Answers.Body: <p>Sure! There's the whole Semantic Web scene! OWL is derived from DLs and Frames, arguably has a lot in common with semantic networks too. Expert-driven decision support systems are still being developed (and researched) in industries where the human is required to take responsibility or getting data is not going to happen. As the ideas evolve so do the names.</p>
  
  <p>Check out the academic conferences like <a href="http://reasoning.eas.asu.edu/kr2018/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">KR</a>, <a href="https://iswc2019.semanticweb.org/accepted-papers/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ISWC</a>, <a href="http://fois2018.cs.uct.ac.za/?page_id=46" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FOIS</a>, even broader AI conferences like <a href="http://static.ijcai.org/2019-Program.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">IJCAI</a> have a healthy dose of symbolic  AI, I even spotted a search algorithm in the 2019 line up.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-07-30T15:40:34.060Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-07-30T15:40:34.060Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Brown
Answers.Body: <p>Oh yeah, definitely.  Just to pick one example, you have <a href="http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/" rel="nofollow">Douglas Hofstader's group</a> at Indiana.  I think most of what they do would fall under the rubric of GOFAI (or at least closer to that than the statistical machine learning stuff).  </p>
  
  <p>Beyond that, just go to the <a href="http://arxiv.org/corr/home" rel="nofollow">CORR</a> and browse around the <a href="http://arxiv.org/list/cs.AI/recent" rel="nofollow">AI category</a>. You'll see plenty of neural networks and probabilistic stuff, but you'll also find the papers by the folks doing symbolic processing / GOFAI as well.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-09T06:18:29.880Z
Answers.Text: I don't think the work at Hofstadter's group really classifies as GOFAI. Even 30 years ago (when CopyCat was at the height of development) the work there was a novel hybrid of symbolic and subsymbolic approaches. But yes, the work there now is certainly distinct from the vogue for statistical ML.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NietzscheanAI
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-09T15:02:47.650Z
Answers.Text: I mean, yeah, you can argue either side of that, but for the purpose of *this* discussion, I think it's fair to lump their stuff in with GOFAI.  It's not like there's a really strict definition of what GOFAI means anyway. :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: mindcrime
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-09T15:03:52.213Z
Answers.Text: Yup, it's a matter of opinion.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NietzscheanAI
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-08T23:35:06.707Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-09-08T23:35:06.707Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: mindcrime
Body: <p>A lot of textbooks and introductory lectures typically split AI into connectionism and GOFAI (Good Old Fashioned AI). From a purely technical perspective, it seems that <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/connectionism/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">connectionism</a> has grown into machine learning and data science, while nobody talks about GOFAI, Symbolic AI, or Expert Systems at all.</p>
  <p>Is anyone of note still working on GOFAI?</p>
  
Tags: <research><symbolic-ai><expert-systems><symbolic-computing>
Title: Is anybody still researching GOFAI?
UserDisplayName: Alex S King
ThreadText: # Is anybody still researching GOFAI?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-09-08)
  
  A lot of textbooks and introductory lectures typically split AI into connectionism and GOFAI (Good Old Fashioned AI). From a purely technical perspective, it seems that [connectionism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/connectionism/) has grown into machine learning and data science, while nobody talks about GOFAI, Symbolic AI, or Expert Systems at all.
  
  Is anyone of note still working on GOFAI?
  
  **Tags:** research, symbolic-ai, expert-systems, symbolic-computing
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-07-30. Score: 4
  
  Sure! There's the whole Semantic Web scene! OWL is derived from DLs and Frames, arguably has a lot in common with semantic networks too. Expert-driven decision support systems are still being developed (and researched) in industries where the human is required to take responsibility or getting data is not going to happen. As the ideas evolve so do the names.
  
  Check out the academic conferences like [KR](http://reasoning.eas.asu.edu/kr2018/), [ISWC](https://iswc2019.semanticweb.org/accepted-papers/), [FOIS](http://fois2018.cs.uct.ac.za/?page_id=46), even broader AI conferences like [IJCAI](http://static.ijcai.org/2019-Program.html) have a healthy dose of symbolic AI, I even spotted a search algorithm in the 2019 line up.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-09-08. Score: 4
  
  Oh yeah, definitely. Just to pick one example, you have [Douglas Hofstader's group](http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/) at Indiana. I think most of what they do would fall under the rubric of GOFAI (or at least closer to that than the statistical machine learning stuff).
  
  Beyond that, just go to the [CORR](http://arxiv.org/corr/home) and browse around the [AI category](http://arxiv.org/list/cs.AI/recent). You'll see plenty of neural networks and probabilistic stuff, but you'll also find the papers by the folks doing symbolic processing / GOFAI as well.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: I don't think the work at Hofstadter's group really classifies as GOFAI. Even 30 years ago (when CopyCat was at the height of development) the work there was a novel hybrid of symbolic and subsymbolic approaches. But yes, the work there now is certainly distinct from the vogue for statistical ML.  
  > **username_2**: I mean, yeah, you can argue either side of that, but for the purpose of *this* discussion, I think it's fair to lump their stuff in with GOFAI.  It's not like there's a really strict definition of what GOFAI means anyway. :-)  
  > **username_3**: Yup, it's a matter of opinion.  
  
  ---
  
  