Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
From: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Learing about AI
Message-ID: <848@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 12:27:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.848
Posted: Tue Feb 17 12:27:59 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 16:06:43 EST
References: <375@atux01.UUCP> <12992@sun.uucp> <278@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu>
Reply-To: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath comp.ai:248 comp.misc:258

In article <278@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu> czhj@vax1.UUCP (Ted Inoue) writes:
>But look at the approach that LOGIC gives AI.  It is a purely reductionist
>view, akin to studying global plate motion at the level of sub-atomic 
>particles.  It is simply the wrong level at which to approach the problem.

     This is too generalized.  There are good applications of logic
to AI, and there are bad ones.  Only by knowing a lot about logic *and*
the structure of the problem domain can you tell which is which.

     I would agree that predicate logic techniques have often been
applied to problems in a way that leaves out inordinately large chunks
of the domain.  However, the same could be said about most AI techniques.

--Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"Take my shoes off & throw them in the lake"