>On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 07:15:56AM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>> Well, part of the problem is the terminology. AI is dead.
>
>Shit. Guess we'll have to close the list down. :)
>
>> The terms today are "Information theory" and "Machine learning."
>
>And "information retrieval". See some of Dan Brian's modules. The trick,
>though, is to lose the word "intelligence"; machines can't be
>intelligent, despite what Hofstadter thinks. It's all about doing things
>in a "human-like" way: how we look through data to find what we want,
>how we decide what's important and what isn't, and so on. We don't have
>to do that "intelligently", it's just that the tasks supposedly require
>intelligence. If you consider the average human who performs such tasks,
>it's suprising we suppose this.
>
>--
>Ermine? NO thanks. I take MINE black.
> - Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
>
machines can be intelligent. [as most humans]
machines cannot be conscious. [as most humans]
some did it out of self-doubt.
you will do it because you like to experiment
and see things with `your` `own` eyes.
nn.
/_/
/
\ \/ i should like to be a human plant
\/ __
__/
i will shed leaves in the shade
\_\ because i like stepping on bugs
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
Netochka Nezvanova [email protected]
http://www.eusocial.com
http://www.biohakc.com
http://www.ggttctttat.com/!
n r . 5 !!! http://steim.nl/leaves/petalz
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-- --*--*--*--*--*--*--
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.