Talk:History of artificial intelligence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VjiaoBlack.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Neats vs scruffies

Every once in a while, during the past 15 years, someone comes through a deletes all references the terms "neat" and "scruffy". So let's talk about it.

I've put the terms back into the article because: (a) "neats vs. scruffies" is genuine, real history: people talked about this (a lot) in the late 70s and 80s. See AAAI conferences and talks and so on. Part of writing history is describing the world as it was, as it described itself. They described themselves this way, so we need to give the reader an insight into how they thought at the time. (b) Russell and Norvig's "victory of the neats" quip provides a nice through-line for the article, and emphasizes the fact that each generation has viewed the field differently as it has evolved. This is also good history writing, and there is simply is no more reliable source on AI than Russell and Norvig.

On the other side, by the late eighties, most people were sick of hearing about it, and sick of the ridiculous ways that people would try to weave the distinction into badly thought out "general theories" of AI or cognition. I remember Robert Wilensky telling me in 1987: "Never read anything that mentions neats vs scruffies or procedural vs. declarative". In short: we realized it was a stupid distinction years later, but that doesn't mean it isn't historically relevant.

If your disagree, please, let me know what the actual problem is. ----CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Neats and scruffies" was not as prevalent in the community as this WIKI entry makes it out to be. It was limited to a small group of admittedly combative researchers, who did not typically describe themselves that way--but did describe their processes in that manner. Utilizing a process does not make one a particular type of researcher or developer, and thus limits the application of the term. The term doesn't show up in any relevant reporting of the day (aka, Freedman, Newquist, Levy, any computer journals). It can be referenced, perhaps to another entry, but to use that term as a linchpin for this entry is completely disproportionate to its use then and now. I would like to see an actual set of citations from the era describing the developers in actual terms such as "XXX is a scruffy" or "XXX and the team of neats." Thanks. TrainTracking1 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC).

TrainTracking1, here is a reference: Minsky, Marvin L. "Logical versus analogical or symbolic versus connectionist or neat versus scruffy." AI magazine 12.2 (1991): 34-34. [1]. --Hectorpal (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Weighing in. Completely against the isolated use of "neats vs scruffies." It's what the real world calls "inside baseball"--as far as that goes--in that it has no relevance to the greater discussion, and is not at all relative to the understanding of the history of AI. You might has well start talking about McCarthyists vs Minskyites if you want to get into conflict. And by 1991, the terms were already out of whatever fashion they were in. Perhaps it's time for someone to start a "neats vs scruffies" page, which should include the use of the term in other disciplines, as it apparently is not limited to AI.Andreldritch (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Please protect the "neats" and "scruffies"

I just read those terms are being deleted. Please protect them. It was very important. To be honest, this is going to come back. "neats" are challenging Deep Learning who are for them the new "scruffies". Just see Judea Pearl:neat to see this in progress. Hectorpal (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Neats and scruffies is only a term used by SOME in the AI community (historically, Schank is the only person to be associated with it). It is also a popular characterisation in many areas of academia, and is rarely used in the actual history of AI--except by those who consider themselves on one side or the other. Labeling diminishes the efforts of various schools and the wide variety of crossover. Suggest leaving the battle to the actual WIKI entry on Neats and Scruffies. Keep history entry about the actual events and not the insider squabbling. TrainTracking1 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hectorpal, your link to archetypal neat URL is a 404. Did you mean this neat? --FeralOink (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)BTW you have a great LinkedIn pic! TrainTracking1, as an uninvolved editor, I would keep the neats and scruffies and improve the sourcing to McDuck please see my comment below. I am tempted to PROD her BLP. This is what it consists of at the moment:

McCorduck grew up in California and attended the University of California, Berkeley, from which she graduated in 1960. McCorduck was invited to contribute to a book of readings on artificial intelligence while a senior at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1960. At the time she did not know what artificial intelligence was. McCorduck lived for more than forty years in New York City with her husband Joseph F. Traub. After her husband's death she moved back to California, where she had grown up. She now lies [sic] in San Francisco.

