On Sat, 6 Jun 2015 03:32 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 10:20:49 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2015 01:20 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> > As a parallel here is Dijkstra making fun of AI-ers use of the word
>> > 'intelligent'
>> > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD618.html
>>
>> Nice rant, but as is typical of so many rants by Dijkstra, it's
>> overflowing with smugness at his own cleverness, and very light on actual
>> reasoning or sense.
>
> The cleverness and smugness has made you miss the point:
> Post-computers 'intelligent' has a new meaning on account of abuse of
> langauge
Why do you think it is abuse of language?
The Oxford dictionary lists eight related but distinct meanings for
intelligence and seven for intelligent. Here is the definition from
Websters that Dijkstra rails against:
able to perform some of the functions of a computer
<an ~ computer terminal>.
The Oxford dictionary describes a similar definition in more detail:
Of a device, system or machine; able to vary its behaviour
in response to varying situations, requirements, and past
experience; spec. (esp. of a computer terminal) having its
own data-processing capability, incorporating a microprocessor.
Clearly the meaning relates to dumb terminals versus intelligent terminals:
the dumb terminal is unable to vary its own behaviour in response to the
environment, but is reliant on a computer elsewhere, while the intelligent
terminal is able to vary its own behaviour and can perform some of the
functions of a computer. A perfectly sensible (even, dare I say it,
intelligent) meaning of the word.
Far from being an abuse of language, this is exactly the sort of thing that
language is made for.
--
Steven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
