HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Checkers master beats computer
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:42:04 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)

In article <1992Sep3.200000.16300@unocal.com>, stgprao@st (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>I was under the impression that because checkers moves and strategies were
>simpler to compute than chess,

Yes, checkers is smaller than chess.  It is still a huge computation.

>			        the computer can look ahead so far in the
>game and basically win by brute force.

That is what usually happens.  Ditto for chess.  Nothing close to creativity
or "intelligence" has come up in any of these programs.  Someone even gave
a rather all-too-typical "horizon effect" anecdote, where brute force loses.
Cray Blitz was, uh, enjoying a break in the 1984 US Open playing speed chess
against all comers, mostly experts, masters, and the like.  At the bottom of
its competition (1800), it shocked all kibbitzers (including a grandmaster)
by sacrificing its queen out of nowhere, eventually losing.  On the replay,
it was found out why: the 1800 had a forced mate-in-11, and the program opted
for avoiding the "sure" loss instead of the "uncertain" loss.  All the humans
evaluated "sure" and "uncertain" the other way around.  Not even with the
obvious clue that Cray Blitz chose a major (and useless) sacrifice did
anyone see the "sure" loss.

>					 But human mind can still devise
>strategies to defeat such a computation which is amazing to me. 

The current checkers' computations are not complete computations.  Ditto
for chess.  Moreover, checkers has an "ugly sister" sort of reputation,
and as such, I would not be so certain that Tinsley represents the peak
of human checkers performance.  That he's been on top for 40 years may
speak volumes about him.  Or about checkers.

There were comments in r.g.chess that more extensive book calculations
by Chinook and company may solve checkers within the decade.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: what is consciousness for?
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:36:59 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Aug18.195026.22179@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>When we are talking about behavioral properties (consciousness,
>intelligence, etc) rather than organs, 

Consciousness is a _behavioral_ property?

-- jd
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: quote
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:01:55 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <Sep07.191444.32810@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> ns111310@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu 
(Nate Sammons) quotes:
 
>  "I don't want to be immortal through my work....                      
>              ...I want to be immortal through not dying." -Anonymous   

This is not anonymous; this is Woody Allen.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Turing Test Myths
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:59:17 GMT

In article <7499@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>This is not necessarily true.  Think, for example, of how much 
>easier it is to have a reading knowledge of a programming language
>than a writing knowledge.  

You have fallen victim to an error commonly made by those who pretend
to be knowledgeable about computers, but in fact are not.  It is far
far easier to have a writing knowledge of a programming language that
to have a reading knowledge.

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6065 rec.arts.sf.misc:2868 alt.cyberpunk:4217
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:06:02 GMT

From: rwmurphr@crusader.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree)
>according to an article in the last month or so of new scientist.
>The soldier of tomorrow will carry a laser to blind other soldiers.
>and wear goggles to save his own eyes.  Expect battlefield opthalmalic
>surgery to be a big part of 21rst century MASH units.

The future's so bright, I have to wear shades?
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6069 rec.arts.sf.misc:2875 alt.cyberpunk:4224
From: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 03:52:38 EDT
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:

> One thing I've been afraid of since Iraq is that it would give the people of
> this country a false sense that our technology will overcome all enemies, and
> from the messages which have appeared here, I would have to say that my fears
> have been realized.  Everyone should remember that we can win a few battles,
> but unless we are willing to fight on the enemies terms, we will still lose t
> war.  Iraq worked a fixed set stance.  Our air power was able to kick the sno
> out of them (besides their not willing to fight).  What would have happened i
> they decided to fight a guerilla war?  Our air power would have been
> meaningless against small fire group teams.  How effective was our air power 
> Vietnam?

Huh? Air power kicked alot of asses in Vietnam. Clearly it was the political
micromanagement that lost Vietnam. If the president had said 'Take Out North
Vietnam' we would have wiped them out mucho pronto. Getting into a war when
you don't want to take out the enemy is a pretty stupid thnig to do. Desert
Strom was better, but still we did not have the political will to take them
out, and now look at all the problems we are having in Iraq.

