HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 3 Sep 1992 23:18:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep3.204150.21696@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>In article <185bhuINNj0v@agate.berkeley.edu> cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes:
>>>
>>btw-- F451 is on the list for the top 5 banned books in US schools...
>>wonder why?
>
>Where is this marvelous list?  I'g like to see the rest of it!


Norman Lear's "liberal" activist group "People for the American Way"
compiles an annual list of most-censored materials; the latest was
released this last week (and reported on in the local (SF Bay Area)
news). Others on the list included _Of Mice and Men_, _Adventures
of Huckleberry Finn_, and _Slaughterhouse 5_. 

They also report that the incidents of school censorship were up this
last year. :(

Jamais
From: leao@buphyn.bu.edu (Joao Leao)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Loebner Prize Competition Transcripts 1991 #0
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:35:07 GMT

In article <6w+n+vq.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)  
writes:
> leao@buphy0.bu.edu (Joao Leao) writes:
> >committee (consisting of several AI-all-stars including Dan Dennett,  
Joe
> >Weizenbaum (a.k.a Feigenbaum), of Eliza fame, and Willard vanOrman
> >Quine(!) ) 
> 
>        I don't think Joe Weitzenbaum and Ed Feigenbaum are the same  
person.
> 
> 					John Nagle

Off course not! This is an inside joke of this news group populated
by such knoledgeable ai hackers that it was possible to carry out
a discussion around "Feigenbaum's Eliza Program" for a good dozen
exchanges without anyone caring to rectify the mistake. Finally
Hans Moravec took pity on Joe...

So much from telling humans from other humans...

					Joao Leao
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Reply-To: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 17:30:41 GMT


Sounds like they're on to something, here.  A little more work and
it won't be necessary to put a live trooper inside all that stuff.
Not mentioned, of course, is what happens to all that electronics
when it rains, or when the soldier has to wade chin-deep through muck.
Or what happens when he or she has to take a dump.    And what happens
when this stuff breaks, as it no doubt will shortly after it's put
into use, and the trooper (who has come to depend on all this gear)
has to turn his head to aim, or take his shirt off to get cool, or
think for himself because he's no longer in electronic and instantaneous
touch with those directing the operation?

I would guess (and this is ONLY a guess) that historically speaking the
most effective weapons systems have been those developed to deal with
an ACTUAL need, and that pie-in-the-sky, wouldn't-it-be-nice stuff either
never makes it off the drawing board, or it's the first thing the grunt
throws in the ditch when it's time to lighten the load.

Besides.....I already knew about all this stuff.  I saw Aliens......




Mike Lynch

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5912 rec.arts.sf.misc:2758 alt.cyberpunk:4050
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:00:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>>As a wise man said about 2000 years ago: "The poor will always be with you".
>>
>>Unfortunately, the thing that is easiest to do, namely, give money to the
>>poor (or whatever charity you wish) doesn't help in the long run.  What
>>probably helps most (at least in the third world) is spreading the idea
>>of capitalism and a free society.
>
>This sounds like a R*p*bl*c*n attitude, and a typical distortion of
>the original meaning.  I find it difficult to believe that anyone
>could believe that Jesus REALLY meant "the poor will always be with you"
>to be a recommendation NOT to help the poor!  YES, try to build a stronger
>economy so more people can have jobs and not be poor, but NO, don't
>abandon the poor in the meantime!!!!!

Context: Very soon before his crucifixion, while Jesus sat eating dinner, a 
woman came in and washed his feet and anointed him with very expensive 
ointment. Judas sniffed about what a waste it was, and how the ointment
could have been sold and the money used for charitable purposes. (Judas
was the treasurer of the little group and embezzled from their common 
purse.) Jesus said, "The poor you always have with you, but me you don't."

My understanding of his meaning is this: his life and work were a very special
event, creating new possibilities. It was proper to celebrate and experience 
them fully. This doesn't take away from the fact that it's appropriate to 
perform acts of charity under ordinary circumstances.

>>In general, there are more people living in prosperity and freedom than there
>>have ever been throughout human history.

I don't understand the significance of this at all -- there are more people 
living, period, than there have ever been throughout human history. 

