| I have that book at home and I'll check as soon as I get back from a trip. When Dreyfus' book appeared in 1972, it received really harsh criticism from the then AI community. Dreyfus actually comments on that criticism in the revised 1992 edition. I just don't see how Dreyfus critique of AI has been dealt with in modern AI: the critique is aimed at fundamental issues, not at the technical issues. It is true that the critique written by Dreyfus is based on GOFAI algorithms from the 60s, but it is also true that if you read the book today, you'll find lots of similar situations and a similar way of thinking about the possibilities of AI, as well as the same underlying assumptions. And as a side note, outdated means that it does not apply anymore, or that is not relevant anymore. Which is different from 'establishing a dialogue' with the text/author, in a way that 'seems' not to be relevant anymore. If you say that Dreyfus' book is outdated just because the 4th edition of Norvig's text only mentions it in a footnote, you are assuming that Norvig and Russell's opinion are definitive. They might be not. I have authors like Norvig, Russel, LeCun, Minsky and other in the field in high regard. But they are normally not trained in either modern linguistics nor philosophy. Let alone the rest, large amount of researchers in the field. AI research is a complex field, and maybe (in this we could follow Foucault) not even a science. Doing research in an area of study does not turn it into science. It is precisely philosophy, and even more contemporary philosophy, the discipline that focuses on how we build knowledge, and how we experience the world. Two really important, almost fundamental, topics that directly contribute to how AI is developed as a field of knowledge. |