Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I guess the actual distinction we make in AI becomes "once the human mind understands what's going on, it's no longer AI". That strikes me as a tad hubristic.

    I don't think that is a totally fair way of putting it. What seems to happen is that a problem is proposed that exemplifies (or seems to) something that only human thinking works for. AI people work on such a problem, thinking that a solution to this problem might help lead to a solution of general human thought. In the end, though, the best solutions to thses problems always seem to end up being problem-specific heuristic approaches that do not generalize to being a solution to thinking processes in general.

    Chess programs, for example, are considered not to be AI because (1) they clearly do not mimic human thought patterns since they have to analyse huge orders of magnitude more positions just to break even with human thought - they are certainly not thinking about chess as well as humans (2) these programs do not help writing programs to discuss Shakespeare, or debug Perl scripts, or vacuum a house, or other "simple" human tasks. Now, if someone were to find the way to write a chess program that would have an intuitive feel for which positions need to be analysed and only analyse them - that would truly be AI, even if it didn't beat the brute force programs; especially so if this method of developing "intuition" was not hard-coded chess knowledge, but knowledge about how to work with both hard-coded and learned chess knowledge and reason from them together.