From: Gordon Worley (redbird@rbisland.cx)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 21:20:52 MST
On Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 09:19 PM, Bryan Moss wrote:
> ben goertzel wrote:
>
>> http://www.goertzel.org/realaibook/
>>
>> On the private e-mail list consisting of chapter authors
>> for the book, we had a long discussion about the phrase
>> Real AI and its plusses and minuses.
>
> As far as I can tell you're using "real" in a dual role as
> "applied" and "not-fake." For example, you contrast it with
> theoretical AI research, saying, "[theoretical AI] doesn't
> involve technical details regarding actually realizing
> artificially intelligent software," and later say, "over time,
> AI has drifted from its original focus on the creation of
> real, general artificial intelligence," implying both uses.
> The latter use, which was my first interpretation, is unlikely
> to win you any "fake" AI researchers as friends.
Well, it's Real AI, not real AI, just like Eliezer writes about Friendly
AI, not friendly AI. 'Real' is being used as a technical term here, and
the capitalization sets it apart.
>> So, until you come up with a better phrase, I intend to
>> keep using this one...
>
> Is it really necessary to coin a new phrase at all? The books
How about GIAI: Generally Intelligent AI. This is the term I've been
using in past posts to refer to the concept. Of course, most of the
time I'll just write AI because there's no pressing need to distinguish
classical AI from modern AI; it's implied.
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose redbird@rbisland.cx it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT