jbn@glacier.ARPA (John B. Nagle) (11/29/86)
I would like to suggest that this group be split into two groups; one about "doing AI" and one on "philosophising about AI", the latter to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers, and suchlike. John Nagle
freeman@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM (Jay Freeman) (11/30/86)
I second the motion.
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (12/01/86)
Just suggested by jbn@glacier.UUCP (John Nagle): > I would like to suggest that this group be split into two groups; >one about "doing AI" and one on "philosophising about AI", the latter >to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers, >and suchlike. Good idea. I was beginning to think the discussions of "when is an artifice intelligent" might belong in "talk.ai." I was looking for articles about how to do AI, and not finding any. The trouble is, "comp.ai.how-to" might have no traffic at all. We seem to be trying to "create artificial intelligence," with the intent that we can finally achieve success at some point (if only we knew how to define success). Why don't we just try always to create something more intelligent than we created before? That way we can not only claim nearly instant success, but also continue to have further successes without end. Would the above question belong in "talk.ai" or "comp.ai.how-to"? Marty M. B. Brilliant (201)-949-1858 AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 houem!marty1
brunner@sri-spam.istc.sri.com (Thomas Eric Brunner) (12/02/86)
In article <13316@glacier.ARPA> jbn@glacier.ARPA (John B. Nagle) writes: > > I would like to suggest that this group be split into two groups; >one about "doing AI" and one on "philosophising about AI", the latter >to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers, >and suchlike. > > John Nagle Thanks John, the noise on this line makes me wonder if there are setient _people_ using the group. My kill file runeth over. -- Cheers! Thomas Eric Brunner brunner@sri-spam.arpa.com SRI Information Sciences & Technology sri-spam!brunner (uucp)
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (a) (12/02/86)
Split the groups! Split the groups! Boy, this sentient novel stuff is
just getting a _little_ out of hand (not to mention the Searle, Turing,
etc. philosophical arguments). Once again: Split the groups!
--
Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp
Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu
\{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishkahogge@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (12/02/86)
>> I would like to suggest that this group be split into two groups; >>one about "doing AI" and one on "philosophising about AI", the latter >>to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers, >>and suchlike. > >Good idea. I was beginning to think the discussions of "when is an >artifice intelligent" might belong in "talk.ai." I was looking for >articles about how to do AI, and not finding any. The trouble is, >"comp.ai.how-to" might have no traffic at all. So let's name the two groups "comp.ai" and "comp.ai.bs" --John
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (12/03/86)
[For the edification of the people in news.groups, a
newsgroup split has been proposed for comp.ai: one group for
implementors, and one for philosophy of AI. Several people
have seconded the motion.]
I should note at this point that, theoretically at least,
there is already a newsgroup that is perfect for the
philosophy of mind/intelligence/AI discussion. It's called
talk.philosophy.tech, and has been talked about as an official
newsgroup for some time.
The trouble is that I know of no site which is actually
carrying this newsgroup. Also, it doesn't appear on the
official newsgroup list.
I think the meta-discussion in comp.ai should be enough
to push the net.gods into re-doing the "newgroup" for
talk.philosophy.tech, creating it in fact as well as in theory.
--Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"The fires col, my storys tol"greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid) (12/04/86)
>> I would like to suggest that this group be split into two groups; >>one about "doing AI" and one on "philosophising about AI", the latter >>to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers, >>and suchlike. > >Good idea. I was beginning to think the discussions of "when is an >artifice intelligent" might belong in "talk.ai." I was looking for >articles about how to do AI, and not finding any. The trouble is, >"comp.ai.how-to" might have no traffic at all. How do you "do" AI without talking about what it is that you are trying to do? Seems to me that discussions about cognitive modeling and Turing tests and whatever else are perfectly acceptable here, if not needed. But I could live without the "sentient computers" book lists. But you're right. Maybe we should post data structures or something. Doesn't it always come down to data structures?
bsmith@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (12/05/86)
There is a serious problem with having any notesfile with "philosophy" in its name--just look at talk.philosophy.misc. There, an endless number of people who think philosophy consists of no more than just spewing forth unsubstantiated opinions conduct what are laughably called discussions but are really nothing other than name-calling sessions (interlaced with ample supplies of vulgarities). Steven Harnad has inspired discussions on this net which, perhaps, ought to be in a separate notesfile, but I shudder to think what such a notesfile would be like. One suggestion--given the ugliness of talk.philosophy.misc, I think this new notesfile ought to be moderated.
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (12/05/86)
In <1991@adobe.UUCP>, greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid) replies to a suggestion by jbn@glacier.UUCP (John Nagle)... "that this group be split into two groups; one about 'doing AI' and one on 'philosophising about AI', the latter to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers, and suchlike." ... with the question: "How do you 'do' AI without talking about what it is that you are trying to do?" Maybe we ought to split on the basis of what we are trying to do. I suggested in my own response <720@houem.UUCP> that "we just try always to create something more intelligent than we created before... That way we can not only claim nearly instant success, but also continue to have further successes without end." That joke has a serious component. What some of us are trying to do is imitate known intelligence, and particularly human intelligence. Others (including myself) are just trying to do artificially as much as possible of the work for which we now depend on human intelligence. Actually, I am looking at an application, not inventing methods. Those of us who are not trying to imitate human intelligence may ultimately surpass human intelligence. But we can pursue our goal without knowing how to measure or test artificial intelligence. My main problem is that I don't know how the people who do it think about their methods, so I want to hear about methods. Marty M. B. Brilliant (201)-949-1858 AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 houem!marty1
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (12/05/86)
In article <603@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > [For the edification of the people in news.groups, a >newsgroup split has been proposed for comp.ai: one group for >implementors, and one for philosophy of AI. Several people >have seconded the motion.] I'd like to add my vote. > The trouble is that I know of no site which is actually >carrying talk.philosophy.tech. Also, it doesn't appear on the >official newsgroup list. Hmm... There's a line in my .newsrc: talk.philosophy.tech: (i.e. The group exists, and I'm subscribed, but nothing's ever appeared) Of course, my site (watnot) has the distinction of being in the same room as a backbone (watmath), so it may not have propagated everywhere. -Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP) Zippy says: I know things about TROY DONAHUE that can't even be PRINTED!!
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (12/09/86)
In article <603@ubc-cs.UUCP>, andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > I should note at this point that, theoretically at least, > there is already a newsgroup that is perfect for the > philosophy of mind/intelligence/AI discussion. It's called > talk.philosophy.tech, and has been talked about as an official > newsgroup for some time. I am the `moderator' of this group, which is dormant pending submissions. There was some trouble starting it up, and so I maintained a mailing list for a while. I no longer do so. If there is interest, we can try to start it up again. The interested parties just went back to their old groups when we had so much trouble propagating it. peter ladkin ladkin@kestrel.arpa
tiwary@hpsrlc.HP.COM (Ashutosh Tiwary) (12/10/86)
I third it.
rosa@cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk (Rosa Michaelson) (12/12/86)
Summary:SPLIT THE GROUP Please split the group. I have an aversion to the words turing, cognative, brain, mind, identity, inteligence, etc (no not etc) which has been learnt through reading the various ai newsgroups. Do you realise that we get at least three copies of each news item(through various digests) as well?????????????
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (12/12/86)
I vote NO. Don't split this group. If you want to see nuts-and-bolts questions in this group, then POST THEM!! Suitable discussion will follow, I am sure.