> --- 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 beca
> 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 t
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 tha
BUDNEY, DANIEL L wrote:
> Where do forest rangers go to get away from it all?
To work.
(Isn't it obvious?)
--
John Douglas Porter
There are no Killing spinors on the brane.
BUDNEY, DANIEL L wrote:
> ...maybe you need a namespace
> describing what it is, instead of what it is working towards. Would
> "KnowledgeProcessing::" cover the things currently there?
I think the essential problem is not that "AI" isn't meaningful enough,
or carries too much baggage, but that t
Matt Youell wrote:
> AI::Categorize. Tasks like categorization, taxonomy, etc. seem to be less
> "AI" and more Knowledge Management (KM).
I dunno. That really depends on what you define as AI.
Traditionally, the AI net is cast broadly enough to cover
those things.
> Knowledge Management is an
> And this touches on the heart of the problem, as I've described in
> another email. It's not that "AI" carries a lot of baggage... So what?
> It's that the category is just TOO broad!
Yeah, I agree, it's too broad. But it's not just that. The Math:: category
is arguably broader... and yet I
