Talk:Artificial intelligence

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:Artificial intelligence is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Top This article has been rated as top-Importance on the assessment scale.
Important: concerning navigation support: this subject is outlined in the List of basic artificial intelligence topics. That page, along with the others in the set of Lists of basic topics, comprise an outline of knowledge, that doubles as a general table of contents or site map of Wikipedia. Please place the page on your watchlist, and help refine and maintain it. Thank you.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (Feb 2004 to Oct 2005)
Archive 2 (Oct 2005 to Jul 2006)
Archive 3 (Jul 2006 to March 2008)

Contents

robot != ai

What the hell is a picture of asimo doing on the front page. It is not even an example of weak ai, all of its moves are prerecorded. Although I admit that it can walk upstairs and do other cool thngs, it is simply a machine and is about as stupid as any other. If some weirdo really wants to use a picture of a robot (which has nothing to do with ai anyway besides stereotypes) at least use a picture of a developmental robot ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_robotics <-

Cool it. Although I agree that Asimo's prerecorded performances doesn't cut it, please also refer to [1] and [2]. What counts as intelligence is, unfortunately, still a matter of opinion. However, feel free to change the picture. --moxon 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. all forms of AI are simply machines
I agree with the last comment. Any form of AI is a machine. In addition, I suggest you take a look at ASIMO as you appear to underappreciate his capabilities. Even though his movements are prerecorded to some extent - he balances and evaluates the current situation on his own. Similarly, he does facial recognition, posture-, gesture-, general environment-, and object recognition. Oh, and he can distinguish sounds and their direction. ---hthth 12:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the picture of Asimo is fine. However, it is unfortunate that every picture in the article is of a robot, since AI and robotics are distinct fields. The fields of AI and robotics share many things in common, but neither is a superset of the other. We don't want to give people the impression that AI is only useful for the development of robots. Therefore, I replaced the picture of Asimo with the picture shown on the Deep Blue page. I figure it's a good picture to show at the top of the article, since it has both historic significance (many of the first AI programs were chess or checkers players) and current significance (since the goal of beating the human world champion was achieved fairly recently, and a similar goal is used for the RoboCup competition.) However, I'm open to a different picture if someone has something better to suggest. Colin M. 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Good call and argument Colin, I second your suggestion. ---hthth 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
But isn't this like putting a picture of Pluto at the top of the Planet article? --moxon 12:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Asimo should absolutely not be in the article! Asimo is a very good example of a robot without AI. Ran4 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that robotics does play in a role in AI, since researchers like Hans Moravec believe that the sensorimotor skills studied in robotics are essential to other intelligent activities. Sensorimotor skills are an aspect of intelligence, just like learning or talking, for Moravec and others (such as Rolf Pfieffer, Rodney Brooks, etc., etc.). ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image: Kasparov vs Deep Blue

I see the image at the top of the article, depicting Garik Kasparov vs Deep Blue, is flagged for speedy deletion. I hope it stays; despite the ups and downs, this match was historic in the (short) history of AI. For many years many people thought that a computer could never be able to play chess effectively, and the struggle was long, starting at the very beginning of AI with von Neumann. Later, Ken Thompson (builder of Belle) said that the way chess computing developed was a little disappointing in terms of AI, but with all due respect I disagree: cognitive neuroscience shows us massively parallel compuation of jillions of individually simplistic (pattern matching) heuristics, similar to Belle computing 100,000 positions per second with "class C" heuristics. This is getting us somewhere :-) Pete St.John 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Permission obtained. Many thanks to Murray Campbell at IBM. Pgr94 (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Todo

  1. The article is a bit too long. (My printer puts the text at just under 10 pages, not counting external links, footnotes and references). I'd rather cut more technical stuff, since this is of less interest to the general reader.
  2. Check for errors, especially on technical subjects.
  3. Y Done Unfinished sections: learning, perception, robotics.
  4. Y Done Add sources to philosophy of AI section. Borrow them from philosophy of AI.
  5. Y Done Add Galatea and Talos and frankenstein to AI in fiction. history new section. Use McCorduck as a source. Move it up to the top, so there's a historical progression through the section.
  6. Y Done Write AI in the future. Mention Moore's Law. Don't mention anything from science fiction. Kurzweil is a good source, references are already in place.
  7. Look into ways to make the applications section comprehensive, rather than scattershot. I think we need an article applications of AI technology that contains a complete, huge list of all AI's successes. The section in this article should just highlight the various categories.

