Moravec's "Paradox" isn't really paradoxical at all. What makes us say that computers are "strong" in some area? Answer: the fact that they are good there relat

Moravec's "Paradox" isn't really paradoxical at all. What makes us say that computers are "strong" in some area? Answer: the fact that they are good there relative to our prior expectations. Where do those expectations come from? From looking at ourselves. Similarly: what determines where we say we're "weak"? Answer: seeing other things being strong relative to us. Computers, for instance. Now, of course there are other points of reference for deciding where we're "weak". Doesn't that invalidate my argument? Why, no, because actually if we use those other points of reference the paradox rather goes away. For instance: Computers do arithmetic very, very fast. Is that an area where we're weak? Only if we compare ourselves against computers; we do arithmetic much better than chickens or tigers do.