I am not too worried about the U.S. (or allied/UN) military being able to
do its job anytime/anyplace against any foe. I am worried about the political
leadership of the military.


                                          -= Max =-
...!uunet!underg!max
...!cactus.org!underg!max
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:27:47 GMT

In article <FeaZqB5w164w@underg.UUCP>, max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray) wrote:
>Huh? Air power kicked alot of asses in Vietnam. Clearly it was the political
>micromanagement that lost Vietnam. If the president had said 'Take Out North
>Vietnam' we would have wiped them out mucho pronto. Getting into a war when

The NVA kept the Ho Chi Minh Trail open despite everything that could be 
thrown at them from Guam.
-- 
Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,##EveryoneHasTheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpressio
TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>##nThisRightIncludesFreedomToHoldOpinionsWithoutInt
###############################erferenceAndToSeekReceiveAndImpartInformationAndI
deasThroughAnyMediaAndRegardlessOfFrontiers...#10 UN Declaration of Human Rights
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6039 rec.arts.sf.misc:2849 alt.cyberpunk:4202
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:23:33 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <4SEP199212055495@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>In article <185borINNj1l@agate.berkeley.edu>, cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes...

>>Article 21640 of sci.military:
>>Newsgroups: sci.military
>>Path: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ciss!lawday!military
>>From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
>>Subject: Improving the Way Infantrymen Are Equipped
>>Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
>>Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:27:21 GMT

>>From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

>>Improving the Way Infantrymen Are Equipped

>>By Jim Garamone
>>American Forces Information Service

>>     Luke Skywalker, look out.  The image and equipment of American
>>service members will make a quantum leap into the 21st century if
>>equipment now under development is adopted.

>This type of improvement is useful only at the beginning of a war or in small
>scale skirmishes where the high tech side numerically overwhelms the
>opposition.  As a good friend of mine (ex-Navy enlisted, ex-Marine officer,
>ex-merc) once said, "As the war gets longer, the level of technology used gets
>lower."  The new century may have added another technology layer, but it still
>comes down to who can fight better hand-to-hand.

Given that very little fighting today is done hand-to-hand why do you
think this is an important feature?  Today artillery and tanks are two
of the biggest killers on the battlefield.  The infantry system
described will let US soldiers fight better especially in certain types of
terrain, for example places with lots of obstacles like forrests and
cities, where tanks and artillery are not as useful.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: Marvin Minsky's Conscious Machines
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:51:19 GMT

In article <iordonez.715293767@academ01> iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
>>>P: This sentence is not true.
>
>I don't know if this is supposed to prove that sentence P is formalizable,
>but anyway please note that in my original post I claimed that P is not
>formalizable because it contains a "not TRUE" part, and not because it
>is self referent. The concept "truth" is not formalizable.

This sentence implies that the concept of "truth" is irrelevent and immaterial
regarding the issue of logical paradox and that only the existence of
self-reference and implication matter.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:05:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194253.12195@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca writes:
>
>Let's say I want to build an intelligent machine. What's it to be
>used for? Can this machine out its role in the universe?

Intelligence is ultimately an adjective, not a noun.  Intelligence refers to
primarily to intelligent control in embedded controllers and secondarily to
everything else that's heaped on top of this foundation in layers of
abstraction.

So its only purpose will be to interface with the human body to provide us
with intelligent prosthetics, and to ultimately bind us all into one
Consciousness, as we travel in a huge self-regenerating cubical spacecraft, so
we can eventually go out and ravage the rest of the Universe.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:04:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.230936.14718@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org writes:

	On using small nuclear devices to produce EMP  to destroy
high-tech gadgets:

