--- Ken Williams wrote:
1) "AI" is sort of a loaded term, and attracts its
fair share of wackos. For this reason, many researchers
eschew it.
2) Many interesting things would fit better into
"Machine Learning" than they would into AI, just because
they don't really claim to be "intelligent", but they
do learn from observed data.
1) "AI" is sort of a loaded term, and attracts its
fair share of wackos. For this reason, many researchers
eschew it.
2) Many interesting things would fit better into
"Machine Learning" than they would into AI, just because
they don't really claim to be "intelligent", but they
do learn from observed data.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Tolkin, Steve wrote:
There are many other terms that cover some or most
of this area -- but only AI has
widespread name recognition.
There are many other terms that cover some or most
of this area -- but only AI has
widespread name recognition.
Speaking for myself, I just don't like the term
"artificial intelligence," for the same reasons that other
folks dislike it. So I would agree with the other posters,
that another top-level category might be a good idea.
However, I think some of the same complaints also apply
to the term "ML::" or "MachineLearning::". What does
"learning" really mean?
In theory I like the idea of eliminating the term 'AI',
however, I don't know what new name would be
a good general replacement. :(
My hunch is that there is an approprate term out there somewhere,
but we haven't thought of it yet. The name has to say that
the algorithms are "intelligent" but actually "not intelligent".
Something like "AttemptedIntelligence::" or "AllegedlyIntelligent::".
Or maybe "HAL-wanna-be::". :)
--
#-------------------------
# John Nolan
# jpnolan sonic net
#-------------------------
