🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3075@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:

>It is the idea that intelligence is a definable, measurable property
>which is a perversion.
>
>I am unconventional here, but not in much larger academic subcultures than
>than miniscule AI community.  I suggest you look at the intelligence
>debate in psychometrics, and Herb Simon's "Sciences of the Artificial"
>- as someone in touch with psychologists, he has better sense than to
>want to use such a term as AI.

My, my, my.  Aren't we superior!  You'll fool more of the people more
of the time if you actually read the sources you superciliously cite
(or at least represent them undistortedly).

In "Sciences of the Artificial" Simon says:

"At any rate, "artificial intelligence" seems here to stay, and it may prove
easier to cleanse the phrase than to dispense with it.  In time it will become
sufficiently idiomatic that it will no longer be the target of cheap
rhetoric."

Simon may not pepper his writing with the phrase "artificial intelligence"
but many of his students and collaborators are artificial intelligence
reseachers, and he isn't nearly as mealy-mouthed about them as you are.

>
>-- 
>Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
>	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert

Chuck