>Using a cheap tactical nuke against a country which has a lot
>of expensive tactical nukes (not to mention a lot of really
>expensive strategic nukes) is probably not a real good idea.
>Generally, weapons of mass destruction are not used against
>enemies who can retaliate in kind. The use of poison gas in
>WWI came about because it was expected to be a war-winning
>surprise. In WWII, neither the Axis or the Allies used it
>because both sides knew the other had it. Iraq used chemical
>weapons freely against the Iranians and the Kurds, but
>did not use them against the Coalition forces: this was
>certainly not due to any sudden feeling by Mr. Hussein that
>such weapons were immoral. It probably had a lot to do with
>our public and private messages that we would get *really* mad
>if anybody did something like that.
>

	Hmmm. Anyone  know if EMP-enhanced weapons are available?
A  non-nuclear EMP device might be very useful in a near-future war,
as well. Only problem is that producing EMP weapons may require
First World grade industry, in which case the Third World may find
it hard to get their hands on them. 

	It might be difficult to justify a nuclear strike on someone
who EMPed troops if the EMP wasn't associated with a nuclear weapon.

	EMPing them back would be OK, though, and cities are pretty
vulnerable to such attack.  Kinda the opposite of how  the popular
media used to misrepresent neutron bombs: Leaves the people standing
and destroys part of the industrial infrastructure.

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Subject: Don't try to "define" intelligence
Summary: Re: Don't try to define flight
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:50:00 GMT

In article <715493498@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>since no artificial so-called "flying machine" has really flapped
>its wings as the primary method of propulsion, they are all
>distinguishable from natural flyers, the criterion has never been
>acheived, so it's too soon to weaken it.  So clearly, humans have not
>yet attained artificial flight. 

Unfortunately, this misses the point of my suggestion not to try to
define intelligence but to concentrate instead on generating
Turing-indistinguishable performance capacity. Of course if

(1) there were nothing special about mental states, or
(2) performance capacity were identical with mental states, or
(3) performance capacity picked out an interesting natural category
    of its own (say, staying "cognitively aloft," which would be
    analogous to the common property of both biological and artificial
    flight)

then Wayne's implied objection would be well taken. But none of the
above is the case. We all know there is something special about having
mental states, and no definitional constraint on performance will get
around that (even less will it get AT it). Flight, on the other hand,
is pure performance. So with flight, you can shoot for flight,
simpliciter, i.e., anything that gives a system the performance
capacity to get and stay aloft on its own (excluding the obvious forms
of cheating, like rocketing, orbiting, etc.). Or you can shoot for
biological flight, in which case you WOULD have to capture all the
relevant performance capacities of organisms (including flapping).

But intelligence, which no definition will succeed in conferring,
except by arbitrary fiat, on anything beyond its sole current possessor
(namely, creatures with mental states), can only be understood by
understanding what it takes to generate ALL of its current possessors'
performance capacities -- and of course even that is no guarantee. But
to settle for less a priori is to stipulate, completely arbitrarily, that
intelligence is really just this part or that part of our total
performance capacity. Which is in turn like saying, a priori, that
flight is really just falling, hopping, or taxiing on the ground.

The October SIGART Bulletin will contain an Editorial by Lewis
Johnson plus commentaries by Stuart Shapiro and myself, on a topic
related to this. I will post this in a subsequent message.

                   Stevan Harnad
Department of Psychology      Cognition et Mouvement URA CNRS 1166
  Princeton University            Universite d'Aix Marseille II
   Princeton NJ 08544           13388 Marseille cedex 13, France

-- 
Stevan Harnad  Department of Psychology  Princeton University
harnad@clarity.princeton.edu / harnad@pucc.bitnet / srh@flash.bellcore.com 
harnad@learning.siemens.com / harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu / (609)-921-7771
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:57:33 GMT

I am a terminator. writes:
 > |>  > Let's say I want to build an intelligent machine. What's it to be
 > |>  > used for? Can this machine out its role in the universe?
 > |> Well, let's just say, for sake of argument, that it has already been
 > |> done.
 > |> 
 > |> 
 > |> Remember ``Deep Thought''?
 > 
 > Do you mean the machine is supposed to think for a while?
 > 
 > Henry Choy
 > choy@cs.usask.ca

Deep Thought was a machine. It was asked to formulate a philosophical
question, to which the answer was given, after many years. The
question had been "What is the meaning of Life, The Universe and
Everything?", but the answer given was far too brief, and when asked,
Deep Thought said they had not asked the correct question.

