From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!cambridge.oracorp.com!ian Mon Jan  6 10:29:48 EST 1992
Article 2415 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1639 sci.logic:697 sci.math:5354 comp.ai.philosophy:2415
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!cambridge.oracorp.com!ian
>From: ian@cambridge.oracorp.com (Ian Sutherland)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Keywords: analytic arguments, reflection principle, standard model
Message-ID: <1991Dec27.143230.14368@cambridge.oracorp.com>
Date: 27 Dec 91 14:32:30 GMT
References: <1991Dec23.213632.18047@cambridge.oracorp.com> <1991Dec23.190337.6899@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec27.014138.3071@grayhawk.rent.com>
Organization: ORA Corp, 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139
Lines: 24

In article <1991Dec27.014138.3071@grayhawk.rent.com> siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur) writes:
>Does anyone or no one agree with the above proposition, that an AI needs to
>be more advanced in mind, than humans, to have real purpose?

If you mean "more advanced" in all ways, then I think that's too lofty
a goal to have as your first goal.  If you mean "more advanced" in
SOME way, I think that's a good thing to shoot for, as long as the
area in which you're trying to improve on humans is not too broad.

I don't think an AI needs to be more advanced, or even AS advanced,
as a human being, in ANY area, to be useful (I don't know what you
mean by "real purpose").  There are plenty of tasks in which some
"smart" computer assistance would be very useful, but in which the
"assistant" need not be better, or even as good as, the person being
assisted.

By the way, does this particular continuation of this thread belong in
sci.logic?  While it dealt with Penrose's arguments, which have to do
with mathematical logic, it was appropriate.  This continuation seems
to have nothing to do with logic (or math, for that matter).
-- 
Ian Sutherland                          ian@cambridge.oracorp.com

Sans peur


