Dreyfus clarifies that his critique targets the explicit and implicit philosophical assumptions of AI leaders such as Simon and Minsky, not their technical work, which he regards as important and valuable both for AI’s limited achievements and for other areas of computer science.

By Hubert L. Dreyfus, from What Computers Can't Do

Key Arguments

  • He insists that 'what I am criticizing is the implicit and explicit philosophical assumptions of Simon and Minsky and their co-workers, not their technical work.'
  • He concedes that 'their philosophical prejudices and naïveté distort their own evaluation of their results,' but argues that this 'in no way detracts from the importance and value of their research on specific techniques such as list structures, and on more general problems such as data-base organization and access, compatibility theorems, and so forth.'
  • He affirms that 'The fundamental ideas that they have contributed in these areas have not only made possible the limited achievements in artificial intelligence but have contributed to other more flourishing areas of computer science.'
  • He further notes that 'In some restricted ways even AI can have, and presumably will have practical value despite what I shall try to show are its fundamental limitations.'

Source Quotes

50 The causes of this panic-reaction should themselves be investigated, but that is a job for psychology, or the sociology of knowledge. However, in anticipation of the impending outrage I want to make absolutely clear from the outset that what I am criticizing is the implicit and explicit philosophical assumptions of Simon and Minsky and their co-workers, not their technical work. True, their philosophical prejudices and naïveté distort their own evaluation of their results, but this in no way detracts from the importance and value of their research on specific techniques such as list structures, and on more general problems such as data-base organization and access, compatibility theorems, and so forth.
However, in anticipation of the impending outrage I want to make absolutely clear from the outset that what I am criticizing is the implicit and explicit philosophical assumptions of Simon and Minsky and their co-workers, not their technical work. True, their philosophical prejudices and naïveté distort their own evaluation of their results, but this in no way detracts from the importance and value of their research on specific techniques such as list structures, and on more general problems such as data-base organization and access, compatibility theorems, and so forth. The fundamental ideas that they have contributed in these areas have not only made possible the limited achievements in artificial intelligence but have contributed to other more flourishing areas of computer science.
True, their philosophical prejudices and naïveté distort their own evaluation of their results, but this in no way detracts from the importance and value of their research on specific techniques such as list structures, and on more general problems such as data-base organization and access, compatibility theorems, and so forth. The fundamental ideas that they have contributed in these areas have not only made possible the limited achievements in artificial intelligence but have contributed to other more flourishing areas of computer science. In some restricted ways even AI can have, and presumably will have practical value despite what I shall try to show are its fundamental limitations.
The fundamental ideas that they have contributed in these areas have not only made possible the limited achievements in artificial intelligence but have contributed to other more flourishing areas of computer science. In some restricted ways even AI can have, and presumably will have practical value despite what I shall try to show are its fundamental limitations. (I restrict myself to AI because it is not clear that naïve Cognitive Simulation, as it is now practiced, can have any value at all, except perhaps as a striking demonstration of the fact that in behaving intelligently people do not process information like a heuristically programmed digital computer.) An artifact could replace men in some tasksfor example, those involved in exploring planetswithout performing the way human beings would and without exhibiting human flexibility.

Key Concepts

  • I want to make absolutely clear from the outset that what I am criticizing is the implicit and explicit philosophical assumptions of Simon and Minsky and their co-workers, not their technical work.
  • True, their philosophical prejudices and naïveté distort their own evaluation of their results, but this in no way detracts from the importance and value of their research on specific techniques such as list structures, and on more general problems such as data-base organization and access, compatibility theorems, and so forth.
  • The fundamental ideas that they have contributed in these areas have not only made possible the limited achievements in artificial intelligence but have contributed to other more flourishing areas of computer science.
  • In some restricted ways even AI can have, and presumably will have practical value despite what I shall try to show are its fundamental limitations.

Context

In anticipation of hostile reactions, Dreyfus distinguishes his philosophical critique from any devaluation of the concrete technical contributions made by leading AI researchers.