Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!well!sierch
From: sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Who else isn't a science?
Message-ID: <6247@well.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jun 88 19:15:20 GMT
References: <13100@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <3c84f2a9.224b@apollo.uucp> <10785@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 24


I agree, I think anyone should study whatever s/he likes -- after all, what
matters but whatever you decide matters.  I also agree that, simply because
you are interested in something, you shouldn't expect me to regard your
study as important or valid.

AI suffers from the same syndrome as many academic fields -- ddissertations
are the little monographs that are part of the ticket to respectability in
academe.  The big, seminal questions (seedy business, I know) remain 
unanswered, while the rush to produce results and get grants and make $$
(or pounds, the symbol for which...) is overwhelming. Perhaps we would not
be complaining if the study of intelligence and automata, and all the
theoretical foundations for AI work received their due. It HAS become an
engineering discipline, if not for the nefarious reasons I mentioned, then
simply because the gratification that comes from RESULTS is easier to get
than answers to the nagging questions about what we are, and what intelligence
is, etc.

Engineering has its pleasures, and I wouldn't deny them to anyone. But to
those who hold fast to the "?" and abjure the "!", I salute you.
-- 
	Michael Sierchio @ SMALL SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS
	2733 Fulton St / Berkeley / CA / 94705     (415) 845-1755

	sierch@well.UUCP	{..ucbvax, etc...}!lll-crg!well!sierch