Tom

******************************************************************************
 Tom Price  |  Obscure Dropout  |  tp0x@cs.cmu.edu  |  Simplicity, simplicity
******************************************************************************
From: dmp@tigger.cs.bham.ac.uk (Donald Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: FINAL CALL : AISB'93
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:28:03 GMT
Organization: Birmingham University Computer Science


    ================================================================

                          AISB'93 CONFERENCE

                        FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS 

    Theme: "Prospects for AI as the General Science of Intelligence"

                       29 March --  2 April 1993 

                        University of Birmingham

    ================================================================

The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the
Simulation of Behaviour will hold its ninth bi-annual conference on
the dates above at the University of Birmingham.

This is a reminder that the deadline for submitted papers and posters
is 15 September 1992 (though a few days leeway will be allowed). 

Papers are invited in any of the normal areas represented at AI and
Cognitive Science conferences, including:

AI in Design,
AI in software engineering
Teaching AI and Cognitive Science,
Analogical and other forms of Reasoning
Applications of AI,
Automated discovery,
Control of actions,
Creativity,
Distributed intelligence,
Expert Systems,
Intelligent interfaces
Intelligent tutoring systems,
Knowledge representation,
Learning,
Methodology,
Modelling affective processes,
Music,
Natural language,
Naive physics,
Philosophical foundations,
Planning,
Problem Solving,
Robotics,
Tools for AI,
Vision,

The conference proceedings will be published. Long papers and invited
papers will definitely be included. Selected poster summaries may be
included if there is space.


                 PAPER LENGTH and SUBMISSION DETAILS

Full papers:
    10 pages maximum, A4 or 8.5"x11", no smaller than 12 point print
    size Times Roman or similar preferred, in letter quality print.

Poster submissions
    5 pages summary

Excessively long papers will be rejected without being reviewed.

All submissions should include

    1. Full names and addresses of all authors
    2. Electronic mail address if available
    3. Topic area
    4. Label: "Long paper" or "Poster summary"
    5. Abstract no longer than 10 lines.
    6. Statement certifying that the paper is not being
       submitted elsewhere for publication.
    7. An undertaking that if the paper is accepted at least
       one of the authors will attend the conference.

THREE copies are required.


                  EMAIL, PAPER MAIL, PHONE and FAX. 

Email:
    * aisb93-prog@cs.bham.ac.uk 
      (for communications relating to submission of papers to the programme)
    * aisb93-delegates@cs.bham.ac.uk 
      (for information on accommodation, meals, programme etc. as it 
       becomes available --- enquirers will be placed on a mailing list)

Address:
    AISB'93 (prog) or AISB'93 (delegates), 
    School of Computer Science,
    The University of Birmingham,
    Edgbaston,
    Birmingham,
    B15 2TT, 
    U.K. 

Phone:
    +44-(0)21-414-3711

Fax:
    +44-(0)21-414-4281

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:25:03 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <exukjb.105.715022628@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>A new characterization of "intelligence": the 
>capacity to adapt means to ends.  Differential abilities in respect of 
>adapting means to ends by different orders of living being indicates 
>why intelligence is both a type-word and a straightforwardly adjectival 
>one. The more intelligent something is, the better able it is to find the 
>best means to attain its ends. 

>Theoretical Advantages:

>	2. Accounts for our gut feeling that intelligence is closely 
>	   tied to consciousness, because only conscious beings 	   
>	   know values (rooted in needs & desires) and thus can have 
>	   purposes.

I'm not alone in thinking that the purpose of bunch of termites
running around playing mud pies with dust and spit is to build a
termitary. That their behaviour is purposive can be tested by
interfering with it: they will resist interference, and repair damage.
Yet most people do not suppose termites to be conscious creatures. And
even if they were conscious, there is no termite which is aware of the
grand purpose of building the termitary according to its pre-ordained
design. The most any particular termite could be conscious of would be
it's own particular fragment of the task, at the individual mud pie
level, no more. Yet there is a design for the entire termitary, and
the termites achieve it pursposively, do they not?
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Checkers master beats computer
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:27:22 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 <1992Aug30.195848.6377@unocal.com>, stgprao@st (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>CBS news announced that the world checkers champ beat a computer 4-2 games.
>I thought checkers was ceded to computers a couple decades ago because
>those programs are easier to write than chess.

So?  Qubic is perhaps the most complex game currently solved by computer.

This event has been discussed in rec.games.chess, in case you're interested.
You'll have to go back 300 articles or so--something about a Fischer-Spassky
rematch seems to have taken over the newsgroup for some reason.

