frontal lobes?
>
>I suppose our current evolutionary rules would reign; those people who
>show initiative and intelligence and get moving with what they think
>needs to be done.  Earning it, in other words.
>
>The "frontal lobes" would be millions of people.  There's probably
>less chance of one or a few people taking over the Earth than ever
>before in history.

Been watching the news for the last couple of years? 

>Actually, no one knows.  It's pretty much a "we fleas are just going
>to have to see where the dog takes us."  I make no doctrinaire claims,
>for that only leads to a shouting match.

A lot of fleas seem to jump between DC and Texas these days. 

Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada
-- 
············@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308040319.6fb2dcff@posting.google.com>
Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...
> On 3 Aug 2003 15:40:54 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers,
> ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> 
> >Joseph Hertzlinger <········@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<············@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >> On 31 Jul 2003 11:35:22 -0700, Don Stockbauer
> >> <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > I've taken a good look.  I see a Planetary Brain developing.  If you
> >> > prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
> >> > option.
> >> 
> >> Who gets to be the frontal lobes?
> >
> >I suppose our current evolutionary rules would reign; those people who
> >show initiative and intelligence and get moving with what they think
> >needs to be done.  Earning it, in other words.
> >
> >The "frontal lobes" would be millions of people.  There's probably
> >less chance of one or a few people taking over the Earth than ever
> >before in history.
> 
> Been watching the news for the last couple of years? 

Yeah, I have, too much in fact.  Nobody said we're there. 
Everything's still in am embryonic state. And of couse, little babies
do die of various causes, so no one's saying we're out of the woods
yet.  One problem with all this is that as the System continues to
explode with higher and higher levels of complexity about all you can
do as far as prediction are some very general guesses.
> 
> >Actually, no one knows.  It's pretty much a "we fleas are just going
> >to have to see where the dog takes us."  I make no doctrinaire claims,
> >for that only leads to a shouting match.
> 
> A lot of fleas seem to jump between DC and Texas these days. 
> 

I don't know why that is.  Maybe it's something about being raised on
a ranch in Texas that gives one certain attributes, some good, some
bad.  The rest of the Earth seems to just stand back, open-mouthed. 
Like farting in church, I suppose.  Whale, sumbody's gotta do
sumthin', I suppose.  I just work here.

Don Stockbauer
·············@hotmail.com  (courtesy Mr. Billions)
From: Brian Inglis
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <luciivgcnu5qm4nlrfmpbmi8u2scisvh0q@4ax.com>
On 30 Jul 2003 20:45:12 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers,
·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:

>"Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:<····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>...
>> In article <···························@posting.google.com>
>> ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>> 
>> >There is only intelligence.
>> >As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>> 
>> Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
>> 
>>     The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>>     The population is increasing.
>
>Then we work towards a system which elminates bureaucracies as
>superfluous: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
>And the saying is real nice, the only problem is that it's false. 
>Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
>are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
>to synergism.  Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
>automatically fall for it.

Synergism stops somewhere short of ten people and communication
problems take over. 

Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada
-- 
············@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgauje$8ma$3@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
   "Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <···························@posting.google.com>
>·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>
>>There is only intelligence.
>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>
>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
>
>    The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>    The population is increasing.

My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
the less intelligent it can be.  Now look at computers systems
getting organized by a network.  I haven't spent much time
applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.

I still want to know why anybody would want a computer to
think like a human.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Bill Snyder
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <2maiiv4282f8rafvtc0o2d0sahmfpruikr@4ax.com>
On Thu, 31 Jul 03 10:27:57 GMT, ·········@aol.com wrote:

>In article <····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
>   "Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <···························@posting.google.com>
>>·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>>
>>>There is only intelligence.
>>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>>
>>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
>>
>>    The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>>    The population is increasing.
>
>My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
>the less intelligent it can be. 

Then according to your hypothesis, your brain cannot possibly be
smarter than an individual neuron is?

(Must . . . suppress . . .joke . . .)

-- 
Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307311054.74bdfc62@posting.google.com>
Bill Snyder <·······@airmail.net> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...

>In article <····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
>   "Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <···························@posting.google.com>
>>·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>>
>>>There is only intelligence.
>>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>>
>>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
>>
>>    The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>>    The population is increasing.
>
>My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
>the less intelligent it can be. 

Bill, you stole my post.  Anyone promoting the view that the stupidest
element rules has not thought of the example you give.

