|
|
|
|
|
|
by jfdk
3991 days ago
|
|
|
While I think there is some grandiose and hype that gets attached to these fields by the media, you have to recognize that these names represent the end goal of the field, not the current status of where we are today. No, computer vision researchers haven't achieved what you and I perceive as vision, no more than a biochemical research in cancer cures have found a cure to cancer. But I would argue that these lofty named fields are a good thing. Academia is already plagued by it's uncertainty and lack of an inherent "end game." Let's not make it worse by renaming machine learning to "computer pattern recognition." Pattern recognition is just a possible piece of the puzzle or step in the process to creating AI, not the actual holy grail of achievement. |
|
|
If you use e.g. "vision" in your research as a basic concept, then you should do a thorough state of the art inquiry and state exactly what you understand by it (using, of course, the state of the art). I don't believe this was done when someone thought of naming these fields as they did. I also don't think that beginning researchers do this basic "background" check; they try to achieve "vision" (or "intelligence") without a clear (and at least commonly accepted) definition of "vision" (or "intelligence").
As I said above, I can see your point, but I wouldn't do this in the scientific community. Nothing wrong about saying in the news that you want to make a computer see, but e.g. having a journal with a misdefined or malappropriated concept in its name is - IMHO - wrong.