Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!mrsvr.UUCP!glblview.uucp!ravula
From: ravula@glblview.uucp (Ramesh Ravula)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What Has Traditional AI Accomplished?
Message-ID: <3151@mrsvr.UUCP>
Date: 19 Oct 90 14:54:13 GMT
References: <69609@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Oct15.143325.26044@unislc.uucp> <1990Oct16.135631.6444@cbnewsj.att.com>
Sender: news@mrsvr.UUCP
Lines: 29

Keith L. Breinholt writes:

| Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I though Neural Nets as an area of
| study was only 5 or so years old.  In terms of research, 5 years is
| baby technology.  If Neural Nets are consistent with other research it
| won't make it into general public acceptance for another 5 to 10
| years.

    Neural Networks as a field is at least 40 years old. The only thing is it
was not known by the name "Neural Networks".  In fact, the field has been there
for a longer time than the traditional AI. Marvin Minsky's and Seymour Papert's
"Perceptrons", published in 1969 was a snag in the development of the field.
The recent revival of the field started about a few years ago after J.J 
Hopfield (CalTech) conducted a study for National Academy of Sciences. As far 
as general public acceptance is concerned (whatever you mean by that) there are
many products/development systems in the market, and many major companies are
working diligently to bring more application products to the market place. Last
but not least, there is a news group which discusses all aspects of neural 
networks called comp.ai.neural-nets (In case you donot already know).

 Ramesh Ravula
 GE Medical Systems
 Mail W-826
 3200 N. Grandview Blvd.
 Waukesha, WI 53188.
--
email:    {att|mailrus|uunet|phillabs}!steinmetz!gemed!ravula
                                   or
          {att|uwvax|mailrus}!uwmcsd1!mrsvr!gemed!ravula