Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!nagle
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Is There A TRUE Industry LEADER in AI?
Message-ID: <nagleD2o6Lp.JC5@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <thomas-1801951023400001@obc.is.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:37:01 GMT
Lines: 29

thomas@obc.is.net (Thomas Bergen) writes:
>Yes, I'm an AI ignoramus. I'm trying to change that. I'm a commercial
>writer in the early stages of learning about this subject.

>Would those of you who are clearly expert in the field mind sharing your
>insights into this very basic question - what is/are the firm/firms that
>will one day be the Ford/GMs of AI? And what (in a nutshell) leads you to
>that conclusion?

      Most of the former "industry leaders" are now bankrupt.  All the
hardware companies are history: Lisp Machines Inc., Symbolics, and
Thinking Machines are gone. (Thinking Machines just went into Chapter 11
recently; they might come out in some form; the other two are long gone).
Of the software companies, almost all the MIT-area ones are gone;
Kendall Square Computing was the last to go.  The Stanford-area ones
haven't fared much better.  Most of the big corporate labs (those that
are left) have cut back on AI work; Xerox PARC barely touches it now,
and what's left of IBM R&D doesn't seem to be doing much.

      As it turned out, "expert systems" aren't "intelligent"; they're
a useful way to store certain types of reference-book data and not much more.

      I recommend for the writer that you start by reading Feigenbaum's
"The Fifth Generation" (a best-seller in the mid-80s) and try contacting
the various people mentioned in the book.  There's a "where are they now"
article in this.  (In some cases, a "why aren't they in jail" article
might be appropriate.  There was a lot of hype by people who knew better.)

					John Nagle