Word count for "McCorduck" is 74 on this article.--FeralOink (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

FeralOink, yes, thanks. Fixed. --Hectorpal (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@TrainTracking1: Absolute incorrect on all counts. It was only used 1975-1985. It is mentioned in the history section leading AI textbook, Russell & Norvig. It is mentioned in both of the most popular and respected histories of AI, Crevier and McCorduck. It wasn't not unique to Schank (at the time, I didn't even know it was Schank who came up with it). It was the topic of talks and symposiums at AAAI. It was addressed in the presidential address of AAAI several times. Papers were written about it (usually including the "procedural/declarative distinction"). Also the rivalry between MIT and Stanford was very real -- each side thought the other was dead wrong.

I agree that, by 1985, everybody was sick of hearing about it. A lot of worthless papers were written about it, papers that were trying to establish some kind of new paradigm for the field or their own "better" definition of AI and so on. These kind of papers are useless, boring and a dime a dozen. People still write these kinds of papers today, e.g. "Defining 'Synthetic Consciousness'". They are just as useless now.

But that doesn't mean that scruffy/neat doesn't raise an interesting question about AI. Is there a simple and elegant "master algorithm" for AGI? Or do we necessarily have to solve a lot of messy unrelated problems? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Forgive, I didn't realize we talked about this a few months ago. Forgive me for restating my position. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a reference on neat vs scruffy. Minsky, Marvin L. "Logical versus analogical or symbolic versus connectionist or neat versus scruffy." AI magazine 12.2 (1991): 34-34. [2]. 473 citations in Google Scholar. The expressions belong in the history of AI.<unsigned comment>

At least one mention of neats and scruffies seems justified, especially since there is an already extant Wikipedia article on the subject in the context of AI. I'll see if or where it might fit in this article. Maybe the above source will be useful, whomever deposited it here.--FeralOink (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am doing a major re-write and update of neats and scruffies as the sources aren't great, and as such, dates and context are missing in a lot of places. See [my revisions here to date], if anyone is curious.--FeralOink (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There are 74 hits on McCorduck in this article

They are all in the sources, but that still seems like a lot. Better sources added incrementally over time might be good. I am only suggesting, and realize I can do that too. Help out, that is.--FeralOink (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

McCorduck wrote the definitive history of AI. There is no better source. The fact that there are so many references to it is an indication that this article uses only the most reliable sources -- no fringe points of view, no random semi-relevant contributions. Just the mainstream, consensus understanding of the history of AI.

I would argue that articles about established academic topics (such as history) are more likely to reliable if they depend on less sources, not more -- or even just one: the most respected mainstream source. The other random sources tend to be about topics that are either unimportant, fringe, or (at worst) self-serving. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Completely disagree about McCorduck and "the definitive history." Her book was published in 1979, well before the commercial development of AI--and its attendant developers and corporate purveyors--was even established (ranging from Symbolics and LISP Machine to Intellicorp and Inference). In fact, her only association with the commercial rise of AI was her work with Feigenbaum, which left them both on the wrong side of the "Fifth Generation" call to arms. To state that the use of her as the most oft-cited source is indicative of nothing . . . other than familiarity with her work by an early Wiki editor on the topic of AI. (That's a fallacy akin to saying the existence of so many yellow cars in NYC is indicative of that being the best choice of colors for cars.) Other writers, like Norvig, Freedman, Newquist, and Crevier wrote about the rise of commercial AI in much more detail than McCorduck--essentially because she barely touched on it at all. To cite her, or any single author, as the creator of the definitive history is simply misguided and biased. And, of course, leans into the bias of using only one predominant source. McCorduck is not the only highly-regarded chronicler of AI, nor should she (or anyone else) be given that title. Let's get some more sources in here. TrainTracking1 (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Arguing in favor of historical articles being best if dependent on a single historical source is antithetical to a balanced point of view (unless for an historical article which occurred, say, prior to 400 B.C. and sources are scarce.) For History of AI, single-sourcing will almost certainly result in WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV for the article overall. Thank you for the suggestions, TrainTracking1. I will try to find more written by Norvig, Freedman et al. I encourage other editors to do similarly. A great deal has happened in the history of AI that post-dates 1979 (publication of McCorduck's book), but is still part of the history—not the present—of artificial intelligence.--FeralOink (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Qualifying the Victory of the Neats: Updating a Section Name from the "Victory of the Neats" to "Probabilistic Reasoning and Greater Rigor" and Updating the Text

