Thoughtcrime

Hi John, I’m back! 😊                                                                         

Ok, great! What did you find out?😊

On the lowest levels where data comes in and is processed, the material implementation does matter a lot and very directly

but on higher levels of abstraction, it matters less, except in a general sense, constraining processing speed and memory size

And what is your conclusion about what to include in the article then?

I think I agree with you that we don’t need to go back all the way to the mythological era

But?

well, I suppose it does make sense to include something about the history of psychology

Aha, and why would that be? 

Both Cho and Sam mentioned “the rules of thinking” and “the laws of thought”, isn’t that what we should be looking at?

Maybe, but the article is about AI, not human psychology …

And yet human intelligence is the only intelligence we really know, more or less

So where do we get the “intelligence” part from, if not ourselves?

Hmmm, I see what you mean. So then we need a section on how we discovered our own laws of thought and then put them in a machine?

Exactly! That was what I was getting at! 😅                                  

OK, I do think that makes sense. Then we can’t just talk about computer technology since the 1950s, I guess

No indeed, we should go back at least to the 19th century       

Works for me! But we still have a word limit to observe, so we should be quite selective

I’ll get right on that, no problem! 😉                                              

Thank you so much for your help! 😊