Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!allegra!alice!rhh
From: rhh@research.att.com (Ron Hardin <9289-11216> 0112110)
Subject: Re: Does AI make philosophy obsolete?
Message-ID: <DFyD4C.1B1@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <DFvHFv.1Hp@research.att.com> <JMC.95Oct3084423@S <JMC.95Oct3185544@Steam.stanford.edu> <44thq7$jjs@news.ox.ac.uk> <JMC.95Oct4084948@Steam.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 01:50:35 GMT
Lines: 8
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33866 comp.ai.philosophy:33377 sci.cognitive:9871 sci.psychology.theory:940

John McCarthy writes:
>I agree with Patrick Juola about humans being not much good at
>NP-complete problems in general form and about the small relation
>between NP-completeness and AI.

I am taking it that having a small relation to AI means that
AI excludes these problems; and that that's a strong relation
is my point.
