> --- Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > 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.
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 #-------------------------
