home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!unix!unix.sri.com!laws
- From: laws@ai.sri.com (Kenneth I. Laws)
- Newsgroups: comp.ai
- Subject: Re: AI Winter Refugees
- Message-ID: <LAWS.92Sep4120820@sunset.ai.sri.com>
- Date: 4 Sep 92 19:08:20 GMT
- References: <x+an!9a.vere@netcom.com> <LAWS.92Aug27002100@sunset.ai.sri.com>
- <1992Aug28.103804.9632@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <25450@castle.ed.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@unix.SRI.COM
- Organization: Computists International
- Lines: 32
- In-reply-to: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk's message of 2 Sep 92 15:07:11 GMT
-
- > From Chris Malcolm:
- > I can't think of a reason
- > why the AI funding agencies should be sloppier. The funding agencies
- > operate general policies, and their staff move around.
-
- This doesn't seem to be the way that it works in the U.S.
- NSF program directors do not move around, except for a
- few bureaucrats who keep paperwork moving in vacant positions.
- Directors move in and out, not around. :-)
-
- The amount of "slop" in the system depends on the disparity
- between funds available and funds required to support the
- best research. Funding agencies that get their money from
- Congress typically request as much budget as they think
- they can get, regardless of the need in each category.
- Congress then tweaks the amounts based on perceived payoff,
- media interest, photo-op potential, competing programs,
- politics, etc. -- again without much relationship to the
- number of really good proposals available.
-
- In biology, it's not uncommon for a proposal to be rejected
- because it fails to state what hypothesis is to be investigated,
- what methods will be used, or how the results will support or
- disprove the hypothesis. In AI it's unusual to see any of those
- addressed.
-
- -- Ken
- --
-
- Dr. Kenneth I. Laws, (415) 493-7390, laws@ai.sri.com.
- Moderator of the Computists International AI/IS/CS mutual-aid association.
- Ask about my weekly online career newsletter, The Computists' Communique.
-