Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh From: josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Sound and complete definitions of intelligence. Message-ID:Date: 9 Dec 88 20:13:45 GMT References: <2788@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 24 Starting in the middle: " And we can theorize and conjecture. " Our estimates may be wrong, but they are not frivolous. I'm all for theory and conjecture. And so far as maximum capacity goes, maybe the estimates make sense. I should have qualified my charge of frivolity more carefully. Putting it better: the conclusion that computers cannot in principle match human intellectual abilities on the grounds that human have much more computational capacity available involves a frivolous interpretation of an estimate perhaps meaningful in other applications. Aha. On the contrary, I claim that a human-equivalent computer is buildable now, would be a million-dollar supercomputer in the mid-90's, and a personal computer by 2010. Let me put that another way. It is the consensus of people I have read and heard on the subject (respected in their fields) that the state of the technology will produce a one-rack, $100K, human- processing-power-equivalent machine around the year 2000. *It is much less likely that the appropriate software will be available*. --JoSH