Standards in Artificial Intelligence

Dobes Vandermeer dobes at dobesland.com
Tue Nov 7 14:41:24 EST 2000



Nick Maclaren wrote:
> 
> In article <qasnp3n1m5.fsf at tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton <james at tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> |> nmm1 at cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
> |>
> |> > Nothing
> |> > wrong with that, but "artificial intelligence" it ain't!
> |>
> |> This seems contradictory to some stuff you said earlier. If
> |> "artificial intelligence" ought to be about building intelligent
> |> machines, then ISTM that most neural network stuff IS about that, even
> |> if it often involves using techniques based on how the brain might
> |> work.
> |>
> |> Which begs the question, what exactly do you mean by "artificial
> |> intelligence" in the above paragraph?
> 
> As in the normal English meaning of the word - which may be
> pretty vague, but is at least a reasonable starting point.

If you must, type in what your dictionary has under "intelligence",
"artificial", and "artificial intelligence".  Without a clear, shared
definition this entire discussion could be pointless.






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list