Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!mtunx!pacbell!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.e
From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Bad AI: A Clarification
Message-ID: <5642@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 88 15:41:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: venera.5642
References: <1242@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1299@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 38

In article <1299@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert
Cockton) writes:
>  Research requires skill.  Research into humanity requires special
>skills.  Computer scientists and mathematicians are not taught these skills.
>
There is no questioning the premise of the first sentence.  I am even willing
to grant, further, that artificial intelligence (or at least aspects which
are of particularly interest to me) may be regarded as "research into
humanity."  However, after that, Cockton's argument begins to fall apart.
Just what are those "special skills" which such research "requires?"  Does
anyone have them?  Does Cockton regard familiarity with the humanistic
literature as such a skill?  I suspect there could be some debate as to
whether or not extensive literary backgroud is a skill, particularly when
the main virtue of such knowledge is that it provides one with a history
of how one's predecessors have failed on similar tasks.  There is no doubt
that it is valuable to know that certain paths lead to dead ends;  but when
there are so many forks in the road, it is not always easy to determine WHICH
fork was the one which ultimately embodied the incorrect decision.

Perhaps I am misrepresenting Cockton by throwing too much weight on "being
well read."  In that case, he can set the record straight by doing a better
job of characterizing those skills which he feels computer scientists and
mathematicians lack.  Then he can tell us how many humanists have those
skills and have exercised them in the investigation of intelligence with
a discipline which he seems to think the AI community lacks.  Let he who
is without guilt cast the first stone, Mr. Cockton!  (While we're at it,
is your house made of glass, by any chance?)

One final note on bad AI.  I don't think there is anyone reading this
newsgroup who would doubt that there is bad AI.  However, in another
article, Cockton seems quite willing to admit (as most of us knew already)
that there is bad sociology, too.  One of the more perceptive writers on
social behavior, Theodore Sturgeon (who had the good sense to articulate
his views in the palatable form of science fiction), once observed that
90% of X is crud, for any value of X . . . that can be AI, sociology, or
classical music.  Bad AI is easy enough to find and even easier to pick
on.  Rather than biting the finger of the bad stuff, why not take the
time to look where the finger of the good stuff is really pointing?