Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: honavar@goat.cs.wisc.edu (Vasant Honavar) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Simulations of Nanotech Tools Message-ID: Date: 9 Nov 89 23:10:53 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 31 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article landman@hanami.eng.sun.com (Howard A. Landman x61391) writes: > > >I, too, found distressing the way EoC cavalierly glossed over CAD and DA >problems for nanotech with the argument that super-AI would solve all those >problems for us. Very little industrial-strength CAD is done using AI-based >tools today, and the fraction of AI in a field like that tends to *decrease* >as the field matures. It is perhaps more accurate to say that as the field matures, what used to be called "AI" once tends integrated into standard computer programming practice. This has happened with expert systems, for example. > >In electronics, CAD tools tend to lag about one generation behind the hardware. >That is, today's tools are perfect for the system you built a couple years ago, >but they never quite handle what you need for *today's* design. All the more reason to exploit AI - especially learning programs that are designed to be trained on a variety of problem domains. Such programs can potentially be taught to handle current technology, just as a skilled engineer adapts himself to new technological or scientific developments. ________________________ Vasant Honavar Computer Sciences Dept. University of Wisconsin honavar@cs.wisc.edu