Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdcc6!beowulf!velasco From: velasco@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Gabriel Velasco) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: AI genealogy Keywords: genealogy Message-ID: Date: 9 Mar 91 23:02:52 GMT References: Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu Lines: 28 moskowit@paul.rutgers.edu (Len Moskowitz) writes: >There are two fallacies inherent in this approach. First of all it >seems to excludes the lines of research that arose after the Dartmouth >conference. Part of this study is to see how the original lines of research in AI have evolved. We are certainly interested in the influence of other areas on AI. Eventually the system should be expanded to include these and maybe even to include all research ever published. >Second it appears to be badly biased in favor of academic >researchers to the exclusion of industry and military researchers, >both of whom play a significant role in the development and >continuation of AI. One big reason for the bias is that theses are public information. They are easy to verify and usually easy to look up ( by searching through a library database, for instance ). Also, there is a traditional, historical relationship that already exists between an advisor and his advisee in an academic environment. -- ________________________________________________ <>___, / / | ... and he called out and said, "Gabriel, give | /___/ __ / _ __ ' _ / | this man an understanding of the vision." | /\__/\(_/\/__)\/ (_/_(/_/|_ |_______________________________________Dan_8:16_|