On Dec 29, 2007 2:24 PM, Ed Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (No disagreement with Ed; but some thoughts...)
> That sure makes AI that much less ambitious, if only mimicry is > required. Less ambitious is still quite ambitious, as mimicry is quite > an engineering feat. I would say that AI is less ambitious as long as it is realistic and practical. A more ambitious version of AI, actually an "artificial consciousness," is, in my opinion, if not impossible to develop, then impossible to measure and know that it's what you've developed. All I have seen of AI so far has been simulation. I see the words "intelligent" and "intuitive" associated with semantic web; I don't think it means that the technology *has* those qualities, but that it *simulates* those qualities more effectively. It's an application of human intelligence as code, and not a "machine intelligence." There may well be in the development of this code choices and exclusions driven by an elite culture, but I'm not thinking there's a direct manipulation of meaning in the sense some correspondents here have seemed to suggest. > The secret sauce is a ruse or a marketing gimmick. It gets you noticed. Page rank is not so much a "gimmick," I think, as an aspect of Google's search algorithm that, because of its relevance to search optimization, has priority in discussions among those (probably most of us who operate web sites) who want to be noticed. I don't think page rank made Google important - but that Google, as it became the dominant solution for search, make page rank important. ~ Jon -- Jon Lebkowsky Polycot Associates http://polycot.com Blog: http://weblogsky.com Profile: http://profile.to/jonlebkowsky # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
