eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) (10/23/87)
In article <1342@tulum.swatsun.UUCP>, scott@swatsun (Jay Scott) writes: >[quoting me:] >> In *each case*, these problem areas were defined out of the AI field as soon >> as they spawned halfway-usable technologies and acquired their own research >> communities. > > Here's one speculation: People see intelligence as mysterious, intrinsically > non-understandable. So anything understood can't be part of intelligence, > and can't be part of AI. I assume this was what Eric had in mind in a > previous article, when he mentioned "hidden vitalist premises". Yes, that is precisely what I intended. > Any other good ideas? Maybe :-). A friend once told me that she'd read that human institutions reach a critical size at 250 people; that that is the largest social unit for which a single member can keep a reasonable grasp on the capabilities and style of everyone else in the group. This insight explains the allegedly remarkably consistent size of pre-industrial villages in areas where enough settlement land is available so that people can move elsewhere when they want. There is supposedly one well-known company that has found that the productivity gains from holding their work units down to this size more than justify the diseconomies of scale from small plants. This idea gets some confirmation from my experience of SF fandom, a totally voluntarist subculture that has, historically, thrown off sub-communities like yeast buds (SCA, Trek fandom, the Darkovans, the Dr. Who people, etc. etc.). We even have a name for these 'buds'; they're called "fringe fandoms" and the people in them "fringefen" (the correct plural of "SF fan" is, by ancient tradition "SF fen"). In this context, the theory needs a little generalizing; what seems to count for that magic 250 is not the number of self-described "Xites", but rather the smaller number of *organizers* and *regulars*; the people that maintain the subculture's communications networks and set its style. Now: let's assume a parallel division in science between "stars" (the people who do, or are seen to be doing, the important work) and "spear carriers" (the people who fill in the corners, tie down the details, go after the last decimal places, and get most of the grants ;-)). We then have: RAYMOND'S HYPOTHESIS: A scientific field with more than 250 "stars" will tend to fragment into subspecialties more and more strongly as the size increases. It would be interesting to look at other classes of voluntarist subcultures (like, say, fringe political parties) to see if a similar pattern holds. -- Eric S. Raymond UUCP: {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax,vu-vlsi}!snark!eric Post: 22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718