Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:395 comp.ai:1499
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!boris
From: boris@hawaii.mit.edu (Boris N Goldowsky)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.ai
Subject: Re: The future of AI - my opinion
Message-ID: 
Date: 3 Apr 88 11:03:30 GMT
References: <8803270154.AA08607@bu-cs.bu.edu> <962@daisy.UUCP> <4640@bcsaic.UUCP> <2979@sfsup.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 32
In-reply-to: saal@sfsup.UUCP's message of 31 Mar 88 15:10:30 GMT


In article <2979@sfsup.UUCP> saal@sfsup.UUCP (S.Saal) writes:

   Ironically, this makes AI a field that must make itself obsolete.
   As more areas become understood, they will break off and become
   their own field.  If not for finding new areas, AI would run out
   of things for it to address.

Isn't that true of all sciences, though?  If something is understood,
then you don't need to study it anymore.

I realize this is oversimplifying your point, so let me be more
precise.  If you are doing some research and come up with results that
are useful, people will start using those results for their own
purposes.  If the results are central to your field, you will also
keep expanding on them and so forth.  But if they are not really of
central interest, the only people who will keep them alive are these
others... and if, as in the case of robotics, they are really useful
results they will be very visibly and profitably kept alive.  But I
think this can really happen in any field, and in no way makes AI
"obsolete."

Isn't finding new areas what science is all about?

Bng


--
Boris Goldowsky     boris@athena.mit.edu or @adam.pika.mit.edu
                         %athena@eddie.UUCP
                         @69 Chestnut St.Cambridge.MA.02139
    	    	    	 @6983.492.(617)