Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!ctrsol!IDA.ORG!rwex
From: rwex@IDA.ORG (Richard Wexelblat)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Is there a definition of AI?
Keywords: defining AI
Message-ID: <1989Aug11.113620.319@IDA.ORG>
Date: 11 Aug 89 11:36:20 GMT
References:  <1213@syma.sussex.ac.uk>
Reply-To: rwex@csed-42.UUCP (Richard Wexelblat)
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
Lines: 27

In article <1213@syma.sussex.ac.uk> aarons@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes:
>kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes:
>> Anyone seen any mind-blowing (I mean, *GOOD*) definitions of AI?  All
>> the books seem to gloss over it...
>Most people who attempt to define AI give limited definitions based
>on ignorance of the breadth of the field. E.g. people who know
>nothing about work on computer vision, speech, or robotics often
>define AI as if it were all about expert systems. (I even once
>saw an attempt to define it in terms of the use of LISP!).

A semi-jocular definition I have often quoted (sorry, I don't know the
source, I first saw it in net.jokes) is:

	AI is making computers work like they do in the movies.

Clearly, this is circular and less than helpful operationally.  But it's
a good way to set the scene, especially with layfolks.

A problem with the breadth of AI is that as soon as anything begins to
be successful, it's not considered AI anymore--as if the opprobrium of
being associated with the AI community were something to get away from
as soon as possible.  Ask someone in NatLang or Robot Vision if they're
doing AI.
-- 
--Dick Wexelblat  |I must create a System or be enslav'd by another Man's; |
  (rwex@ida.org)  |I will not Reason and Compare: my business is to Create.|
  703  824  5511  |   -Blake,  Jerusalem                                   |