Little improvements in comprehensiveness (skipping these wouldn't have any effect on WP:GACR or WP:FACR)

  1. Could use a list of architectures in the section on bringing approaches together, such as subsumption architecture, three tiered, etc.
  2. Which learning algorithms use search? Out of my depth here.
  3. For completeness, it should have a tiny section on symbolic learning methods, such as explanation based learning, relevance based learning, inductive logic programming, case based reasoning.
  4. Could use a tiny section on other knowledge representation tools besides logic, like semantic nets, frames, etc.
  5. Similarly for tools used in robotics, maybe replacing the control theory section.

Updated --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Updated --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Updated --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Updated --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes by CharlesGillingham (talk) are a great improvement. The previous version was a disgrace.

However, I think it is wrong to characterise production systems as Horn clauses, although I admit that you might get such an impression from the Russell-Norvig AI book. But even Russell and Norvig limit production systems to forward reasoning. The production system article is much more accurate in this respect. Two important characteristics of production systems, which distinguish them from logic, are their use of "actions" (often expressed in the imperative mood) instead of "conclusions" and conflict resolution, which can eliminate logical consequences of the "conditions" part of a rule. Arguably, production systems were a precursor of the intelligent agent movement in AI, because production rules can be used to sense changes in the environment and perform actions to change the environment.

One other, small comment: The example "If shiny then diamond" "If shiny then pick up" shows both the relationship and the differences between logic and production rules. An even more interesting example is "If shiny then diamond" "If diamond then pick up", from which the original example could be derived if only production rules could truly be expressed in logical form. Robert Kowalski (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I've made the changes you recommended. As I mention in the Todo list above, checking for errors and misunderstandings is a top priority and I appreciate the help. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Peer Review on pushing AI to GA status

I'd like to see if we can get a PR on this article so we could possibly push it to GA class. It is a very nice article at the moment with extensive inline citations and references. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Support the only real criticism I can offer is that it's a little long. But other than that I've read the article twice and most to the references are great. It's definitely higher than B-class. I support and you can notify me if you need that support.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not a PR or FAC regular but coming across this section, here's a few pre-PR notes:
  • Quotation in first sentence (and any subsequent) must have an inline citation directly after the quote (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone;Y Done CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ontology randomly capitalized in lead Y Done CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead does not seem to broadly summarize article as a whole and is a bit short given the length of the article;
  • "Craftsman from ancient times to the present have created humanoid robots" unclear; plain statement conveys the meaning that humanoid robots were actually made, which is not what is meant; Y Done. They were actually made. Tried to make it clear that we're not talking about intelligent robots. CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:P11 kasparov breakout.jpg if it can be properly used in this article under fair use, has no required fair use rationale for inclusion;
Does anyone else know how to do this (so it sticks)? Y Done. Permission granted by IBM. Pgr94 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is quite listy--there are many sections where instead of prose neatly summarizing the section that's linked with {{main}}, there's bulleted points. I see this as a constant source of criticism at FAC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Knocked out two or three of the lists yesterday. Weaving these into shorter paragraphs is also a good way to address the length issue. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Image:P11 kasparov breakout.jpg is going to have to be replaced, if the article is going to reach GA status.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
k, so I removed the Kasparov image here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=194573913 - personally, I hate my change. I really would much rather have the Kasparov image. To many people think that AI are represented by robots which is completely untrue... Most likely a strong AI will be a box, and look like a box... I'd rather show HAL from Space Odyssey 2001 or WOPR from wargames, since they're better examples but of course I can't do that, cuz they are fictional examples... ASIMO has limited AI, but it's only in spatial reasoning, very shallow... I think we should work on the Deep Blue-Kasparov image, because I think it's a better intro picture. Once we get the copyright issues taken care of, I feel we should revert my change.--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Article getting too big

I think the article is starting to become too long and it's perhaps time to discuss what should be chopped (or rather moved into other articles). It's obviously a big subject, so there is a lot to cover. Pgr94 (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Suggestion:

