JCOGGSHALL@HAMPVMS.BITNET (Jeffy) (05/03/88)
______________________________________________________________________________ >Date: 28 Apr 88 15:42:18 GMT >From: glacier!jbn@labrea.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) >If the combined list is to keep its present readership, which includes some >of the major names in AI (both Minsky and McCarthy read AILIST), the content >of this one must be improved a bit. - As to questions about what is the appropriate content of AIlist - Presumably it is coextensive with the field "AI" - which I would find difficult to put a lid on - if you could do it, I would be happy. I suggest, however, that you cannot, for all research field boundaries are, by their nature, arbitrary (or, if not arbitrary, then _always_ extremely fuzzy at the edges). Quality - I cannot speak for; however, if you suggest limiting the group of people who can make contributions to AIList to, perhaps, PHD's in computer science, or perhaps, the membership of AAAI.... Or perhaps, limiting the content to specific technical issues (as opposed to the "philosophical" debates about AI & Freewill and AI & Ethics, or AI & Mimicking "human" consciousness.... Well, there are several reasons why this is just plain bad (and you must understand that as I argue my position - I am a person who is profoundly interested in AI & Ethics, and in hearing what people currently working in "AI" think about ethics, as it relates to the work they are doing). Reason 1: What would be the point of making such regulations? Why not respond to it case by case? Since, as I note, there are fuzzy boundaries, why not allow the readership (ever heard of representative democracy?) be the ones who put the social pressure on the contributors to contribute what they want to hear about? Anti-your-argument 3: So, we don't want to lose our present readership.... (which includes Minsky & McCarthy) - and we should tailor the "quality" (please tell me what this is) and the "subject matter" of our submissions to "keep" our "major names"? Why? Because they give the list a "good atmosphere"? Because they can hear what "lesser figures" have to say and perhaps drop a few pearls of wisdom into our midst? Why? Reason 2: I don't know about you, but I have this bias against the sectarianism and ivory-towerism of the scientific community at large such that the common society is excluded from decisions that are being made about the direction of research etc.. that are going to have major effects in years to come. Often, there is an unspoken "we are better because we _really_ know what we're doing" attitude among the scientific community, and I would like you to tell me why your message isn't representative of it. Jeff Coggshall ----------------------------------------------------------------------