Re: Guessing?

From: paul c <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:18:29 GMT
Message-ID: <9DV_j.168204$rd2.55899_at_pd7urf3no>

David Cressey wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <> wrote in message
> news:4839dff8$0$4035$

>> POOD is all about making sure the dbms knows what it needs to know. (Not
>> that I like anthropomorphizing dbmses.)

> I do like anthropomorphizing dbmses and software in general.
> I guess it's not so much that I like doing that as that I'm intellectually
> lazy enough not to avoid doing it. I guess anthropomorphizing software, or
> databases, or any artifact is intellectual shorthand for considering such an
> artifact as an agent of its human creator. As an agent, it "needs" or
> "guesses" what its creator would have "needed" or "guessed" in the same
> circumstance.
> There are (at least) two flaws in the above: the first is bugs, where the
> behavior is unintended. the second is AI, where the intent of the human
> creator is spcifically to create an artifact where anthropomorphization
> makes sense.

When the context is understood, it's only practical. I remember a terrific book called 'How does a Poem Mean?'. The author mentions somebody pointing out to Robert Frost that 'Stopping by the woods on a snowy evening' was resorting to trickery by breaking a few dogmatic rules and Frost replied to the effect that anything that works, works.

Here, I KNOW what some people are talking about without them saying it, sometimes even before they don't say it! I'm not sure they know I know. Received on Tue May 27 2008 - 17:18:29 CEST

Original text of this message