Announcement: ANML Web Site (SPOILER)

Mark Jordan markj at
Sat Jan 24 19:17:21 EST 1998

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:46:15, savainl at (Louis Savain) wrote:

> In article <sDfLLsjVtFDj-pn2-sdTpughPXpyb at>,
> markj at (Mark Jordan) wrote:
> >On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 11:01:34, David at (David Longley) wrote:
> >
> >[Snipped personal attack]
> >
> >> On  the basis of what is written there, my assessment is that  it 
> >> represents  a rather shallow assimilation of ideas  discussed  in 
> >> the like of groups over the past year or so, supplemented 
> >> by a similar shallow understanding of some neuroscience research, 
> >> probably  picked up via popular science summaries.  That's  about 
> >> the  only  way  anyone  could have  the  written  such  grandiose 
> >> nonsense on the basis of so little.
> >
> >I would have to agree with this assessment.
>   Don't be too hasty to side with Longley.  He can't help putting
> others down, especially if they don't think Quine is God and don't
> care about the "extensional stance."  :-)  May I suggest you wait
> untill you see the demo before you pass judgement?

Yes, I'll do that, but thats my first impression.

> > I found the tone of
> >the discussions there to be somewhat arrogant as well.
>   Well I regret that I have offended you.  Could it be because I
> unequivocally take the stance that the solution to the AI problem must
> be simple at its core?  I do realize that, in so doing, I seem to be
> dismissing a large portion of AI research.  Well, I do.  There are too
> many incompatible approaches to AI out there for me not to take side.
> That there are so many is indicative of a fragmented science, a
> science in disarray.  My main criticism of AI scientists *in general*
> (I do admire a sizable few, especially makers of autonomous learning
> robots) is not they are not bright (they are some of the brightest
> people on earth), or that they have not accomplished much.  The
> problem is that they worship complexity for its own sake.  They expect
> the solution to the common sense problem be hard and complicated and
> they conduct their research accordingly.  That, IMO, is a sure recipe
> for failure.

No that's not it. I have no preconceived ideas about the
"solution to the AI problem" and no vested interests in any
particular hypothesis.

Your criticisim of AI scientists is irrelevant. Concentrate
on criticising their work not their intelligence.

Regarding simplicity, I think that when faced with 2 equally
good solutions to a problem you should err on the side of 
simplicity rather than complexity.

Due to the limitations of our technology sometimes even simple
ideas, when implemented, turn out to be incredibly complex.

I hope you will consider the criticisms of your *WORK* and see
them as oppourtunities to improve, rather than discard them
as personal attacks.

Mark Jordan.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list