4 ms·
We seem to be re-enacting the Symbolic vs Connectionist AI debate of the 80s, poorly. All I'm saying is, Norvig should have been more humble and included a cha
by thomas_rm 6y ago
We seem to be re-enacting the Symbolic vs Connectionist AI debate of the 80s, poorly.
All I'm saying is, Norvig should have been more humble and included a chapter or two about ANNs, with all the research accumulated thus far, instead of betting 100% for the symbolic approach. Let the next generation of students learn both approaches and decide for themselves. It's sad that a whole generation of students was taught AI from this archaic book.
- lisper 6y ago> All I'm saying is, Norvig should have been more humble and included a chapter or two about ANNs No, that is not all you're saying. You opened with this: "I personally think Norvig is an idiot with regards to Artificial Intelligence," Not only did you lob an ad hominem at one of the most respected members of the community simply for making an editorial decision 18 years ago that you happen not to agree with today, you did it from a newly created anonymous HN account, and then you tried to deny it. Your conduct here has been thoroughly dishonorable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
- thomas_rm 6y agoI think Norvig is a smart person, I enjoy his books, papers and jupyter notebooks, but I always thought he was pretty clueless regarding AI, as history indeed demonstrated. That's not an ad hominem. What is shameful was the extreme shunning of the mainstream scientific community to ANNs, in 90's-00's decades, to the point that it was considered career suicide to publish a ANN paper. I believe Yann LeCun has said similar things in the past[0], reminiscing the time when it took him several years(!) to get an ANN paper accepted for publication. [0] http://yann.lecun.com/ex/pamphlets/publishing-models.html http://yann.lecun.com/ex/pamphlets/publishing-models.html