To summarize, Tinsley, a mathematics professor, has been world champion for
something like four decades.  Chinook, the computer that he played, has had
the number two ranking for the past few years.  The international checkers
federation refused to sanction their championship match, so Tinsley resigned
his title (he's still the world champion as far as reality is concerned) and
took on the computer.  Before this match, he had lost 5 games since becoming
champion, and never twice in the same match.

In addition to the 4-2 win/loss record, there were 33 draws.  (The match
was set for best out of 40).  The match was run at typical tournament
pacing, which meant that many commentators were wondering if fatigue was
going to unfairly affect Tinsley, who is now in his 60s.  Apparently not,
and indeed the opposite may have occurred: Tinsley improved as the match
went on, perhaps merely from understanding his opponent better, but also
perhaps from the momentum of his psychological buildup.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5898 rec.arts.sf.misc:2728 alt.cyberpunk:4029
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:04:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Btp8Jv.4ou.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>>As a wise man said about 2000 years ago: "The poor will always be with you".
>>
>>Unfortunately, the thing that is easiest to do, namely, give money to the
>>poor (or whatever charity you wish) doesn't help in the long run.  What
>>probably helps most (at least in the third world) is spreading the idea
>>of capitalism and a free society.
>
>This sounds like a R*p*bl*c*n attitude, and a typical distortion of
>the original meaning.  I find it difficult to believe that anyone
>could believe that Jesus REALLY meant "the poor will always be with you"
>to be a recommendation NOT to help the poor!  YES, try to build a stronger
>economy so more people can have jobs and not be poor, but NO, don't
>abandon the poor in the meantime!!!!!

Context: Very soon before his crucifixion, while Jesus sat eating dinner, a 
woman came in and washed his feet and anointed him with very expensive 
ointment. Judas sniffed about what a waste it was, and how the ointment
could have been sold and the money used for charitable purposes. (Judas
was the treasurer of the little group and embezzled from their common 
purse.) Jesus said, "The poor you always have with you, but me you don't."

My understanding of his meaning is this: his life and work were a very special
event, creating new possibilities. It was proper to celebrate and experience 
them fully. This doesn't take away from the fact that it's appropriate to 
perform acts of charity under ordinary circumstances.

>>In general, there are more people living in prosperity and freedom than there
>>have ever been throughout human history.

I don't understand the significance of this at all -- there are more people 
living, period, than there have ever been throughout human history. 

Tom

******************************************************************************
 Tom Price  |  Obscure Dropout  |  tp0x@cs.cmu.edu  |  Simplicity, simplicity
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5890 rec.arts.sf.misc:2710 alt.cyberpunk:4004
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:18:44 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

Well Tom, the food production statistics seem to indicate that
we produce more than enough food to feed the world. Most of the
current famines are caused by civil wars. But as you suggest, I'll
adjust my attitude.

Oh God, it's all so terrible! I'll take the sleeping pills and
die immediately!

Better?

Chris Kostanick
"Depression is fashionable"
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5893 rec.arts.sf.misc:2717 alt.cyberpunk:4019
From: mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:02:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: leela.1992Aug28.040259.2038
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

As a wise man said about 2000 years ago: "The poor will always be with you".

Unfortunately, the thing that is easiest to do, namely, give money to the
poor (or whatever charity you wish) doesn't help in the long run.  What
probably helps most (at least in the third world) is spreading the idea
of capitalism and a free society.

In general, there are more people living in prosperity and freedom than there
have ever been throughout human history.
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5945 rec.arts.sf.misc:2805 alt.cyberpunk:4119
From: cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 3 Sep 1992 15:38:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep2.151858.12249@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks) writes:
>
>Not very far from what we have now, is it? Are there any other authors writing
>plausible fiction set about 75-100 years from now? As I look at the "science
>fiction" shelves at the local book monopolys (what's the word that implies 
>"monopoly", but indicates two dominating units?), I see a HELL of a lot of

the word you are looking for is "duopoloy"; anything beyond that is
called "oligopoly". 

>fluffy shit fantasy/Star Drek/Star Wars, but precious little that seems
>plausible or relevant (as Gibson unfortunately does), unless you count
>Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, which is getting closer every day.
>
btw-- F451 is on the list for the top 5 banned books in US schools...
wonder why?

>Mark Shanks

Jamais A. Cascio             \\  "I'd rather be a smartass than a dumbass"
cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu    \\                       -me
Department of Political Science\\    "Too bad you never had a choice"
210 Barrows Hall UCB 94720      \\                      -my wife
**************************************************************************
From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Subject: Re: Don't try to "define" intelligence
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:30:21 GMT


Don't try to define intelligence. That would be like trying to "define"
gravity before you had a successful theory of gravitation. Intelligence
is the thing people and animals have when they do the kinds of clever
things that we ordinarily think of as requiring intelligence. Being
able to do only some or even many of those things is not a sign of
intelligence, just as being able only to fall, jump, or taxi on the ground
is not a sign of flying. A nonhuman, non-animal candidate's performance
capacities must be indistinguishable from ours to justify inferring
that they are intelligent. That criterion may be too strong, but,
methdologically, it can only be weakened AFTER it's been attained --
otherwise we're back to calling falling, jumping and taxiing "flight"
"by definition."

Harnad, S. (1992) The Turing Test Is Not a Trick:
Turing Indistinguishability Is A Scientific Criterion.
Sigart Bulletin 3(4) October 1992

Related papers are available by anonymous ftp from host princeton.edu
directory pub/harnad

-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: mike@highlite.uucp (Mike Wiik)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Gotham Communications Research
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:50:58 GMT

mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee) writes:

>As a wise man said about 2000 years ago: "The poor will always be with you".

Maybe he was mis-quoted. Wouldn't be the first time. Maybe you should
have put "An alleged man allegedly said...."

>Unfortunately, the thing that is easiest to do, namely, give money to the
>poor (or whatever charity you wish) doesn't help in the long run.  What
>probably helps most (at least in the third world) is spreading the idea
>of capitalism and a free society.

Yes, but it's difficult for those of us with a conscience to have to 
explain to a starving child that, no, we won't give you any food today
because in the long run it's bad for you to depend on us and you need
to develop self-sufficiency...

>In general, there are more people living in prosperity and freedom than there
>have ever been throughout human history.

Well, there's more people... I'd argue, though, that there's very few
people today who live in the kind of freedom enjoyed by our hunter-
gatherer forbears....

	-Mike

-- 
   | o==== . : ... :  :  .     |Mail Me Neat Stuff->POB 3703 Arlington VA 22203
 --@-- . o o o ... O -O- o o : |No disclaimers needed: I actually pay for this.
   |           ... :  :        |-----------------------------------------------
mEssAGE fRoM sPAcE ARt stUdiOs |Man:TheMissingLinkBetweenApes&HigherIntelligence
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak)
Subject: Sense of time (was Re: Consiousness)
Organization: multi-cellular
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 12:27:21 GMT

>
>In article <1992Aug23.014900.16178@news.Hawaii.Edu>, lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady) writes:
>> 
>> It seems to me that one of the things that distinquishes humans from
>> other animals is that humans (at least in most cultures) have a real
>> sense of time, a sense of the past and future. 

[...]
>> 
>One could figure out experiments but teh problem with animals is that we can't
>ask them what there reasons for their actions are.  My feeling is that the
>time sense is more developed in humans than most other animals but it is
>impossible to argue that it is totally lacking elsewhere.  A good point to 
>remember is that humans are just animals and any faculty found in humans is
>found elsewhere in nature.  Dogs probably think something similar about 
>humans.
>
>Barry Phease

I would say that sense of time is more of a cultural/language feature.
We have a sense of time because we wear watches :-).

There are some languages (eg. Navajo) which do not have the word for
"time".

On your next vacation don't use clocks for few days and see how you
perceive the passage of time.

...richie




-- 
* Richie Bielak   (212)-815-3072   | "Your brain is a liquid-cooled parallel  *
* Internet:       richieb@bony.com | super-computer". He pointed to his nose, *
* Bang {uupsi,uunet}!bony1!richieb | "This is the fan."                       *
*    - Strictly my opinions -      |                     - David Chudnovsky - *
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5884 rec.arts.sf.misc:2702 alt.cyberpunk:3992
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:32:29 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:

>People today live longer and eat better than at any time in
>history. This is scarred and desolate?

>Chris Kostanick
>"Range, 1000 yards"

Your sig seems to say it all, in terms of your vision. What people are you
talking about here? A few hundred million out of the 5+ billion on the
planet? And what percentage of those are living in poverty, hence *not*
eating enough, and *not* living longer? It appears nobody outside your 
little corner really matters to you. Future's so bright you gotta wear
shades, it seems.

Not intended as a flame, just a little re-adjustment of your perspective.

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk