Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Carlos E.R." Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: naughty Python Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2026 21:37:51 +0100 Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <6decndo7ib2Df8z0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <10iu02q$1029n$12@dont-email.me> <10iu3g7$11u10$3@dont-email.me> <10iutjt$1c0aq$2@dont-email.me> <10j5ics$3ohc6$1@paganini.bofh.team> <10j6g96$3mtri$2@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net ZiSPpA4uh+XL25jawZ/kGA0VBP5G+iDkIqbqHu0zrWaOmaXaQa X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:TXG9vuEdVgAv16gam5YCG9J3zHk= sha256:pr+Ju/zZGpnWEjZ56gts4eulla9bng7XVml8UK2SpYo= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: es-ES, en-CA In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:80247 alt.folklore.computers:232982 On 2026-01-01 21:10, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 19:12:29 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro writes: >>> Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>>> But are 'expert systems' really AI? >>> >>> What is really “AI”? At one point, the argument was over whether >>> computers could “think”. Then you had to define “thinking”, and >>> somebody tried to settle the question by saing: “thinking is what >>> computers cannot do”. >>> >>> The only succinct definition of “AI” I ever saw was: “solving NP >>> problems in polynomial time”. >> >> It was always rather flexible. Currently it’s a label you put on things >> to attract venture capital or other forms of finance. > > Best definition yet. It's already started with the 'smart' phone but I'm > waiting for the marketers of consumer goods to tack AI onto frying pans > and everything else. > > It wasn't very smart but it was sad to see Roomba go under. If nothing > else it was good for terrorizing cats. There are other brands. I have no idea if as good, but they had a lot of competition. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;