Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!mtunx!rutgers!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!gandalf!seth
From: seth@gandalf.cognet.ucla.edu (Seth R. Goldman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: who else isn't a science
Message-ID: <13345@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 8 Jun 88 19:53:41 GMT
References: <3c84f2a9.224b@apollo.uucp>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: seth@cognet.ucla.edu (Seth R. Goldman)
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Interdisciplinary Network
Lines: 20

In article <3c84f2a9.224b@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.UUCP (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  I don't see why everyone gets hung up on mimicking natural 
>  intelligence.  The point is to solve real-world problems. Make
>  machines understand continous speech, translate technical articles,
>  put together mechanical devices from parts that can be visually
>  recognized, pick out high priority targets in self-guiding missiles,
>  etc.  To the extent that we understand natural systems and can use
>  that knowledge, great!   Otherwise, improvise!

It depends what your goals are.  Since AI is a part of computer science
there is naturally a large group of people concerned with finding
solutions to real problems using a more engineering type of approach.
This is the practical end of the field.  The rest of us are interested
in learning something about human behavior/intelligence and use the
computer as a tool to build models and explore various theories.  Some
are interested in modelling the hardware of the brain (good luck) and
some are interested in modelling the behavior (more luck).  It is these
research efforts which eventually produce technology that can be applied
to practical problems.  You need both sides to have a productive field.