🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <sDfLLsjVtFDj-pn2-sdTpughPXpyb@ppp033.southern.co.nz>,
markj@southern.co.nz (Mark Jordan) wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 11:01:34, David@longley.demon.co.uk (David Longley) wrote:
>
>[Snipped personal attack]
>
>> On  the basis of what is written there, my assessment is that  it 
>> represents  a rather shallow assimilation of ideas  discussed  in 
>> the like of comp.ai groups over the past year or so, supplemented 
>> by a similar shallow understanding of some neuroscience research, 
>> probably  picked up via popular science summaries.  That's  about 
>> the  only  way  anyone  could have  the  written  such  grandiose 
>> nonsense on the basis of so little.
>
>I would have to agree with this assessment.

  Don't be too hasty to side with Longley.  He can't help putting
others down, especially if they don't think Quine is God and don't
care about the "extensional stance."  :-)  May I suggest you wait
untill you see the demo before you pass judgement?

> I found the tone of
>the discussions there to be somewhat arrogant as well.

  Well I regret that I have offended you.  Could it be because I
unequivocally take the stance that the solution to the AI problem must
be simple at its core?  I do realize that, in so doing, I seem to be
dismissing a large portion of AI research.  Well, I do.  There are too
many incompatible approaches to AI out there for me not to take side.
That there are so many is indicative of a fragmented science, a
science in disarray.  My main criticism of AI scientists *in general*
(I do admire a sizable few, especially makers of autonomous learning
robots) is not they are not bright (they are some of the brightest
people on earth), or that they have not accomplished much.  The
problem is that they worship complexity for its own sake.  They expect
the solution to the common sense problem be hard and complicated and
they conduct their research accordingly.  That, IMO, is a sure recipe
for failure.

Cheers!

Louis Savain