It's hard to overcome cynicism and pessimism and a negative outlook. 
They're their own punishment.  They trap one in a local well, while
the optimists can view the global structure.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0307312031.7cc08b7f@posting.google.com>
> >
> >My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> >of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
> >the less intelligent it can be. 
> 

A follow up:  in a chain, the total stength is the strength of the
weakest link.  In a network, that is not true.  A single "weak" node
has little effect on the entirety.  The network can always find paths
around it if it is of any size at all.
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgdjte$i7q$7@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
   ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>> >
>> >My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>> >of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
>> >the less intelligent it can be. 
>> 
>
>A follow up:  in a chain, the total stength is the strength of the
>weakest link.  In a network, that is not true.  A single "weak" node
>has little effect on the entirety.  The network can always find paths
>around it if it is of any size at all.

Then it's not a functional group, is it?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308010939.2be7dabd@posting.google.com>
·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
>    ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> >> >of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
> >> >the less intelligent it can be. 
> >> 
> >
> >A follow up:  in a chain, the total stength is the strength of the
> >weakest link.  In a network, that is not true.  A single "weak" node
> >has little effect on the entirety.  The network can always find paths
> >around it if it is of any size at all.
> 
> Then it's not a functional group, is it?
> 
> /BAH
> 
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

If the network is finding the alternate paths and getting it's job
done, then yes, it is a functional group.  Just look at how the
telephone system will go 15 times around the world and then through a
comsat to earn your dime.

/BAHHUMBUG

Add infinity for Cantor's email address in hell.
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgg9ro$kon$3@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
   ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
>>    ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>> >> >of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
>> >> >the less intelligent it can be. 
>> >> 
>> >
>> >A follow up:  in a chain, the total stength is the strength of the
>> >weakest link.  In a network, that is not true.  A single "weak" node
>> >has little effect on the entirety.  The network can always find paths
>> >around it if it is of any size at all.
>> 
>> Then it's not a functional group, is it?

>If the network is finding the alternate paths and getting it's job
>done, 

That's an awful big if.  It's a limited if, too.  Finding alternate
pathways is the least of the functionality (remember what we're
talking about and stop sluing out of the claim).


> ..then yes, it is a functional group.  Just look at how the
>telephone system will go 15 times around the world and then through a
>comsat to earn your dime.

I thought we were talking about AI and the knowledge capicity on
the net, not fucking routing to access it.

>
>/BAHHUMBUG

GAG!  Another nut.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308020829.5c92be6d@posting.google.com>
·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
>    ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> >·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
> >>    ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> >> >> >of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
> >> >> >the less intelligent it can be. 
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> >A follow up:  in a chain, the total stength is the strength of the
> >> >weakest link.  In a network, that is not true.  A single "weak" node
> >> >has little effect on the entirety.  The network can always find paths
> >> >around it if it is of any size at all.
> >> 
> >> Then it's not a functional group, is it?
>  
> >If the network is finding the alternate paths and getting it's job
> >done, 
> 
> That's an awful big if.  It's a limited if, too.  Finding alternate
> pathways is the least of the functionality (remember what we're
> talking about and stop sluing out of the claim).
> 
> 
> > ..then yes, it is a functional group.  Just look at how the
> >telephone system will go 15 times around the world and then through a
> >comsat to earn your dime.
> 
> I thought we were talking about AI and the knowledge capicity on
> the net, not fucking routing to access it.
> 
> >
> >/BAHHUMBUG
> 
> GAG!  Another nut.
> 
> /BAH
> 
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Have a nice day.
From: Larry Elmore
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <e3cXa.41040$Vt6.14709@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>
·········@aol.com wrote:
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
>    ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:

>>/BAHHUMBUG
> 
> 
> GAG!  Another nut.

If that's a persistent problem, I think you're doing it wrong...   :)
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgllpe$sj0$7@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <·····················@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
   Larry Elmore <········@comcast.net> wrote:
>·········@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
>>    ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>
>>>/BAHHUMBUG
>> 
>> 
>> GAG!  Another nut.
>
>If that's a persistent problem, I think you're doing it wrong...   :)
>
Do you really want me to touch this line?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bhdhce$1c46$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>
In article <············@bob.news.rcn.net>,  <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <·····················@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
>   Larry Elmore <········@comcast.net> wrote:
>>·········@aol.com wrote:

>>>>/BAHHUMBUG

>>> GAG!  Another nut.

