🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <691@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes:
>
>Intelligence is intelligence, no matter if it is accepting patterns in
>{a,b}* or operating a fork lift on planet earth.  It is only a matter of
>degree.

This strikes me as the core of what is wrong with a substantial
proportion of AI research.  The idea that the way to build
intelligence is to start with abstract "language" (in the math logic
sense of the word) recognizers on {a,b}* or theorem provers using FOPC
and deciding that it is only "a matter of degree" to expand these
systems to human intelligence.

There is one clear example of how to develop intelligent systems
incrementally -- it's called evolution.  Wouldn't it make more sense
to develop artificially intelligent systems in an analogous manner --
starting with simple, fully autonomous creatures, and progressively
adding more advanced capabilities?

True, the fact that nature used this course does not mean that it is
the only course, but it does mean that it is a possible one.  (And
hopefully, the substitution of intelligent design for random mutations
will cut down the required time by a few billion years.)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________