I don't have the full thread here in front of me right now, but I seem to recall the thread started with someone (kw?) looking to relocate AI::Categorize. Tasks like categorization, taxonomy, etc. seem to be less "AI" and more Knowledge Management (KM). Knowledge Management is an existing term that's common in Fortune 500 settings (vs. academia), and there are many active products exploring that market right now. It's a common enough term to be recognized, still broad, but it doesn't have the cultural baggage that AI does, imho.
Just for comparison, "Artificial Intelligence" googles @ 1 M hits, while "Knowledge Management" racks up 756k. "Machine Learning" gets 286k KM:: ? ________________________________________ matt youell http://www.youell.com/matt/ "think different - just like everyone else." ----- Original Message ----- From: "BUDNEY, DANIEL L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:11 PM Subject: RE: An ML:: namespace? > > the algorithms are "intelligent" but actually "not intelligent". > > Something like "AttemptedIntelligence::" or "AllegedlyIntelligent::". > > Isn't the Holy Grail to create (hence Artificial) something that is "really" > Intelligent? Doesn't Artificial Intelligence describe the goal, and the > things that go within that namespace contribute to that goal? > I don't think anyone doing research on space navigation would look at > "InterstellarTravel::" and expect that the stuff there actually resulted in > someone going to another star. > I do realize the media have sensationalized Artificial Intelligence to the > point of pseudo-science, but people actually doing research in the field > won't have such silly notions. (Will they?) > If the goal is not Artificial Intelligence, then maybe you need a namespace > describing what it is, instead of what it is working towards. Would > "KnowledgeProcessing::" cover the things currently there? (It's beyond me > how anyone will ever find anything under a new term like Knowledge > Processing, but I'm doing my best to give the community options. I actually > think "Knowledge-based Processing" would be even more appropriate, but > that's way too long, and "KBP::" would be so ambiguous that you could give > up hope of anyone ever finding anything there.) > ---- > Where do forest rangers go to get away from it all? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jpnolan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday April 30, 2002 13:31 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: An ML:: namespace? > > > > --- 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 > #-------------------------
