<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: artificial intelligence&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2009/12/09/artificial-intelligence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2009/12/09/artificial-intelligence/</link>
	<description>the blog of author Ricardo Pinto</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:32:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ricardo</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2009/12/09/artificial-intelligence/comment-page-1/#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>ricardo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1228#comment-764</guid>
		<description>Defining the parameters of such an artificial intelligence is relatively easy to do, but it seems to me that this is merely describing its boundary and not its content. The content is, perhaps, one of the last great &#039;black boxes&#039; left in science...

The latter part of what you say seems to me to be merely splitting the black box. I can&#039;t see how consigning one half into the darkness - and what you&#039;re describing here is the unconscious - gets any further forward. Except perhaps to say that, since we seem to need an unconscious to guide our consciousness, then an AI will similarly need one...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Defining the parameters of such an artificial intelligence is relatively easy to do, but it seems to me that this is merely describing its boundary and not its content. The content is, perhaps, one of the last great &#8216;black boxes&#8217; left in science&#8230;</p>
<p>The latter part of what you say seems to me to be merely splitting the black box. I can&#8217;t see how consigning one half into the darkness &#8211; and what you&#8217;re describing here is the unconscious &#8211; gets any further forward. Except perhaps to say that, since we seem to need an unconscious to guide our consciousness, then an AI will similarly need one&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moonie</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2009/12/09/artificial-intelligence/comment-page-1/#comment-760</link>
		<dc:creator>Moonie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:21:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1228#comment-760</guid>
		<description>Surely the the key to &#039;useful&#039; intelligence is the ability to ignore it - I&#039;m sure an A.I. would be &#039;brilliant&#039; at everything, but deciding when to act on its brilliance is the key - otherwise it would become bogged-down in an ever-expanding, branching train of thought, with infinite conclusions, each requiring a decision as to which thought should spark further action. Our skill, ironically, is when to lounge around and do nothing - to daydream, or simply prune a particular train of thought for no conscious reason... For me, intelligence is defined as much by what we can&#039;t &#039;do&#039; and how we cope with that as much as by how well we do execute tasks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely the the key to &#8216;useful&#8217; intelligence is the ability to ignore it &#8211; I&#8217;m sure an A.I. would be &#8216;brilliant&#8217; at everything, but deciding when to act on its brilliance is the key &#8211; otherwise it would become bogged-down in an ever-expanding, branching train of thought, with infinite conclusions, each requiring a decision as to which thought should spark further action. Our skill, ironically, is when to lounge around and do nothing &#8211; to daydream, or simply prune a particular train of thought for no conscious reason&#8230; For me, intelligence is defined as much by what we can&#8217;t &#8216;do&#8217; and how we cope with that as much as by how well we do execute tasks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ricardo</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2009/12/09/artificial-intelligence/comment-page-1/#comment-758</link>
		<dc:creator>ricardo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1228#comment-758</guid>
		<description>hmmm... that sounds good, but what does it mean?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hmmm&#8230; that sounds good, but what does it mean?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rem</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2009/12/09/artificial-intelligence/comment-page-1/#comment-747</link>
		<dc:creator>rem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1228#comment-747</guid>
		<description>In order to understand Artificial Intelligence, we&#039;ll have to study Artificial Stupidity...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In order to understand Artificial Intelligence, we&#8217;ll have to study Artificial Stupidity&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

