gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) (10/16/87)
> > > Mr X. goes to an employment interview and gets angry or flustered and > > > says something that causes him to be rejected. Without knowing how his > > > mind works you can conclude it was flawed. > > > > And you could be wrong. Most likely Mr. X. didn't want the job after > > all. He only wanted you to think he wanted the job. Give him credit > > for some intelligence! > > Also flawed from Mr. X's point of view. Sicherman argues that X only > seemed to get angry or flustered, in order to make sure the company > didn't make him an offer, because during the interview he decided he > didn't want a job with them. If I attributed Mr. X's actions to > intelligence I would expect him to conclude gracefully, let them make > an offer, and reject the offer, without making a bad impression on > somebody who later might be in a position to offer him a job in another > company. And I don't care whether you blame emotions or habits. You misunderstood me. I suggested not that X *seemed* to get angry, but that he genuinely got angry. Emotions are not some kind of side effect-- they serve a constructive purpose. Anger, in particular, drives away or destroys things that threaten your well-being. Most likely Mr. X wants to avoid getting a job, but wants people in general or certain people in particular to think he wants a job. It happens all the time! You're wasting your time when you pontificate to Mr. X. He's not going to tell a back-seat driver like you what he really wants. > > By this criterion, we are all flawed. > That's exactly what I meant. Well, it's a useless and insulting criterion. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...!ihnp4!odyssey!gls
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/16/87)
In article <333@odyssey.ATT.COM>, gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) writes: > > You misunderstood me. I suggested not that X *seemed* to get angry, but > that he genuinely got angry. Emotions are not some kind of side effect-- > they serve a constructive purpose. Anger, in particular, drives away > or destroys things that threaten your well-being. > > Most likely Mr. X wants to avoid getting a job, but wants people in > general or certain people in particular to think he wants a job. It > happens all the time! You're wasting your time when you pontificate > to Mr. X. He's not going to tell a back-seat driver like you what he > really wants. Do we need a definition of anger? Anger, as I understand it, is an emotion that catalyzes physical actions but interferes with reason. I agree that Mr. X may rationalize his action, but I don't believe it was his best choice. > > > By this criterion, we are all flawed. > > > That's exactly what I meant. > > Well, it's a useless and insulting criterion. Pardon me. I thought what we all needed was a little humility. If Col. G. L. Sicherman thinks either that he is perfect, or that I am perfect, I disagree. Tentatively. In my simplistic view, the mind is a complex system that came to be what it is through variation and natural selection. It has functions that we don't understand, adaptations for purposes we don't understand, and adaptations for purposes that no longer exist. If it's perfect, that's a marvelous coincidence. If the aim of artificial intelligence is to model the human mind, Col. Sicherman and I seem to agree that it's not enough. To model anger, for instance, we also need artificial emotion. But if the aim of artificial intelligence is to create a purely intelligent entity without maladaptive emotions, Col. Sicherman and I would disagree. I believe that at least some emotional responses are maladaptive and would not exist in a perfect intelligence, while he apparently believes the human mind is perfect and cannot be improved upon. So let us agree to disagree, and, as I suggested in an earlier article, let some AI researchers model the human mind, while others build something better adapted to specific tasks. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) (10/20/87)
> Do we need a definition of anger? Anger, as I understand it, is an > emotion that catalyzes physical actions but interferes with reason. > I agree that Mr. X may rationalize his action, but I don't believe > it was his best choice. ... > > ... I thought what we all needed was a little humility. If > Col. G. L. Sicherman thinks either that he is perfect, or that I am > perfect, I disagree. Tentatively. If you go telling people what you think they all need, we may decide that you're not very humble! Arguing over whether people are "perfect" or "flawed" is like arguing whether Eugene the Jeep is a rodent or a marsupial. Perfect for *what?* And I agree that we need a definition of anger. "Catalyzes physical actions?" The anger *produces* the actions. If you had no emotions, you would never act. > ... I believe that at least some emotional responses are > maladaptive and would not exist in a perfect intelligence, while he > apparently believes the human mind is perfect and cannot be improved > upon. Again, perfect for what? It sounds as if you regard emotions as a part of intelligence. We don't agree on the basics yet. "This rock, for instance, has an I.Q. of zero. Ouch!" "What's the matter, Professor?" "It bit me!" -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...!ihnp4!odyssey!gls