home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.ai
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!claird
- From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
- Subject: Re: Mainstreaming AI
- Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:10:46 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Jul31.141046.25847@NeoSoft.com>
- References: <1992Jul29.203044.9047@mercury.unt.edu> <Bs67x7.F20@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Jul29.210706.25227@news.cs.indiana.edu>
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Jul29.210706.25227@news.cs.indiana.edu> Michael Chui <mchui@spinner.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
- >>In article <1992Jul29.203044.9047@mercury.unt.edu> danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Danny Faught) writes:
- >>
- >>My question is, do you know any examples of AI techniques of the past
- >>that were considered AI when they were being developed, but are now
- >>considered commonplace and having nothing to do with AI?
- .
- .
- .
- > Graph search techniques such as depth-first, and breadth-first
- >search were once considered AI.
- > Statistical classification systems were also once considered AI.
- >(Some still are. Are we statistical classification systems? Followups
- >to comp.ai.philosophy, probably.)
- .
- .
- .
- I often chatter about how *all* AI techniques
- enter the mainstream. Early on, chess-playing
- and theorem-proving were the paradigms of AI;
- now, we know enough to see that those are speci-
- alized domains, with techniques and results
- which are specific, but accessible to alert
- high-school students.
- --
-
- Cameron Laird
- claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
- claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
-