Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!SPEECH2.CS.CMU.EDU!kfl
From: kfl@SPEECH2.CS.CMU.EDU (Kai-Fu Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Practical effects of AI (speech)
Message-ID: <354@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 12:43:50 EST
Article-I.D.: PT.354
Posted: Mon Nov 16 12:43:50 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Nov-87 04:05:55 EST
References: <12@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> <267@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <244@usl-pc.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 21
Keywords: ai future effects

In article <244@usl-pc.UUCP>, jpdres10@usl-pc.UUCP (Green Eric Lee) writes:
> But seriously, considering that sciences such as physics and
> mathematics have been ongoing for centuries, can we REALLY say that AI
> has "traditional techniques"? . . .  "it is far from clear that it
> would be an advancement for AI" presupposes that one defines AI as
> "that science which uses certain traditional methods", which, I
> submit, is false.
> 

By "traditional techniques", I was referring to the older popular
techniques in AI, such as expert systems, predicate calculus, semantic
networks, etc.  Also, I was trying to exclude neural networks,
which may be promising for speech recognition.  I have heard of
"traditionalist vs. connectionist AI", and that is why I used the
term "traditional techniques".

Kai-Fu Lee
Computer Science Dept.
Carnegie-Mellon University

P.S. - I did not say that AI is a science.