On blurring the gap between NN and AI

[Lev Goldfarb]

Jay McClelland:

    Regarding Worth's query about a possible fundamental opposition
    between connectionist and other approaches to AI: I do not think
    there need be such an opposition. That is, I think one can be a
    connectionist without imagining that any such opposition exists.

I do not understand how one can decide or "imagine" whether there
need or need not be such an opposition. In fact, as I have mentioned
in my last correspondence, such "opposition" between the corresponding
mathematical models *simply exists*. Wishful thinking apart, if we
do not want to expand some more "hot air", we should keep in mind what
John von Neumann said half a century ago:

    The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to
    interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a
    mathematical constract which, with the addition of certain verbal
    interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of
    such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is
    expected to work.

Blurring the existing tentions between the two models (and I mean formal
models) helps to create scientifically very unproductive state of euphoria,
especially at this very critical initial stage in the development of
intelligent systems. I hope, that the Scientific American article will
not cater to the very popular "quest for euphoria".

--Lev Goldfarb