Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich) (12/20/88)
In article <1185@arctic.nprdc.arpa>, huntley@nprdc (David Huntley) writes: >Comp.ai suggests to me something very specific: AI (as we understand >the engineering discipline) on computers. AI, as an engineering discipline, >is in my mind an indisputably useful one. AI research has resulted in formal >languages better suited to certain kinds of practical problems. Neural >networks, a software/hardware creation, extends the applications to which >computers can be put. Process control, inventory management, forecasting, >industrial robots are all improved by AI techniques. Also, work is being done >on computer models of the brain in the general area of physiology. If a >computer model of the brain sufficiently complex to allow a mapping between >"damage" and degraded performance can be developed, so much the better. >With computers that already perform the written-to-spoken conversion, a tool >for the study of aphasia seems to be at hand. COMP.AI suggests to me something very specfic, Artificial Intellience (as we understand the concept of intelligence) on computers. AI, as a scientific discipline, is in my mind an indisputably useful one. AI research has resulted in a better understanding of functional constraints on psychological and philosophical theories of thinking and understanding. It has also resulted in methods of testing theories of the content of the human mind and of the process of human thinking. Neural networks, a computer-science/ psychology/neuroscience creation, brings several fields together in approaching the subject of the human mind and brain. Learning, memory, explanation, and planning have all had light spread on them by theories within Artificial Intelligence. >Can anyone tell me how AI on computers entails consideration of free-will, >self-awareness, consciousness, subconsciousness, unconsciousness or, in >short, non-biological human replication? Can anyone tell me how Artificial Intelligence on computers entails consideration of inventory management, weather forcasting, or, in short, things that are in no way an aspect of general human intelligence?? >I understand that one can fantasize, create and share in science fiction. >But why not do that in genetic.engineering.slave.colony ? I understand that one can try to apply the tools that AI researchers have developed over the last 20 years. But why not do that in COMP.SOFT-ENG.HACKS-USING-AI-LIKE-TECHNIQUES ?? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For those of you who don't see my point, let me make it clear: "AI" means "Artificial Intelligence" ( ** ) Now, there are clearly many subfields within "AI" that are very different from each other. Work in expert systems, story understanding, AI programming, learning, planning, theorem proving, etc. are all different in their emphasis and approaches. Keep in mind, though, that the goal is "intelligence." That's what the name means. One result of this is that many people think COMP.AI has a low S/N ratio while everyone thinks their stuff is the "good" stuff. Splitting into several newsgroups (COMP.AI.EXPERT-SYSTEMS, COMP.AI.MIND, COMP.AI.PROGRAMMING, COMP.AI.HUMAN, COMP.AI.FORMAL, etc) has been suggested before, and maybe it should be discussed again. Bruce Krulwich
harp@venera.isi.edu (Brian Harp) (12/21/88)
In article <46069@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes: >>Can anyone tell me how AI on computers entails consideration of free-will, >>self-awareness, consciousness, subconsciousness, unconsciousness or, in >>short, non-biological human replication? > >Can anyone tell me how Artificial Intelligence on computers entails >consideration of inventory management, weather forcasting, or, in short, >things that are in no way an aspect of general human intelligence?? > So human intelligence isn't an aspect of inventory management or weather forecasting? I don't really think you meant that, did you? Obviously, human expertise is essential to doing any of these kind of tasks and we must analyze how humans do it before we can hope to have computers do it. Computers may not do inventory management (for example) in the same way as humans do, but we need to know how humans do inventory management since they are our only source of information. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >For those of you who don't see my point, let me make it clear: > > "AI" means "Artificial Intelligence" ( ** ) > >Now, there are clearly many subfields within "AI" that are very different from >each other. Work in expert systems, story understanding, AI programming, >learning, planning, theorem proving, etc. are all different in their emphasis >and approaches. Keep in mind, though, that the goal is "intelligence." >That's what the name means. > >One result of this is that many people think COMP.AI has a low S/N ratio while >everyone thinks their stuff is the "good" stuff. Splitting into several >newsgroups (COMP.AI.EXPERT-SYSTEMS, COMP.AI.MIND, COMP.AI.PROGRAMMING, >COMP.AI.HUMAN, COMP.AI.FORMAL, etc) has been suggested before, and maybe it >should be discussed again. > I don't think the number of articles in comp.ai is high enough to merit separate news groups. In addition, I think these sub-areas are contributing to our understanding of computer intelligence (or AI) in general. This is how science works. We just aren't ready to tackle general intelligence yet and in fact I'm not sure we will ever be able to directly work on making a computer "intelligent". It will probably just evolve as we understand these subproblems better. Brian Harp USC/ISI