From: Alex F. Bokov (alexboko@umich.edu)
Date: Sun Jun 17 2001 - 22:45:24 MDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, John Clark wrote:
> There is an old saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Boeing already uses thousands of subcontractors when they make a 747, but somebody has to get the financing to pay those contractors and make long term deals with them, and somebody has to do the R&D, and somebody has to decide to go with this design and not that design, and somebody has to give the basic go or no go to the entire thing. Mom and pop can not do none of these things.
So this is basically an argument for centralized control.
1. Why is the same argument not applicable to governments.
2. Why does it have to be a 'somebody'? Why not a some *thing*? For
instance a marketing AI that analyzes market research data and feeds
it directly to R&D AIs that pass the prototypes on to tester AIs... etc.
3. Is there any difference between the above scenario and one where you
substitute "AI" with "collaborative decisionmaking software"? At what
point do we start experiencing the horrors of design by committee?
PS: Yup, back from the dead again. Howdy. :-)
- --
Koresh Posse Comitatus Special Forces
Why are the above words in my signature? Check out:
http://www.echelon.wiretapped.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQBpAwUBOy2HZpvUJaRNHMexAQEUoQKZAbeM6VtGV781DTI3GqszYa6ijVgFwDzZ
13eJY3+nyUakw2LgBwLbaDhquAutZz9XKX0C12vOq/xZnGvhBrHqdhu0H7TQoo1t
ILFH5BiQjKbdyy+w
=FDn4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:10 MST