>>If that's a persistent problem, I think you're doing it wrong...   :)

>Do you really want me to touch this line?

/me shudders at the thought

hawk

-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics    /"\   ASCII ribbon campaign
·······@psu.edu  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700      \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of              X    and postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.           / \   
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bhdk4c$osm$2@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <·············@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>,
   ····@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:
>In article <············@bob.news.rcn.net>,  <·········@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <·····················@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
>>   Larry Elmore <········@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>>>/BAHHUMBUG
>
>>>> GAG!  Another nut.
>
>>>If that's a persistent problem, I think you're doing it wrong...   :)
>
>>Do you really want me to touch this line?
>
>/me shudders at the thought

<grin>  I try to limit myself to one a month.....zinger, that is.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Eternal Vigilance
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F386BA3.8B598FCA@oneeye.com>
Maybe its some philosophical angle --    Yoda's "you either do or do not" =  transistor on/off .....

(of course thats wisdom not intelligence -- something many people dont understand arfe different things)




"The Universe doubled in complexity the moment the human brain became sentient"  -- Hey, I said that.......





Hey Mr neuron, do this calculus problem,  then show me how to start a fire.........



Well what do we expect when Science Fantasy is 100X more common than Science Fiction......

(And I wont even mention the crap the teach in public schools these days.....)














Don Stockbauer wrote:

> Bill Snyder <·······@airmail.net> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...
>
> >In article <····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
> >   "Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> >>In article <···························@posting.google.com>
> >>·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
> >>
> >>>There is only intelligence.
> >>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
> >>
> >>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
> >>
> >>    The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
> >>    The population is increasing.
> >
> >My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> >of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
> >the less intelligent it can be.
>
> Bill, you stole my post.  Anyone promoting the view that the stupidest
> element rules has not thought of the example you give.
>
> It's hard to overcome cynicism and pessimism and a negative outlook.
> They're their own punishment.  They trap one in a local well, while
> the optimists can view the global structure.
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgdjr7$i7q$6@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
   Bill Snyder <·······@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 03 10:27:57 GMT, ·········@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <····················@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
>>   "Charlie Gibbs" <······@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>In article <···························@posting.google.com>
>>>·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>>>
>>>>There is only intelligence.
>>>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>>>
>>>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't.  I still like that saying:
>>>
>>>    The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>>>    The population is increasing.
>>
>>My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>>of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
>>the less intelligent it can be. 
>
>Then according to your hypothesis, your brain cannot possibly be
>smarter than an individual neuron is?

Of course.

>
>(Must . . . suppress . . .joke . . .)

I have no idea what it could be.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <ubrvaakuy.fsf@earthlink.net>
·········@aol.com writes:
> My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
> the less intelligent it can be.  Now look at computers systems
> getting organized by a network.  I haven't spent much time
> applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.

the joke about committees ... rather than being
sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
or even something like
max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
it is more like
min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
or even
min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n

where committee intelligence approaches zero

-- 
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ 
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <r846ke0e.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> writes:


> the joke about committees ... rather than being
> sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> or even something like
> max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
> it is more like
> min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
> or even
> min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
>
> where committee intelligence approaches zero

I thought they added like resistors:

    sum (IQn)
-----------------
  product (IQn)
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgdjoi$i7q$5@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <·············@earthlink.net>,
   Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>·········@aol.com writes:
>> My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>> of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
>> the less intelligent it can be.  Now look at computers systems
>> getting organized by a network.  I haven't spent much time
>> applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
>
>the joke about committees ... rather than being
>sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
>or even something like
>max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
>sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
>it is more like
>min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
>or even
>min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
>
>where committee intelligence approaches zero

<grin>  I never saw it in a formula before now.  
But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
as it's slowest piece of gear.  A really efficient CPU
will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
to catch up.  School rooms are a blatent example of this.

