Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!olivea!orc!inews!iwarp.intel.com!psueea!pdxgate!eecs!erich
From: erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Boleyn)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What actually is AI?
Message-ID: <37@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: 5 Sep 90 22:38:25 GMT
References: <90241.112651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>  <1990Aug29.183823.25108@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <34175@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>  <6287@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <90243.142616F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>
Sender: news@pdxgate.UUCP
Lines: 27

F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes:


>...However, what my original question
>was is, what is it that makes one program an AI one, and another one non-AI?
>Again, I imagine there is not one magical answer to that, but for instance,
>I'm finishing up a prolog program that plays unbeatable tictactoe.  Of
>course, this is a very simple game, but would it be considered an AI program?
>If not, how about a checkers or chess program?  And it they would be AI
>programs, what would make them AI, but tictactoe not-AI?


   The problem is in the hype that the term "AI" has gotten in recent years.
Some people define "AI" as any technique that uses heuristics, rule-based
logic, etc,  while others (such as myself) prefer to reserve the term for
systems capable of adaptive behavior (at least).  The general trend has been
that once an algorithm is well-understood, it is not "AI" anymore.  You'll
have to decide how you define it yourself...  but a guideline that I use
is that a system not capable of any adaptive behavior at all is definitely
*not* AI (i.e. I try to reserve it for the hallmarks of intelligent behavior).

   Erich

   ___--Erich S. Boleyn--___  CSNET/INTERNET:  erich@cs.pdx.edu
  {Portland State University}     ARPANET:     erich%cs.pdx.edu@relay.cs.net
       "A year spent in           BITNET:      a0eb@psuorvm.bitnet
      artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God"