Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ncar!noao!amethyst!kww
From: kww@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu (K Watkins)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Bad AI: A Clarification
Message-ID: <722@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 88 19:13:26 GMT
References: <1242@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1299@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <451@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <1336@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Sender: news@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu
Lines: 10

In article <1336@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>
>I do not think there is a field of AI.  There is a strange combination
>of topic areas covered at IJCAI etc.  It's a historical accident, not
>an epistemic imperative.
>
Of what field(s) is such a statement false?  An inventive imagination can
regroup the topics of study and knowledge in a great many ways.  Indeed, it
might be very useful to do so more often.  (Then again, the cross-tabulating
chore of making sure we lost a minimum of understanding in the transition
would be enormous.)