Standards in Artificial Intelligence

Nick Maclaren nmm1 at cus.cam.ac.uk
Thu Nov 2 11:45:19 EST 2000


In article <qaem0u8h0y.fsf at tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton <james at tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes:
|> nmm1 at cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
|> 
|> > |> Hmmm. I always understood "Artificial Intelligence" to mean the building
|> > |> of intelligent machines.
|> > 
|> > Well, it SHOULD do - but I have very rarely seen it used in that way.
|> > There is very little current work that can honestly be called the
|> > building of intelligent machines, after all, and a hell of a lot
|> > is called "AI".
|> 
|> So you're suggesting that the bulk of research going on under the name
|> of AI has nothing to do with building intelligent machines? 
|> 
|> Perhaps I could understand you better if you give some examples of
|> what you mean. Most of the work I'm aware of is relevant to that
|> goal. 

No, I don't mean that it isn't relevant to that.  I mean that it is
no MORE relevant to that than many other areas of advanced computer
development - such as work into parallelism, at the hardware and
algorithmic level.  And nor is it actually directed at that goal,
even though it may be the glint in some people's eyes.

|> Indeed, after all some algorithms are dumb and might therefore be
|> classed as artificial stupidity :-). 

As the saying goes, we don't need to work on developing artificial
stupidity, as there is a plentiful supply of the natural product!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1 at cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list