2008/4/30 J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > One of the amusing and fruitless patterns of behavior in > the AI community is the incessant categorization of various processes into > nominally distinct buckets in the absence of a theoretically justifiable > reason for doing so. The above is such an example.
Yes, I think this is true. > As a general comment, the computer science literature on the D-oriented > side of things is *much* deeper than the S-oriented side of things, and the > literature that theoretically integrates the two is thin on the ground > indeed. This is probably a reflection of the observation that competency at > D is far more widely distributed than S, or at least that far more competent > people have worked on D than on S. In biological terms competency in S easily outpaces competency in D, at least for non-exceptional minds. In the computing realm D may appear to have been more competently addressed because within this space it's far easier to confine your system to a limited universe of discourse, whereas S type problems tend to have very high dimensionality which place an often severe strain upon computing resources. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
