Standards in Artificial Intelligence
Ketil Z Malde
ketil at ii.uib.no
Fri Nov 3 04:15:03 EST 2000
nmm1 at cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
> No problem. But why should that work be described as artificial
> "intelligence" any more than (say) pattern recognition and image
> processing? Yes, we could call all algorithmic work "artificial
> intelligence", but that would be silly ....
I think the problem is that "intelligence" is a moving target, usually
defined as sensible things people can do, that machines can't.
If you asked somebody a hundred years ago whether you'd need
intelligence to play chess, the answer would, I think, be yes.
Two hundred years ago, performing arithmetic might be considered an
Now, I suppose many would agree that communication through natural
languages require intelligence - but expect that to change if and when
computers do it well enough.
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
More information about the Neur-sci