Well, they said, what is the correct question to ask? Aha! said Deep
Thought, that is a tricky one. Can you do it, they said. No, Deep
Thought replied, but I can design a system that can. Can you do that
for us now? Yes, Deep Thought said. And he called it "The Earth".

The program Deep Thought designed is running now. It may soon come to
its conclusion. 

See you in Rickmansworth, in about 5 minutes? Bring some peanuts and
some beer!

Gordon.

____

Gordon Joly      Phone  +44 71 387 7050 ext 3703      FAX  +44 71 387 1397
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk        UUCP: ...!{uunet,uknet}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5972 rec.arts.sf.misc:2825 alt.cyberpunk:4162
From: morpheus@entropy.mcds.com (morpheus)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 01:14:41 EDT
Organization: Whoever you vote for, the government still gets elected.

tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:

> Say you want a revolution, you'd better free your mind instead. And you can
> do that at a library, for heaven's sake. Any library. 

Interesting to see Beatles lyrics in alt.cyberpunk... why not crosspost it to
rec.music.industrial?  (sarcasm, yes)

> The fact that nobody does, and maybe four out of a hundred thousand people
> can even conceive of what that might be like, is the real bottleneck.

The thing is, the average person doesn't care.  Give them their Budwieser and
their sitcoms and they're content.  (okay, maybe that's a little harsh, but the
basic idea valid (I think))

> But the information is there. In what ways are cyberpunks information-poor?

Beats me, I wondered the same.  Sure, an individual cyberpunk may have less
information than TRW, but certainly more than Jon Q. Publik...

> The only people I can think of who could be called information-poor are
> people without basic reading skills or leisure to use them.

Scary the amount of people that your statement includes..



--
  "The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusivly for them that believe in
  it. Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that believe in it
  on supposition that they'll go there if they don't."-the Principia Discordia

         morpheus@entropy.mcds.com  /\/\/\/  f208.n2606.z1.fidonet.org
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:42:54 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <1992Sep6.200121.4383@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU  
(Stevan Harnad) writes:
> ** FOOTNOTE: In a nutshell, the symbol grounding problem can be stated
> as follows: Computers manipulate meaningless symbols that are
> systematically INTERPRETABLE as meaning something. The problem is that
> the interpretations are not intrinsic to the symbol manipulating
> system; they are made by the mind of the external interpreter (as when
> I interpret the letters from my TT pen-pal as meaningful messages).
> This leads to an infinite regress if we try to assume that what
> goes on in MY mind is just symbol manipulation too, because the thoughts
> in my mind do not mean what they mean merely because they are
> interpretable by someone ELSE's mind: Their meanings are intrinsic. One
> possible solution would be to ground the meanings of a system's symbols
> in the system's capacity to discriminate, identify, and manipulate
> the objects that the symbols are interpretable as standing for (Harnad
> 1987), in other words, to ground its symbolic capacities in its robotic
> capacities. Grounding symbol-manipulating capacities in
> object-manipulating capacities is not just a matter of attaching the
> latest transducer/effector technologies to a computer, however. Hybrid
> systems may need to make extensive use of analog components and perhaps
> also neural nets, in order to connect symbols to their objects (Harnad et
> al. 1991; Harnad 1992).
> --
An excellent summary, methinks.  Now I think I appreciate exactly what
you mean by grounding and the Total TT.  
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: freytag@seas.gwu.edu (Richard Freytag)
Subject: Re: Searle's The Rediscovery of the Mind
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:42:42 GMT

In article <7498@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>Has there been any discussion of Searle's new book _The Rediscovery
>of the Mind_?  If not, why not?
>
>Indeed, why has there been so little discussion of Dennett's
>_Consciousness Explained_?
>
There is a review of Dennett: _Consciousness Explained_ in Science, 28 Aug,92
Vol 257, pg1291.

-Richard Freytag