Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!psuvax1!vu-vlsi!swatsun!scott
From: scott@swatsun (Jay Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Success of AI
Message-ID: <1342@tulum.swatsun.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Oct-87 19:33:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: tulum.1342
Posted: Wed Oct 21 19:33:18 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 09:28:50 EDT
References: <228@snark.UUCP> <237@snark.UUCP>
Organization: Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA
Lines: 28
Summary: AI's definition problem

> Nevertheless, I think my more general observations about AI's definitional
> problem remain valid. Compilers are a 'success' of AI. So are heuristic-based
> search-and-backtrack algorithms. So is the visual analysis preprocessing used
> in seeing pick-and-place robots. So (most recently) are 'expert systems'.
> In *each case*, these problem areas were defined out of the AI field as soon
> as they spawned halfway-usable technologies and acquired their own research
> communities.

I agree.  And I want to understand better why it's so.

Here's one speculation:  People see intelligence as mysterious, intrinsically
non-understandable.  So anything understood can't be part of intelligence,
and can't be part of AI.  I assume this was what Eric had in mind in a
previous article, when he mentioned "hidden vitalist premises".

Of course some people believe explicitly that intelligence is mystical,
and say so.  But even AI people may implicitly feel that, oh, this algorithm
isn't clever enough, real intelligence has to be cleverer than that.  And
so it goes.

Any other good ideas?

>      Eric S. Raymond
>      UUCP:  {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax,vu-vlsi}!snark!eric
>      Post:  22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355    Phone: (215)-296-5718

				Jay Scott
			  ...bpa!swatsun!scott