From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!gatech!news.byu.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.smith.edu!milkyway!orourke Wed Apr 22 12:04:18 EDT 1992
Article 5170 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!gatech!news.byu.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.smith.edu!milkyway!orourke
>From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.150429.22371@sophia.smith.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 92 15:04:29 GMT
References: <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr20.204409.15218@sophia.smith.edu> <1992Apr20.233507.1162@javelin.sim.es.com>
Sender: root@sophia.smith.edu (Operator)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 13

In article <1992Apr20.233507.1162@javelin.sim.es.com> 
	biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

[Re discussion of his suggestion that a criteria of machine intelligence
should be the production of art that humans can appreciate.]

>Or, to put a slighly different spin upon it: if [the computer]'s so smart, 
>how come it can't produce a work of art I like?

	If humans are so smart, how come we can't understand whale songs?
I am suggesting that computers may become the equivalent of a separate
species, and we should not expect them to be able to produce art for
the human species (except via mimicry).


