Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2735 talk.philosophy.misc:1645 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Message-ID: <1985@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 28 Nov 88 11:25:11 GMT References: <1976@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <2717@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 40 In article <2717@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >Would you tell us why *we* should? E.g., taking a look at some axiom >sets for symbolic logic, it is less than obvious that prescribing >the meanings of words is what is going on. On the contrary, most AIers believe the assertion that logic encapulates the rules of thought, and that all sentences can be given a semantics in formal logic (note how some famous mathematical logicians disagree and stick to formal languages as being very different things). >translates to "language use ascribing intelligence to computers >will never come to be regarded as fair play in the language game." >If we accept the translation, we see that the thesis is obviously >false, since language has already come to be used this way. Listen >around. "Dumb program!" "If you put the name in quotes, the >computer will understand you." ... None of your examples would be accepted as anything except sloppy language, but acceptable sloppiness given that "Dumb programmer who wrote this program" or "Dumb design team who got the functionality of this software wrong" are far too long winded. Part of the consciousness raising of HCI is that programs are never dumb, only the programmers and designers who make them inadequate, or the design which commercial considerations forced on the designers or programmers. Anyone who talks of computers "understanding" does so: a) to patronise users whom they don't know how to instruct properly; b) because they are AI types. The majority of competent instructtors and realists wouldn't use "understand" for "fit the dumbly designed syntax". People are loose with their language. What counts is what they stick out for. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs!ukc!glasgow!gilbert