Standards in Artificial Intelligence

[Ketil Z Malde]

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
intelligent task.

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.

-kzm
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants