Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!ctrsol!IDA.ORG!rwex From: rwex@IDA.ORG (Richard Wexelblat) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Is there a definition of AI? Keywords: defining AI Message-ID: <1989Aug11.113620.319@IDA.ORG> Date: 11 Aug 89 11:36:20 GMT References: <1213@syma.sussex.ac.uk> Reply-To: rwex@csed-42.UUCP (Richard Wexelblat) Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA Lines: 27 In article <1213@syma.sussex.ac.uk> aarons@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes: >kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes: >> Anyone seen any mind-blowing (I mean, *GOOD*) definitions of AI? All >> the books seem to gloss over it... >Most people who attempt to define AI give limited definitions based >on ignorance of the breadth of the field. E.g. people who know >nothing about work on computer vision, speech, or robotics often >define AI as if it were all about expert systems. (I even once >saw an attempt to define it in terms of the use of LISP!). A semi-jocular definition I have often quoted (sorry, I don't know the source, I first saw it in net.jokes) is: AI is making computers work like they do in the movies. Clearly, this is circular and less than helpful operationally. But it's a good way to set the scene, especially with layfolks. A problem with the breadth of AI is that as soon as anything begins to be successful, it's not considered AI anymore--as if the opprobrium of being associated with the AI community were something to get away from as soon as possible. Ask someone in NatLang or Robot Vision if they're doing AI. -- --Dick Wexelblat |I must create a System or be enslav'd by another Man's; | (rwex@ida.org) |I will not Reason and Compare: my business is to Create.| 703 824 5511 | -Blake, Jerusalem |