feedback (Bryan Bankhead) (09/25/90)
As I understand the field AI is split up into two types of people:]
Syntacticists: Those who think that AI is basically a matter of sovling
the stucture behind how information elements are relatet to each other.]
EXAMPLE: In language translation a syntacticist would
concetrate on programs involving sentence diagraming and recognition of
grammatical cues within instance of the translate.
Semanticists: Those who think AI is based on the question of 'meaning'.
EXAMPLE: In language translation the semanticist
concentrates on the recognition of the symbols for 'objects' and the
relationship between object and their actions in the translate.
Of the members of this newgroup; are you a sytactici or a semanticist?
Of course feel free to violently disagree with my definition of the
divisons or to make up you own divisions in the field.
Thank You for your time
B Bankheadsarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/28/90)
In article <mLZ2P7w163w@bluemoon.UUCP> feedback (Bryan Bankhead) writes: >Syntacticists: Those who think that AI is basically a matter of sovling >the stucture behind how information elements are relatet to each other.] ... >Semanticists: Those who think AI is based on the question of 'meaning'. ... >Of the members of this newgroup; are you a sytactici or a semanticist? I am a semanticist. In fact this is the pilosophical basis for my objection to the reliance on Generative Grammars in describing human languages. I feel that any adequate treatment of linguistics must treat meaning and structure together, almost as a single entity. And since I see language as one of the most profoundly 'intelligent' things that humans do, this extends directly into AI and Cognitive Science. (That is, the internal mechanisms we use to speak and understand language are essentially the same as those we use to design a car or plan a painting).
cam@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) (09/30/90)
In article <mLZ2P7w163w@bluemoon.UUCP> feedback (Bryan Bankhead) writes: >As I understand the field AI is split up into two types of people:] Much too simple. But among those who are trying to understand anything new the first stage is always the realisation that there are two kinds -- the first categorisation. An essential first stage. But only the first: beware of those supposed experts who tell you that there are two kinds of anything! -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (10/02/90)
> Much too simple. But among those who are trying to understand > anything new the first stage is always the realisation that there > are two kinds -- the first categorisation. An essential first > stage. But only the first: beware of those supposed experts who > tell you that there are two kinds of anything! Hear, Hear! These are what we call dumb-bell theories, and they are indeed good starts. But beware of those who have gotten no further. If any such dichotomy stays around more than a short time, then it was proabbly a bad start, and you shold consider abandoning it. Certainly "soft" and "hard" AI make no sense. I have seen no progress from Piaget's great 'assimilation" vs. 'accomodation' distinction. David Marr's well-known 3-types don't appeal to me, either.
PLai@cup.portal.com (Patrick L Faith) (10/08/90)
I'm not sure which of the two groups I fall into that you said, bu
I think people have two different meanings of ai:
Number one is a set of techniques that a computer uses to do complicated
functions which may require learning.
The other term of ai, is in terms of an artificial intelegence that has
a personality, desires, can learn and make decisions.
I guess the difference is between saying ai and an "AI" . Of course
since no one can agree what makes something intelegent, we are hardly
likely to define what something is when its artificially intelligent.
Perhaps artificially intelligent and intelegent are the same things with
different spelling :D
PLai