Hi,
I'm going back in time a bit, after catching up with everything ;
On 9/8/07, Nancy Cochran <nancy.cochran_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
> I submit AI (Artificial Intelligence) is a misnomer.
Possibly true, but you cannot change the fact that there's a whole
field of science called just that, with several sub-fields within it.
> How can we ever consider that intelligence would be artificial.
This is usually defined by the Turing test ; if you through a computer
user interface can't determine whether you're talking to a computer or
a human at the other end, if that was a computer it is indeed
artifical intelligence. It's, as you hint to, all about our
perception. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it most
probably *is* a duck ... even when it is a lark.
One can go into a huge ramble on the semantic values of language that
delves into this very subject ; where does one "thing" start and stop
before it turns into some other "thing"? Language auto classifies
notions and concepts, so where does "chair" become "recliner" or
"sofa"? Basic category theory talks about the fine line between
perception and language.
In fact, with AI the qualifier here is on "artificial" more on
intelligence, as the latter is one of the most misleading words in the
English language. Some will argue the US president is very
intelligent, others may sway the other way. How can we tell?
> I think this group is trying to decide how to use those characteristics to
> best advantage. They will never replace what people do.
Of course they will, and of course they do. If your job is
bean-counting I don't need to argue for long that your job is in
danger. If your job is slightly more complex, give it some time before
someone comes up with a way that makes the differences between you and
a computer doing your job - pardon the expression, given our
discussions of late - "good enough." One can always apply physicality
to this to make it harder for the computer to do your job, say,
feeding animals or lifting a book from point A to point B, but we're
already creating systems that does these things. The only thing that
computers are having a hard time with is being smart, but, again,
that's all about perception of what "smart" is. Some say I'd be smart
to stop talking, while others say I talk too little. The smartness of
either is the eyes of the beholder.
> Self awareness implies judgement.
I might disagree with that, but more importantly, the opposite
certainly isn't true ; a computer can judge without being self-aware.
At what point along these two opposites does your favorite job lie?
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Mon Sep 10 2007 - 20:47:15 EDT