From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!vax.muskingum.edu!ra_ashar Tue Nov 19 11:09:31 EST 1991
Article 1252 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!vax.muskingum.edu!ra_ashar
>From: ra_ashar@vax.muskingum.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Artificial Stupidity? - prerequisite for Artificial Intelligence
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.194902.840@vax.muskingum.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 91 19:49:02 -0600
References: <TODD.91Nov4211052@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Distribution: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Muskingum College
Lines: 23

In article <TODD.91Nov4211052@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>, todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law) writes:
> 
> 
> This may sound ridiculous, but has anyone ever carried out
> research into Artificial Stupidity?
> .....

For what its worth, I think there can be no 'intelligence' sans 'stupidity'.
Only when a being(animal, human or inorganic) is bold enough to experiment
independantly, will it do something sufficiently off the normal track to be
consoidered stupid, and then occasionally come up with streaks of intelligence
dubbed genius or creative.  In this sense, present-day expert systems are'nt
sophisticated enough to be stupid. Connectionist systems, on the other hand,
have tremendous potential of being stupid and thence intelligent.

Better a stupid being
Than an intelligent object

Ronny Ashar
Muskingum College
New Concord, OH 43762