I see there was a lot of discussion on this talk page about whether to preserve 'Neats vs Scruffies' or remove it.

The latest version Russell & Norvig's, AI: A Modern Approach differs from the second edition cited earlier by changing the last sentence of the footnote on P.25 of the 2nd edition and P. 24 of the 4th edition from "Whether that stability will be disrupted by a new scruffy idea is another question" to --now-- "The present emphasis on deep learning may represent a resurgence of the scruffies."

I think the new Russell & Norvig characterization there as and historical breakdown better describes that section, so I am changing the name to more closely match what they have. I'm also trying minimize disruption and flow of the article. I had planned on just dropping the part of the sentence "...and the victory of the neats" in Russell & Norvig (2003) describe this as nothing less than a "revolution" and "the victory of the neats".

But since I can see why others care about that the 'neats vs scruffies' view and possible future application, I am adding:

They had argued in their 2002 textbook that this increased rigor could be viewed plausibly as a "victory of the neats," but subsequently qualified that by saying, in their 2020 AI textbook, that "The present emphasis on deep learning may represent a resurgence of the scruffies." Veritas Aeterna (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Google, 2022

In 2022, Google is told to Havel developed an AI that is 158 million times faster than the world's fasterst supercomputer (source: Medium.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.135.105 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Knowledge Base Engineering

Which is what we called it. Now, they're using Knowledge-based Engineering. But, it represents that each boom/(supposed) bust cycle left something of value. Knowledge-based_engineering supported one large program as it met demands of producing a new aircraft through all of the required phases. The results were so impressive that subsequent programs adapted the method into their processes as it evolved which is to be expected with computational systems. From a Lisp machine to Unix and then to the PC (all the time, multi-platformed with huge data requirements), we can trace the evolution to a domain which still exists. We need to pull together documentation about this phenomenal reality. ...

This motivated by looking at papers from a Kansas State University Conference Software-based Software Development in October of 1986 (30 years after Darmouth) that had representatives from every effort extant at the time including those who brought about KBE (see Talk page of ICAD (software) (Real example needed) for more details). I have been collecting examples of my project, Multiple Surface Join and Offset (MSJO), part of whose focus was supporting the use of free-form NURBS with the solid modeling of the time.

Anecdote? One program was to use only computational modeling but within the known constraints of the engineering processes involved. This was a huge step taken jointly with CAD/CAD/CAM systems. Computing performed. Paper modes diminished drastically. One other consequence? Known modes potentially became less stable. That is a continual concern as we improve.

One thing to discuss? What remnants carried forward through all of the summer/winter cycles? 1st. Lisp. User interfaces. 2nd. ?, Third, KBE and more.

And, what will be the one(s) from the current event? jmswtlk (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Is there something we should change or add? ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Moroccane

Moroccane So

uhail 197.253.248.224 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

History of artificial intelligence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The talk page of this 2008 listing was tagged by SandyGeorgia as requiring a GAR; I must agree. The article has not been updated to the sufficient standard after 2010; this is especially egregious considering the massive leaps in AI over the last decade.

Thus, I'll tag it as needing an {{update}}, and nominate this for delisting as failing GA criterion 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs huge amounts of work and updating to be at standard. Should be delisted unless someone takes that on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

agree, should be delisted. Section for 2011 is really outdated and needs a huge amount of work Artem.G (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Delist. Needs significant effort. If anyone steps forward to work on this article, please ping me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 May 2023 and 10 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NoemieCY, Nonasus (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by NoemieCY (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)