Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato!jgdavis
From: jgdavis@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: <None>
Message-ID: <2009.271de177@waikato.ac.nz>
Date: 18 Oct 90 04:08:07 GMT
References: <69367@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Oct7.003647.1666@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <69460@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Oct9.184502.106@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3649@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <2067@jimi.cs.unlv.edu>
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Lines: 29

In article <2067@jimi.cs.unlv.edu>, maniac@sonny-boy.cs.unlv.edu (Eric J. Schwertfeger) writes:
> In article <3649@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes:
> ) In article <69367@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> loren@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren
> ) Petrich) writes: (I may have the attribution wrong)
> ) 
> 
> 	This is exactly why it seems that AI has made so little progress
> to some people.  I'm in a 400-level Intro to AI class now, and our 
> definition of AI is basically "whatever we haven't figured out how
> to do yet."  As soon as AI research refines the methods, the problem
> falls out of the AI category.
> 
> 	Playing chess was originally considered an AI field.  Well, that
> research resulted in machines that now play low-Grand-Master level chess.
> The problem is no longer considered AI as much, since we've had success.
> 
> -- 


> Eric J. Schwertfeger, maniac@jimi.cs.unlv.edu



Chess playing programs are and continue be thought of as work in the
AI field to the extent none ( to the best of my knowledge) are based
entirely on brute force search.  If they are not in AI , I wonder
what you would call that work,

-Joseph G. Davis