>On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 07:15:56AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Well, part of the problem is the terminology. AI is dead.
>
>Shit. Guess we'll have to close the list down. :)
>
>> The terms today are "Information theory" and "Machine learning."
>
>And "information retrieval". See some of Dan Brian's modules. The trick,
>though, is to lose the word "intelligence"; machines can't be
>intelligent, despite what Hofstadter thinks. It's all about doing things
>in a "human-like" way: how we look through data to find what we want,
>how we decide what's important and what isn't, and so on. We don't have
>to do that "intelligently", it's just that the tasks supposedly require
>intelligence. If you consider the average human who performs such tasks,
>it's suprising we suppose this.
>
>--
>Ermine? NO thanks. I take MINE black.
> - Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
>
machines can be intelligent. [as most humans]
machines cannot be conscious. [as most humans]
some did it out of self-doubt.
you will do it because you like to experiment
and see things with `your` `own` eyes.
nn.
/_/
/
\ \/ i should like to be a human plant
\/ __
__/
i will shed leaves in the shade
\_\ because i like stepping on bugs
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
Netochka Nezvanova [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.eusocial.com
http://www.biohakc.com
http://www.ggttctttat.com/!
n r . 5 !!! http://steim.nl/leaves/petalz
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-- --*--*--*--*--*--*--