sjr87@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Simon Roberts) (11/29/90)
I've been roped in to propose the above motion in a debate to be held soon. Althought I realise many people reading this newsgroup will have the opposite view to that expressed above, I would like to hear from anyone with comments on it, regardless of being for or against it. Regards, Zak Roberts -- Zak Roberts : sjr87@ecs.soton.ac.uk (+ nsfnet-relay.ac.uk)
minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (12/01/90)
In article <5461@ecs.soton.ac.uk> sjr87@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Simon Roberts) writes: >I've been roped in to propose the above motion in a debate to be held >soon. Althought I realise many people reading this newsgroup will have >the opposite view to that expressed above, I would like to hear from >anyone with comments on it, regardless of being for or against it. Ah, merrie old England. Last such debate was won by Prof. Lighthill in the 1970s. Caused AI research to die on y'r little island, and subsequent brain drain. But there were signs of recovery in the 80's. Your debate comes just in time! Congratulations.
irani@milli.cs.umn.edu (Erach Irani) (12/02/90)
Parallel lines meet at infinity. A.I. is like that, we have a long , long way to go before we can even answer whether we can re-invent the human brain's capabilities or even a simpler animal's intelligence -- but on the way we have "grandmaster level chess programs" -- and still can't answer the question about reproducing intelligence. So looks like what we're saying is a blind alley, is the way parallel lines meet at infinity -- the answer is too far away, but we'll get there. - erach -- Phone : (Home) (612) 378-2336 Work : (612) 627-4850 InterNet : irani@cs.umn.edu UUCP: uunet!umn-cs!irani Postal Address: Erach A.Irani; 1717, Rollins Ave.; Minneapolis, MN 55414.
news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System) (12/03/90)
In a recent posting, Zak asked for information on "AI is a blind alley". An article entitled "Death by ARtificial Causes", by Gary R. Martins, appeared in _Defense Computing_ for November-December 1988. This article tackles this question well -- although I disagree with the points made by the author!!! Among other things, he says "While all other areas of technology have enjoyed heroic advances since 1955, AI advocates are still picking over the same stale chestnuts that seemed so fascinating way back then."He appears to be mainly attacking the U.S. DOD (defense) support of AI as applied to military problems. Of course, we all know what an oxy-moronic term "military intelligence" is <:-) !!! Ranks (sic) right along with "military Justice" >:-) ! From: sfp@mars.ornl.gov (Phil Spelt) Path: mars!sfp Phil Spelt ORNL