  • shrink Applications of artificial intelligence to a paragraph and start a new article with that name.
  • shrink Competitions and prizes to a paragraph and start a new article Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence
I agree that the article is too long, and, yes, it's my fault. I'm open to any suggestion. As I said in the "todo" list above, I think I would prefer to cut really technical material, since this is of less interest to the general reader. Your suggestion seems sensible, as a start. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I knocked out a few lines here and there and removed several bullet lists. There's much more to do. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't criticism, it's just the nature of the field - it's so wide-ranging and at the same time fragmented and dissociated. I like to think that we're waiting for the Einstein of AI to provide us with the unifying theory.
I have noticed that most sections lead to a more detailed article, here are a few sections that don't. These are candidates for creating separate articles:
  • Traditional symbolic AI
  • Approaches to AI
  • Sub-symbolic AI
  • Intelligent agent paradigm
  • Evaluating artificial intelligence
  • Competitions and prizes
  • Applications of artificial intelligence Have I chopped too much here?
Pgr94 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
great work.
but 'Approaches to AI' should include 'Traditional symbolic AI', 'Sub-symbolic AI', 'Intelligent agent paradigm', so I dont think we need (yet) those separately articles. So I think 'Approaches to AI' will be a great article and also help this page. I dont know (yet) how to do it so I hope somebody else will doit.
about 'Evaluating artificial intelligence' is too small to be an new article and I think it looks good here. Raffethefirst (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
also it should not only contain links to other articles because it might have the functionality of the portal... Raffethefirst (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I agree with your suggestion on an Approaches to artificial intelligence article. Pgr94 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of the length is due to just the amount or information we have on the research being done, and that has been done in AI. If we were to create a page on AI research (either name AI Research or Research done on AI. etc), I really think we could cut the article in half. The only problem I see is how to summarize the topic of AI research correctly, efficiently, and in a way that makes it easy to read.--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird newlines in the article

Does anyone understand why all the footnotes in the article have multiple newlines in them? It looks like they were introduced by some kind of bot. Is there any reason not to fix them? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Nilsson 1998, Russell & Norvig 2003 and all that?--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The footnotes throughout the article have been "spread out" vertically for some reason. I've put the back together by hand in the sections I editted yesterday. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Since no one seems to care about how the footnotes are formatted, I've restored them to the way they were originally. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Readability

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193220693 - here I notice that you mention that the technical details are pretty boring. I was thinking since AI is such a board topic, it might be good to set a target audience age. That way there could be a way to set a standard for technical details, and how they could be sorted and assessed for placement on the page. For instance if the subject is too complex in detail, the article would give a basic lay audience intro. and then direct user to see a sub-page for more details.
(On a side note, Colorblind is my fav. Counting Crows song)--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The target audience is the general, educated reader: not someone who is already familiar with computer science. It should also be useful to computer scientists coming from other fields. The technical subjects have to be mentioned (i.e., each of the tools has to be mentioned) to properly define the field. I'm in the process of removing the names of specific sub-sub-problems or algorithms for which can't be properly explained in the room available ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I have to say, for an educated reader, familiar with the way wikipedia works, the article is fine. But for a general reader, who is looking for a brief summary, even the most complete sections can leave a reader with more questions than answers. For instance, many of the summarizing descriptions completely rely on the readers patience and availability to search the connecting wikilinks.
Examples where I think the average reader might have to follow wikilinks to understand what was being said:
  1. "In the middle of the 20th century, a handful of scientists began a new approach to building intelligent machines, based on recent discoveries in neurology" (History of AI research). The word neurology, is probably understood by someone with a GED, but not a 12 year old. suggested fix neurology|brain, so it reads "recent discoveries about the brain".
"Brain" is inaccurate. The discoveries that are being alluded to are about how individual neurons work, not brains, specifically that they fire in all-or-nothing pulses, and this seemed (to Walter Pitts and Warren McCullough) similar to digital circuitry, and inspired them to develop the first theory of neural nets. I think "neurology" was fine. As you say, even a high-school graduate probably knows what neurology is. One could argue that this whole paragraph should be cut, since describing their interests and inspirations so briefly can't do them justice, and since these themes are really precursors to AI research, rather than AI research proper. The paragraph is just to give the impression that there was this milieu of (largely unspecified) ideas that gave birth to modern AI. Cut it? Revert it? Which do you think?---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. "By the middle 60s their research was heavily funded by DARPA." (History of AI research) not a huge issue. But it could read DARPA|U.S. Department of Defense "By the middle 60s their research was heavily funded by the U.S. Department of Defense."
This reads fine your way. ---- 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. "... no silver bullet..." (Traditional symbolic AI#"Scruffy" symbolic AI) relies on user knowing what the slang "sivler bullet" means. Suggested fix silver bullet|easy answer.
What English speaker hasn't heard of a silver bullet? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
English readers aren't the only people reading en.wikipedia you know. Idioms kick butt if you've grown up with them so they're a part of your language, but if you're a foreigner it usually doesn't matter how good your English is, since idioms simply aren't taught in schools. /85.228.39.162 (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ""Naive" search algorithms"(Tools of AI#Search) What is a Naive search algorithms? Suggested fix rewrite sentence.
  2. "Heuristic or "informed" search. The naive algorithms quickly..." (Tools of AI#Search) What percentage of the population knows what Heuristic means? Answer: 4%and really you know that half of those people are pompous insufferable know-it-alls Suggested fix rewrite sentence (which leads met too say.....)
Rather than continue, I've decided to just make the changes and then you and User:Pgr94, or whoever can revert what you don't like. But again, this seems to be a common problem throughout the entire article.--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
rewritting "naive" algorithms to be easier to read. I used link to Computation time but DTIME may be better, please review--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The changes I've seen seem fine. I'm not familiar with the term "naive" search though; is it just a synonym for exhaustive search? If so, I confess to having a slight preference for the latter as it's what I've come across most in the literature. Pgr94 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
pfft, I have no idea either. I think the difference is the nature the operation. One works with a search space the other a tends to be a recursive operation. But I don't really know.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, "naive" was a poor choice. Nilsson and Russell/Norvig call them "uninformed" searches, a designation I find, well, uninformative. This section should probably be rewritten without the bullets (or the titles naive, heuristic, local, etc.). Two paragraphs: (1) Explain what combinatorial explosion is, define what a heuristic is, and how heuristics help solve the problem (2) explain what an optimization search is (as opposed to listing types of opt. searches.) Note that genetic algorithms are, technically, a form of optimization search, explain what genetic algorithms are.
By the way, in the rewrite I'm looking at, method (computer science) is used inaccurately. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
hmm, ok, I'll look at method again. I actually feel that "...heuristic methods to eliminate choices..." is currently a fine description of what the heuristic method does for computer searches. It eliminates choices and reduces possibilities. So I actually feel this sentence is quite a bit clearer than it was, but if you want to take a shot at it, cool.
I like the bullet style but I understand it doesn't really meet WP:STYLE standards, and understand it probably needs to be rewritten so that it isn't an WP:Embedded list, which can cause problems later. I probably won't do it, just because I don't think I'm the best person to do the bullet-to-prose rewrite.
I'll look at the genetic algorithms to see what I can do. I made the changes I suggested yesterday, and then got pulled away by other chores.--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