/BAH



Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308012011.47c4161b@posting.google.com>
·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> In article <·············@earthlink.net>,
>    Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
> >·········@aol.com writes:
> >> My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> >> of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
> >> the less intelligent it can be.  Now look at computers systems
> >> getting organized by a network.  I haven't spent much time
> >> applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
> >
> >the joke about committees ... rather than being
> >sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> >or even something like
> >max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> >sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
> >it is more like
> >min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
> >or even
> >min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
> >
> >where committee intelligence approaches zero
> 
> <grin>  I never saw it in a formula before now.  
> But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
> as it's slowest piece of gear.  A really efficient CPU
> will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
> to catch up.  School rooms are a blatent example of this.
> 

This is correct when describing a single system.  However, when a
metasystem transition ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html ) occurs,
not all systems within it need be superstars.  A complex mixute of
efficiency and inefficiency is fine.  Thus this "a system is no better
than it's weakest subsystem" might sound logical but it fails due to
the fact that a network (metasystem) follows transcendent rules.
From: Brian Inglis
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <6blmivgdjre9tle8lhslvvmus6qkuqdupv@4ax.com>
On 1 Aug 2003 21:11:37 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers,
·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:

>·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> In article <·············@earthlink.net>,
>>    Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>> >·········@aol.com writes:
>> >> My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>> >> of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
>> >> the less intelligent it can be.  Now look at computers systems
>> >> getting organized by a network.  I haven't spent much time
>> >> applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
>> >
>> >the joke about committees ... rather than being
>> >sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
>> >or even something like
>> >max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
>> >sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
>> >it is more like
>> >min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
>> >or even
>> >min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
>> >
>> >where committee intelligence approaches zero
>> 
>> <grin>  I never saw it in a formula before now.  
>> But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
>> as it's slowest piece of gear.  A really efficient CPU
>> will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
>> to catch up.  School rooms are a blatent example of this.
>> 
>
>This is correct when describing a single system.  However, when a
>metasystem transition ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html ) occurs,
>not all systems within it need be superstars.  A complex mixute of
>efficiency and inefficiency is fine.  Thus this "a system is no better
>than it's weakest subsystem" might sound logical but it fails due to
>the fact that a network (metasystem) follows transcendent rules.

Transcendent only in the abilities of systems and networks to
fail in ways that are difficult to predict, especially if there
are indirect dependencies such as loops, otherwise systems and
networks obey queueing theory when constrained, and Kirchoff's
laws when in a steady state. 

Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada
-- 
············@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308020721.690eaf09@posting.google.com>
Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...

> >> 
> >> <grin>  I never saw it in a formula before now.  
> >> But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
> >> as it's slowest piece of gear.  A really efficient CPU
> >> will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
> >> to catch up.  School rooms are a blatent example of this.
> >> 
> >
> >This is correct when describing a single system.  However, when a
> >metasystem transition ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html ) occurs,
> >not all systems within it need be superstars.  A complex mixute of
> >efficiency and inefficiency is fine.  Thus this "a system is no better
> >than it's weakest subsystem" might sound logical but it fails due to
> >the fact that a network (metasystem) follows transcendent rules.
> 
> Transcendent only in the abilities of systems and networks to
> fail in ways that are difficult to predict, especially if there
> are indirect dependencies such as loops, otherwise systems and
> networks obey queueing theory when constrained, and Kirchoff's
> laws when in a steady state. 
> 
> Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada

The human brain is a network and a system and shows emergent,
transcendent phenomena such as consciousness, feelings, deep thought,
love, and the will to survive and prosper which are all far beyond
what is stated in the immediately previous (reductionistic) paragraph.
From: Brian Inglis
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <qg0oivo98jb7fr1hgmjcffk82l4s2cpmlh@4ax.com>
On 2 Aug 2003 08:21:04 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers,
·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:

>Brian Inglis <············@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> 
>> >> <grin>  I never saw it in a formula before now.  
>> >> But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
>> >> as it's slowest piece of gear.  A really efficient CPU
>> >> will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
>> >> to catch up.  School rooms are a blatent example of this.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >This is correct when describing a single system.  However, when a
>> >metasystem transition ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html ) occurs,
>> >not all systems within it need be superstars.  A complex mixute of
>> >efficiency and inefficiency is fine.  Thus this "a system is no better
>> >than it's weakest subsystem" might sound logical but it fails due to
>> >the fact that a network (metasystem) follows transcendent rules.
>> 
>> Transcendent only in the abilities of systems and networks to
>> fail in ways that are difficult to predict, especially if there
>> are indirect dependencies such as loops, otherwise systems and
>> networks obey queueing theory when constrained, and Kirchoff's
>> laws when in a steady state. 
>> 
>> Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>
>The human brain is a network and a system and shows emergent,
>transcendent phenomena such as consciousness, feelings, deep thought,
>love, and the will to survive and prosper which are all far beyond
>what is stated in the immediately previous (reductionistic) paragraph.

