Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site vax135.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!miles
From: miles@vax135.UUCP (Miles Murdocca)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
Message-ID: <1280@vax135.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Feb-86 09:25:24 EST
Article-I.D.: vax135.1280
Posted: Mon Feb  3 09:25:24 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 01:12:12 EST
References: <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 25

> Has anyone read the article about AI in the February issue of
> "Technology Review"?  You can't miss it -- the cover says something
> like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
> there's no reason to think it ever will" (not a direct quote; I don't
> have the copy with me).  General comments?

The article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers, who are famous for
making bold statements that AI will never meet the expectations of the
people who fund AI research.  They make the claim that people do not learn
to ride a bike by being told how to do it, but by a trial and error
method that isn't represented symbolically.  They use this argument and
a few others such as the lack of a representation for emotions to support
their view that AI researchers are wasting their sponsors' money by
knowingly heading down dead-ends.

As I recall ["Machine Learning", Michalski et al, Ch 1], there are two
basic forms of learning: 'knowledge acquisition' and 'skill refinement'.
The Dreyfuss duo seems to be using a skill refinement problem to refute
the work going on in knowledge acquisition.  The distinction between the
two types of learning was recognized by AI researchers years ago, and I
feel that the Dreyfuss two lack credibility since they fail to align their
arguments with the taxonomy of the field.

    Miles Murdocca, 4G-538, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Rd,
    Holmdel, NJ, 07733, (201) 949-2504, ...{ihnp4}!vax135!miles