< Y Done I think all these issues have been resolved. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

(Preceding discussion archived).

Wow! There are way too many external links, so I forbore to add what me thinks is a good one: Machina sapiens and Human Morality. Pawyilee (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

the link dont work at all for me... I will try later maybe is a server problem... Raffethefirst (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be a good source for the (very incomplete) article ethics of artificial intelligence. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AI military

A really interesting look at what the military is doing with AI http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/military.html. I'm currently using links from this and other sources to develop an article on the Dynamic Analysis and Replanning Tool a program that uses intelligence agents to optimize and schedule, supplies, transport and other logistics.--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For some recent news and budgets: [3] Pgr94 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Could this go in applications of artificial intelligence? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Donald McKay

There are a couple of links to an AI researcher of this name, but the link takes you to the famous clipper ship builder. I do not know how to find the link you meant.

--AJim (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is no article on this Donald McKay. I have have changed these to red-links for now. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Severe bias complaint

There is article for "AI" on Wikipedia, but there isn't an article for "Artifical emotion" and that's bad. AI has been a proven failure again and again for over a half century. Sentient beings developed via basic emotions, not reasons. We are wrong trying to set up ever-debating megacomputers in their secluded ivory towers, it just won't work.

If there will ever be an android we consider truly having life in it, she will look like and act like the average 12 year old japanese schoolgirl in miniskirt, not a scientist or a philosopher. Therefore research and application of "artificial emotion" (AEQ) should be properly represented on wikipedia! 91.83.19.141 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Minsky (one of AI's founders and most important contributors) seems to agree with you (see The Emotion Machine). Antonio Damasio (an important neuroscientist) emphasizes the importance of emotions to intelligent, goal directed behavior. Hans Moravec (a leading researcher in robotics) has also addressed the issue of emotion directly (see Philosophy of artificial intelligence#Can a machine have emotions?). Feel free to write an article on this interesting and important subject, using these respected sources and any others you may have.
This article, however, must focus on the ideas and practices that have been most influential in academic and commercial artificial intelligence. Emotion, up to this point, has not been the focus of much serious AI research. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

Removed this from the lead. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"It is better to state that system could behave in the such way that it deserve to be named intelligent. Intelligent is the given name to the system capable to demonstrate some kind of behavior and thereoff can't be artificial. It is much better to use some term definable through the observable properties of a system. The term reasonable, for example, could be defined as following: I am suggesting giving to some system the name “Reasonable” if it is capable to define its own behavior being guided by its own subjective representations about the World accessible to it." (Michael Zeldich) "More precisely we could state that reasonable systems attempting to bring the World in the conditions were its own subjective representation about it will be close to its own imaginary subjective representation about the World generated in the past." (Michael Zeldich)

Artificial Brain as Philosophical Point of View about A.I.

