Dear Chris and list,
> "Rust, Chris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would say that this particular architect was not designing. Being
> conscious is not the point, engaging with unpredictable or
> wicked aspects of the problem is.
Sorry Chris, I wasn't explicit enough. I never said my automaton was not engaging with the 'wicked' aspects of the problem. And if the automaton was engaging with them then I'm happy to accredit the architect with the same engagement.
What I was trying to say was that there is a continuous scale from simple problems to complex problems, and at some point on that scale they become 'wicked'. Why is it that at that point the architect is accredited with 'designing' and the automaton isn't?
I understand that I am assuming for the purpose of the question that it is possible that an automaton can, eventually, be built that solves 'wicked' design problems, and that if the assumption is false then the question is not valid. I am not concerned here *how* it solves wicked problems, only with why it isn't designing if it does.
Regards,
John
|