Yeah, no one really understands what's behind anything but the
basic instinctual responses, other than, perhaps, chemical
imbalances.

Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada
-- 
············@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgg9kf$kon$2@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
   ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> In article <·············@earthlink.net>,
>>    Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
>> >·········@aol.com writes:
>> >> My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>> >> of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
>> >> the less intelligent it can be.  Now look at computers systems
>> >> getting organized by a network.  I haven't spent much time
>> >> applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
>> >
>> >the joke about committees ... rather than being
>> >sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
>> >or even something like
>> >max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
>> >sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
>> >it is more like
>> >min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
>> >or even
>> >min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
>> >
>> >where committee intelligence approaches zero
>> 
>> <grin>  I never saw it in a formula before now.  
>> But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
>> as it's slowest piece of gear.  A really efficient CPU
>> will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
>> to catch up.  School rooms are a blatent example of this.
>> 
>
>This is correct when describing a single system.  However, when a
>metasystem transition ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html ) occurs,
>not all systems within it need be superstars.  A complex mixute of
>efficiency and inefficiency is fine.  Thus this "a system is no better
>than it's weakest subsystem" might sound logical but it fails due to
>the fact that a network (metasystem) follows transcendent rules.

Wrong.  You cannot predict when the slow is going to be crucial
to function of the whole.  Not only that, you can't be sure
about which item is going to clog the bit flow.

If you want to learn about specifics, just read back issues of
comp.risks.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Don Stockbauer
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <4e315347.0308020830.3e079dfb@posting.google.com>
·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
>    ·············@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> >·········@aol.com wrote in message news:<············@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >> In article <·············@earthlink.net>,
> >>    Anne & Lynn Wheeler <····@garlic.com> wrote:
> >> >·········@aol.com writes:
> >> >> My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> >> >> of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
> >> >> the less intelligent it can be.  Now look at computers systems
> >> >> getting organized by a network.  I haven't spent much time
> >> >> applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
> >> >
> >> >the joke about committees ... rather than being
> >> >sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> >> >or even something like
> >> >max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> >> >sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
> >> >it is more like
> >> >min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
> >> >or even
> >> >min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
> >> >
> >> >where committee intelligence approaches zero
> >> 
> >> <grin>  I never saw it in a formula before now.  
> >> But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
> >> as it's slowest piece of gear.  A really efficient CPU
> >> will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
> >> to catch up.  School rooms are a blatent example of this.
> >> 
> >
> >This is correct when describing a single system.  However, when a
> >metasystem transition ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html ) occurs,
> >not all systems within it need be superstars.  A complex mixute of
> >efficiency and inefficiency is fine.  Thus this "a system is no better
> >than it's weakest subsystem" might sound logical but it fails due to
> >the fact that a network (metasystem) follows transcendent rules.
> 
> Wrong.  You cannot predict when the slow is going to be crucial
> to function of the whole.  Not only that, you can't be sure
> about which item is going to clog the bit flow.
> 
> If you want to learn about specifics, just read back issues of
> comp.risks.
> 
> /BAH
> 
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Have a nice day.
From: Eternal Vigilance
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F387257.88D48075@oneeye.com>
Of course you get what you pay for if you limit yourself to things being
run only by committee.






Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> ·········@aol.com writes:
> > My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> > of the stupidest element.  The more something gets "organized",
> > the less intelligent it can be.  Now look at computers systems
> > getting organized by a network.  I haven't spent much time
> > applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
>
> the joke about committees ... rather than being
> sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> or even something like
> max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
> it is more like
> min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
> or even
> min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
>
> where committee intelligence approaches zero
>
> --
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
> Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm
From: Pete Fenelon
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <vifi72hu0pka1@corp.supernews.com>
In alt.folklore.computers Don Stockbauer <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There is only intelligence.

I can define artificial intelligence quite simply - something that
behaves in a fashion completely unlike Arthur T Murray.

pete
-- 
····@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
From: ·········@aol.com
Subject: Re: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Date: 
Message-ID: <bg8lh7$o5p$4@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <·············@corp.supernews.com>,
   Pete Fenelon <····@fenelon.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.computers Don Stockbauer <·············@hotmail.com> 
wrote:
>> 
>> There is only intelligence.
>
>I can define artificial intelligence quite simply - something that
>behaves in a fashion completely unlike Arthur T Murray.

Heh, I've been thinking the opposite.  His is an example
of artificality <shudder..what an awful word>.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.