Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA (Ken Laws) (11/11/86)
I recently received this request from an AIList reader: If there is a way to -just- get the seminar announcements periodically distributed to AIList, then I would like to be placed in that category. If this is not possible, then I wish to be removed from AIList completely. I have previously suggested that seminar and conference notices should be split out as a separate list (at least as long as other traffic remains so high), but no one has stepped forward to do the remailing. I haven't the energy to maintain two distribution lists. Volunteers are welcome. I'm sure there is still plenty of interest in other list topics. The NL-KR@Rochester list is doing fine, forwarding a great many natural-language messages that would not have appeared in AIList. IRList%VPI.CSNet has likewise been successful with information-retrieval topics. AI-Ed@SUMEX is alive and well. So is the Prolog Digest, which predates AIList. One reason for splitting the AIList is to reduce Arpanet traffic, which has been rather high lately, and to reduce costs for those who have to pay for the transmissions. Another is to reduce the difficulty for the next AIList moderator if I have to drop out. The best reason, though, is to boost discussion of the topics that most interest you. -- Ken Laws
amsler@FLASH.BELLCORE.COM.UUCP (12/03/86)
I don't think the idea of splitting the list is practical. The real question is whether the philosophy discussion can sustain a whole mailing list on its own. I doubt it could. This is a topic which will eventually fade and to split the list doubles the work for the moderator. Is someone offering to become the new moderator of the AI Philosophy list? [I should mention that there is a Metaphilosophers list at MIT-OZ@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, as well as the Psychnet Newsletter from EPsynet%UHUMVM1.BITNET@WISCVM. The Phil-Sci list at MIT used to carry much more of such philosophical discussion than AIList has had recently. (Part of that was due to the quotations being nested four levels deep, which obviously multiplies the net traffic.) I am surprised -- but relieved -- that so few AIList readers have participated in these exchanges. Perhaps the philosophers dropped out long ago because AIList has had so little discussion of AI foundations. My own bias is toward computational techniques for coaxing more intelligent behavior from computers, regardless of theoretical adequacy. -- KIL]
DAVIS%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/09/86)
There is no loss in splitting the list and a clear net gain. Issue: What You Will Receive Those who are concerned about seeing both kinds of material have a trivial solution available: ensure that you are on both mailing lists. Those who wish to be spared the philosophical discussions can escape. Issue: 400 Line Diatribes are OK Because You Can Skip Them Not if, as is the case for some people, you have a slow terminal and a less sophisticated mailer (one that reads the message as a whole, rather than splitting it into individual contributions). Issue: Where Can the Discussion Happen talk.philosophy.tech Issue: How to Classify Messages It is almost always completely obvious how to classify a given message. In the event the decision is at all debatable the moderator should flip a coin. The consequences are sufficiently minor that we can all live with it. Issue: Can You Do AI Without Philosophizing About Mind, Consciousnes, Etc. Yes. Issue: SHOULD You Do AI Without Philosophizing About Mind, Consciousnes, Etc. First topic of discussion for talk.philosophy.tech.