In the Section "Philosophy of IA", the Artificial Brain is shown as a Philosophical Position about AI, but It's not more Precise to show the Artificial Brain as an Experiment that resulted as a Consequence from a Materialist Vision of Intelligence? ---- AFG - 16:30, 08 August 2008 (UTC)

Neats and scruffies is historical (was Examples of the "new neats")

The article refers to the "new neats" - who does this refer to? It would be good to elaborate a little. Pgr94 (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This research direction is described in Russell and Norvig, p. 25. They specifically mention Judea Pearl's work in the late 80s, but they are talking about everyone who is using mathematical models like Bayesian nets, etc. They also argue that modern research into neural networks has become very neat, i.e., mathematics-based, provably correct, etc. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see. Many fields have an experimental/exploratory phase followed by a formalisation phase, so I see the terms "neats" and "scruffies" as AI-specific jargon. "In many cases [jargon] may cause a barrier to communication as many may not understand." (from Jargon).
I suggest the terms not be used as section titles as they may be confusing for the layman. (I work in the field and I didn't know whom the "new neats" referred to). Would anyone object to renaming the subsection "The new neats" to "Formalisation" or "Mathematical foundations" or "Development of mathematical foundations"? Pgr94 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
How about The revival of formal methods? (I don't like this as much. I would prefer to explicitly mention the revival of "Neatness". Another idea I considered was Victory of the neats (which is a phrase drawn directly from R&N, and therefor specifically verified), but I wasn't sure I agree that they really are victorious. After all, robotics from Roomba to the DARPA Grand Challenge is very scruffy on the whole.)
Neat is jargon, of course, but it's defined a few sections above (under scruffy symbolic AI). The neat/scruffy debate probably had it's heyday in the early 80s (see, for example, Nils Nilsson's presidential address to AAAI in 1983). Historically it is one of the major schisms of AI, at least according to my research--the major histories of AI (McCorduck, Crevier) mention it, as does R&N. For this reason, I would argue that neats vs. scruffies is a notable and relevant distinction in approaches to AI.
I like R&N's observation that "neatness" went out of style for awhile but then came back with a vengeance in a new form. This is an interesting fact about the history of AI. The same pattern happened with neural networks, and with control theory/cybernetics. I think this is interesting. McCorduck writes "[A] recurring theme in AI [is that] ideas are picked up, exploited to the maximum extent allowed by available hardware and software, and then picked up again as major improvements in hardware and software (the latter often from AI research itself) allow a new round of exploitation." p. 422. Herbert Simon said on the same subject "Everything waits until it's time." That's why I think it's appropriate to characterize the mathematical methods of the 90s as a revival of "neatness."
I'm not sure I agree that is fair to characterize neats vs. scruffies as a historical progression of experimental/exploratory->formalization, for several reasons. (1) "Neat" approaches were explored first. As they began to fail (say, around 67 or so), scruffy methods were applied more frequently, and then, as they failed, neat solutions were tried more successfully. (2) "Neat" solutions aren't, in general, applied to the same problems as scruffy solutions. (Story understanding is scruffy. Machine learning is neat.) So it's not accurate to think of neat solutions as formalizations of scruffy solutions. I think it is more accurate to say that neatness has come in and out of style, as McCorduck and R&N observe. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I still think that the article puts too much emphasis on "neats" and "scruffies". If it is any indicator, none of my AI textbooks mention the terms apart from Russell and Norvig who relegate it to a footnote. My feeling is the terms are no longer suitable for modern AI research and belong only in the history section. Apart from that the article is coming on great. Pgr94 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Russell and Norvig don't mention cognitive simulation or computational intelligence either. Approaches to AI, in the sources I've got, isn't covered very well. All the sources for this section are historical—this is a list of historical trends in how people approach AI.
I'm not sure that I agree these are "subfields" of AI. I think the subfields of AI would be the problems (like "machine learning" or "automated theorem proving") and some of the tools (like "logic programming" or "soft computing"). These approaches don't really constitute sub-fields, just long-standing disagreements about how AI should be done.
Also, I went with your title above, "Formalisation" (UK spelling and all). ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dropped without references.

I dropped this: Holographic associative memory, from the list of neural network learning techniques. There were no references. Without references, it is hard for me to tell whether this is truly notable or not. 99% of the material this article is based on material in the four major AI textbooks (and two histories), and as it is, we still skip a lot of things covered by those books. It's hard to justify adding things when so much has been left out already. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 29 September 2008, at 21:02.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Artificial intelligence".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.