Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley
From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: What Has Traditional AI Accomplished?
Message-ID: <1990Oct7.003647.1666@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <69367@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 00:36:47 GMT
Lines: 55

In article <69367@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> loren@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) writes:
>
>	I know that this question may well start a big flame war, but
>I would like an idea of exactly what traditional AI has accomplished.
>
  I won't try to speak for all of AI, but I would like to through in
my two cents worth here.  Firstly, an *exact* rundown of what AI has
been up to since its inception would take volumes.  Secondly, I'm not
quite sure what you're refering to with "traditional" AI.  AI denotes
to me the study of problems spanning computer vision, robotics, speech
processing, text understanding, cognitive modelling, pattern recognition
(in some of its incarnations), knowledge engineering (which is where
expert systems fit in), even music generation and analysis.  You may
disagree with the way I've delimited the sub-fields, but the area is
nevertheless more diverse than you seem to suggest.

>	Is it fair to say that computer algebra is the only
>application of traditional AI that has had any widespread use?
>
  Hardly.  AI systems do everything from security (recognition of
fingerprints/voiceprints/retinal patterns), police work (arriving
at composite pictures of people from descriptions, or aging pictures),
to forcasting what chemicals might have certain properties and 
therefore be more worth testing during scarce lab time.  Game playing
programs are in very widespread use, and I think some of those would
fit the description of "traditional AI".  If by 'accomplishment', you
mean only stuff you personally find worthwhile, then evidently AI
has accomplished little.

>	I am not trying to pick on the AI field, but I really think
>that it has not come very far over the decades that it has been in
>existence.
>
  Well, thinking of the start of computational linguistics, which is
the area I'm most familiar with, AI started out as statistical analyses
of text (frequency of use of certain constructions/lexical items) to 
try and resolve authorship disputes.  Today the structural analysis
of text is reasonably sophisticated, allowing the formal study of
such slippery things as style, or even good machine translation which
proved to be a terrible flop when first attempted in the 50's.

  I think that AI has come quite far over its current life.  The reason
that it continues to disappoint some is that as more advances are
made, the number of new problems to be solved only increases, and the
true difficulty of answering old questions is only then truly
appreciated.  AI is by definition (or lack of definition :) an open
area, and so it constantly expands as it's moved into.  If you're
expecting some sudden, radical overhaul in your life, you will likely
be disappointed. :(

--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Saw, n.  A trite popular saying, or proverb. 
cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu|  So called because it makes its way into a
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  wooden head."
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |				Ambrose Bierce