From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!puma.ATL.GE.COM!ljones Wed Aug 12 16:51:58 EDT 1992
Article 6532 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!puma.ATL.GE.COM!ljones
>From: ljones@andrew.ATL.GE.COM (LeRoy E Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Jul31.155007.17499@puma.ATL.GE.COM>
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:50:07 GMT
References: <982@engcon.marshall.ltv.com>
Sender: news@puma.ATL.GE.COM (USENET News System)
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
Lines: 28

In article <982@engcon.marshall.ltv.com> ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA) writes:
>In
>Article 7026 of comp.ai.philosophy:
>From: jones@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jones)
>states:
>
>A recent poster (I have lost the pointer) says that the way to achieve
>A.I. is to *define* "intelligence."  This is a classic mistake. 
>
>Tom
>
>
>The problem here is in the word "artificial."  I think what you're
>claiming is that artificial intelligence should not be regarded
>as intelligence.  If this is true, then the definition and development
>of ai would not require (and indeed be obfuscated by) a definition
>of intelligence. [...]

It seems that to judge if what is called AI is really artificial or not,
we have to have a definition of intelligence to work from. If AI stands
up to the definition of real intelligence, whatever that may be, then
we can drop the A, but until then, we seem to be trying to make machines
mimic things, namely humans, which they are not, and that seems to make
what they are doing artificial to me. The twist is that we don't want the 
machine to just follow orders...we want it to think, and reason, hence the
intelligence part. Put them together and we have AI.

	-- Lee


