Artificial Intelligence Stack Overflow about to start
area51.stackexchange.com
We want you!
area51.stackexchange.com
We want you!
EDIT: Searching shows that the definition is still all over the place. See the comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1982919 for an reasonable example of disagreement over definitions.
Perhaps the question is - can any vital scientific discipline to have a simple definition? I'm remembering the old joke where "Biology is really chemistry, and chemistry is really physics, and physics is really mathematics."
Preview from Google Books: http://goo.gl/U4Xyn
I think that having all the questions together on one site would facilitate cross pollination and accidental information learning while simply browsing.
Just an idea.
But with the community process of the different Stacks I have a feeling there are reasons other than technical for the separation.
From a SEO point of view, having separate domains with high density of topic-related keywords works great, as far as I can tell :)
Looks like it's pretty much there then.
Computers answering questions from humans about computers! Why didn't I think of that?
We want you!
It would be nice if this was separated out into "old-fashioned" AI (data mining, statistical inference, machine learning, etc) and bio-inspired technologies (genetic algorithms, cellular automata, neural networks - although the latter may be a grey area).
Alternatively, a better name than "Artificial Intelligence" should have been used for the site. Probably too late now though..
> This view is common in modern cognitive psychology and is presumed by theorists of evolutionary psychology.
Only among a small besieged minority-- the majority have moved on to neurocognitive research.
>and is presumed by theorists of evolutionary psychology
That's just straight-up wrong. Perhaps there's some theorist who buys into it, but it's certainly not common.
As for bio-inspired techniques-- why should their point of inspiration be anything but a footnote? Genetic algorithms are just one instance of a stochastic search algorithm (there are many others), cellular automata can be pretty much anything, and so can neural networks (depending on whether you include the dozens of models more esoteric than multilayer perceptrons).
Not that that's a bad thing. Competition is good, and the difference may evolve to be nothing more than culture, or focus or whatever. I mean, HN is similar to certain reddit sub-reddits (or combinations thereof) such as /r/programming and /r/startups. But there's room for both. Same deal, IMO, with AI / Machine Learning / Data Mining / etc. related Q&A sites.
Oh, and never mind that there are multiple subreddits devoted to these topics as well! /r/machinelearning, /r/artificial, /r/sysor, etc. jump to mind.
Let the market sort it out.
(1) a legacy hold-over from the bad old days when people thought symbolic inference was central to human intelligence (e.g. AAAI, JAIR)
(2) research on extending old-fashioned AI to be actually useful (e.g. Markov Logic Networks)
(3) most commonly (as in this case), a vaguely defined desired outcome and a bundle of poorly understood cool-sounding techniques.
"We'll making computers learn-- with neurons! And Evolution! And Prolog?"