Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!allegra!alice!rhh
From: rhh@research.att.com (Ron Hardin <9289-11216> 0112110)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Outsider's Guide to AI
Message-ID: <DEz30A.6EE@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <42n5qn$bjl@Venus.mcs.com> <4396f8$ah7@tbd120.tbd.ford.com> <JMC.95Sep15070951@Steam.stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 00:36:10 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33475 sci.cognitive:9631 sci.psychology.theory:710

John McCarthy writes:
>All this seems overheated to me.  AI is a serious and difficult branch
>of science and is being pursued moderately diligently.

Can a claim to seriousness be put on stage in a way it can't upstage?
(Answer: yes.  Eg., ``How AI achieves a seriousness-effect.''
``Seriousness is strictly speaking a subclass of frivolity.'')

How is AI going to deal with that bit of human-level intelligence?

The very _first_ thing that has to be computed is literary effects;
everything comes from them.

They are not in particular a messy complication.

To lay it out impiously, seriousness is a literary effect.

So if you see AI going another way, it's fair to remark on it.
