>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
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-- --*--*--*--*--*--*--
 






Reply via email to