On Saturday 10 November 2007 16:51, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 02:06 PM 11/10/2007, Richard Loosemore wrote: > > > Basically, 'traditional' AI people have an almost theological aversion to > > the idea that the task of building an AI might involve having to learn (and > > deconstruct!) a vast amount of cognitive science, and then use an > > experimental-science methodology to find the mechanisms that really give > > rise to AI. > > I have to give a lot of weight to the apparent fact that most AI > researchers have not yet been convinced to accept your favored approach. > More persuasive to me are arguments for fast AI based on more widely shared > premises.
I believe that both Richard and Robin misrepresent the profession when they reference "traditional AI researchers." I believe that they are thinking only of those researchers who have concluded that AI is possible with today's technology without further advances in cognitive science being required. Thus, only those who believe in such a thing are included in the group. I think this unfairly excludes the vast larger number of computer experts, cognitive experts, and those with knowledge in both fields, who have studied the field of AI and have concluded that such a thing is not possible at this time. Admitidly, most computer scientists and cognitive experts do not agree with the approach being discussed above. Therefore, using Robin's reasoning, I would have to give more weight to all these people, instead of assuming that they are all wrong, and that the small minority of our favorite AI researchers are correct. Therefore, I use Robin's logic to agree with Richard's conclusion! -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=66361805-203259
