|
|
|
|
|
by ethbro
3238 days ago
|
|
Don't think you deserve to be down voted for asking a reasonable question. A) Most of the documentation is on the other side of the digital event horizon (so pre-1995). B) I break apart knowledge about AI (that is, the mathematical and systems discoveries) and AI as a product. The assertion is not that the knowledge failed, but that the product failed. As you pointed out, the math behind expert systems was solid and functional for certain problems. But the collapse of the product (aided by the popular science press researcher-hunting for whoever would promise the most outlandish things for them) broke the funding channel for anything labelled AI. As a result, methods used by expert systems lived on and solved problems, but nobody could call it AI because conventional wisdom knew that "AI was a failure." |
|
I actually wonder if we're swinging too far in the opposite direction of data vs. "understanding" the world. It may turn out that we can make some things pretty good using ML but not the last 5% needed to make them truly usable.