From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 22:27:11 MST
***
As far as I can tell you're using "real" in a dual role as
"applied" and "not-fake." For example, you contrast it with
theoretical AI research, saying, "[theoretical AI] doesn't
involve technical details regarding actually realizing
artificially intelligent software," and later say, "over time,
AI has drifted from its original focus on the creation of
real, general artificial intelligence," implying both uses.
The latter use, which was my first interpretation, is unlikely
to win you any "fake" AI researchers as friends.
***
Yes, I know the term has a bit of an "edge" to it, and I admit that this
"edge" matches my sometimes confrontational personality ;)
By the way, I do in fact have several personal friends among the ranks of
traditional AI researchers. However, even
though they're my friends, they don't necessarily agree with my research
ideas....
I think that the contents of my research are going to inevitably be
disagreeable
to traditional AI researchers, regardless of what label is attached to it...
***
Is it really necessary to coin a new phrase at all? The books
subtitled could probably be used alone and the focus of the
introduction could be changed. Framing a general, applied
approach as an entirely different field (in contrast to
specific and theoretical approaches) seems like a rather
dubious endeavour to begin with; couldn't you simply introduce
the field of AI and then elaborate on the problems current
approaches have in integrating into a more general framework?
***
I guess this is becoming a large theoretical argument, not an argument about
the
appropriateness of the phrase "Real AI."
I genuinely believe that the AI field has digressed way too far from its
initial
focus on general intelligence. There are some more mainstream AI
researchers, e.g.
Marvin Minsky, who have made similar comments, so this is not entirely an
idiosyncratic
maverick notion.
Whether "real AI" is a different field than mainstream AI is, to me, just an
exercise in
wordplay. It's either a different field or a subfield substantially
distinct from the field.
Call it what you want, it still is what it is.
Anyway, the book I'm editing definitely reflects my own point of view. I
don't mind that
your view is different from mine, but I'm not going to rewrite my book to
reflect your view.
I encourage you to write or edit your own book presenting your own
perspective.
ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT