Is this why you chose the signoff "firebomb" ? <G>
From my understanding your first post was saying there was a problem with
terminology. Then you go on to say "AI is dead" and over-promised and in
your next post proudly proclaim to be one of those AI guys. I know this is
quoting you out of context, but I'm having a hard time understanding your
intent. It is good to hear your one of us.
Sure there is a lot of hype lumped into the term AI, but to say
bioinformatics is sexy just because they have not been associated with
tremendous failures yet seems a little naïve. When used cars are sold as
"pre-owned vehicles", it may make the tiniest difference to the salesmen
bean counters, but it's all the same to the car mechanics. So what is it
your trying to say to your fellow mechanics?
And try not to use too many big words, you know how we mechanics can be.
Lets talk more about the nuts and bolts and less about generalizations.
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 5:30 AM
My question is, why are you on the AI mailing list?
Because I _am_ one of those AI guys. It's not the grand vision of AI
that's broken, it's the public perception of the term. When someone
says they do "AI" it conjures a whole set of concepts quite different
from the other terms that have been deliberately chosen to avoid them.
"Expert systems" were "AI", but their salesmen chose a different
nomenclature in order to reach different funding source, particularly
in industry. Today "Data mining" may be a buzzword of choice. In
universities departments, papers, and in grant proposals, you will
certainly find the shift, with "AI" virtually disappearing and people
start talking about the problems they are working on, rather than
"strong AI" and the simulation of intelligence. "Bioinformatics" is
a clear example of the naming phenomenon: it's new, it's sexy,
and hey it's informatics. It's more contentful and to the point.