Eric B. Ramsay wrote:
I don't know when Lanier wrote the following but I would be interested
to know what the AI folks here think about his critique (or direct me to
a thread where this was already discussed). Also would someone be able
to re-state his rainstorm thought experiment more clearly -- I am not
sure I get it:
http://www.jaronlanier.com/aichapter.html
Lanier's rainstorm argument is spurious nonsense.
It relies on a sleight of hand, and preys on the inability of most
people to notice the point at which he slips from valid-analogy to
nonsense-analogy.
He also then goes on to use a debating trick that John Searle is fond
of: he claims that the people who disagree with his argument always
choose a different type of counter-argument. His implication is that,
because the follow different paths, therefore they don't agree about
what is wrong, therefore ALL of them are fools, and therefore NONE of
their counter-arguments are valid.
Really. I like Jaron Lanier as a musician, but this is drivel.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
