Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!KremlSun!glukr!jabber!intes!news-server
From:  Vitaly S.Lozovsky (7:0482) 24-6184 <loz@loz.intes.odessa.ua>
Subject: Fathers of AI - Where Are You? (Re: Drew McDermott)
X-Return-Path: loz!loz.intes.odessa.ua!loz
Reply-To: loz@loz.intes.odessa.ua
Organization: Institute of Market Economy, Ukr. Acad. Sci.
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 14:30:45 GMT
Message-ID: <AFbUdIlG2T@loz.intes.odessa.ua>
Lines: 67
Sender: news-server@intes.odessa.ua

In article : <3hodjaINNamq@ADEN.AI.CS.YALE.EDU>
 mcdermott-drew@cs.yale.edu (Drew McDermott)
wrote:

>
> Actually, such conversion experiences seem the norm.  Every AI
> researcher eventually either decides the problem is impossible
> (e.g., Winograd) or already solved (e.g., Lenat).
> I'm the only beacon of sanity left, so far.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     - All my hope is that not only you!     (V.L.)
>
>                             -- Drew McDermott

The fate of well known AI researchers must be instructive in any
case: - either becoming impossibilists, or solvists, or
remainingtobebeaconists, as Dr. McDermott, whom I respect very much,
and whose works I studied with interest at due time.

Dear AI fathers! Where are you, what are you doing now, what do you
think of present state of AI research and why? I understand that it is
somewhat risky ethic point to say, sort of, "... I, one of famous AI
fathers, think ...", but do overcome this slight awkwardness, and say
some words of wisdom to many participants of this group.

Where are you: D.Bobrow, E.Charniak, E.Feigenbaum, R.Fikes, N.Findler,
I.Goldstein, C.Green, F.Hayes-Roth, G.Hendrix, C.Hewitt, D.Lenat,
J.McCarthy, D.McDermott, A.Newell, N.Nilsson, C.Rieger, A.Robinson,
E.Sacerdoti, R.Schank, G.Sussman, Y.Wilks, T.Winograd, P.Winston,
W.Woods, - just to name several specific persons - the list is of
course open. Feel free to join it yourselves! - Not only AI fathers,
but also mothers, children and nephews.

When the Great Areopagus gather, probably, it is hard to begin
arguing. Here are some of my beliefs, just to start with.

1. AI is not science strictly speaking; it is an Art and Exploration
   of Unknown Frontiers.

2. The main axis of AI is explication of knowledge (semantics,
   pragmatics, statics, dynamics) supporting interpretation mode so
   that the system can at any time analyse, explain, modify and adopt
   itself automatically and in dialog with humans.

3. The main principle of AI based research is integration. Gestalt
   phenomenon makes it very nontrivial thing to do: the whole is
   qualitatively more than the sum of its parts. And many nice
   theoretic mechanisms failed in this stage (theorem proving, for
   example).

4. Software engineers - systems programmers - solve the problems very
   close or even intersecting with AI domain, though we are not
   antagonists, but colleagues, and it is not misleading when the
   (slight) difference vanishes.

5. During many years of AI research, probably, we payed too small
   attention to the problems of ergonomy, especially in human - AI
   system interaction; it explains the nonfading interest to
   Elisa-like programs. Elisa was nothing more than pure ergonomic
   artefact.

     Enough for the while. Is all this interesting to somebody?

     Cheers!
                                   Vitaly


