Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!caip!im4u!milano!pcook
From: pcook@milano.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
Message-ID: <719@milano.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Feb-86 12:24:42 EST
Article-I.D.: milano.719
Posted: Mon Feb  3 12:24:42 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 01:32:26 EST
References: <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP>
Sender: pcook@milano.UUCP
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 43
Summary: "Never" is a long time, Orville!

In article <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP>, richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
> 
> 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?
> 
This article is a plug for a book and  use of a current topic to get back at
the AI community for an imagined snub.  Hubert Dreyfus was stood up by
John McCarthy of Stanford at a debate on on a third echelon public tv
station in the bay area, and is still mad.

First, the premise:  AI, expert systems, and knowledge-rule based systems
have been overly optimistic in their promises and stand short of delivered
results.  Probably true, but many of the systems, once implemented, lose
their mystical qualities, and look a lot like other computer applications.
It's the ones that are in the buliding process which seem to present
extravagant claims.

As presented, however, the article is a shrill cry rather than a reasoned
response.  It leans heavily on proof by intense assertion.  As a pilot
I find examples which range from dubious to incorrect.  As a scientist I
object to the gee whiz Reader's Digest tone.  As a retired Air Force Officer
I object to the position that the commander's common sense is the ideal form
of combat decision making.  And as a philosopher (albiet not expert) I object
to the muddy intellectual approach, rife with questionable presuppositions, 
faulty dilemmas, and illogical conclusions.  

I agree that the topic is worthy of discussion-  our work to realize the
potential of computers must not degenerate into a fad which will fade
from the scene.  But I object to a diatribe where advances in the field
are dismissed as trivial because current systems do not equal human
performance.



-- 
       ...Pete                  Peter G. Cook                      Lt. Colonel
pcook@mcc.arpa                  Liaison, Motorola, Inc.            USAFR(Ret)  
ut-sally!im4u!milano!pcook      MCC-Software Technology Program
512-834-3348                    9430 Research Blvd. Suite 200
                                Austin, Texas 78759