Norvig vs. Chomsky and the Fight for the Future of AI
They have two different definitions of "artificial intelligence," which is where the schism seems to be arising from.<p>Chomsky takes the academic approach - artificial intelligence is the simulation of humanlike (or even possibly mammalian) intelligence.<p>Norvig is taking the engineering approach - artificial intelligence needs only to pass the Turing test.<p>They're both right, both approaches have value, and they both are bound by our limited technology at the moment.<p>In the end, though, Norvig will lose out. Sure, he'll make the finish line first - an AI capable of 'passing' the Turing test, but in order to have real intelligence you need an analytical engine (or brain, if you will) that can prioritize data without fiddling with bits. In the Norvig solution, someone will always have to be fiddling with the bits.<p>Chomsky's approach, on the other hand, will result in a 'true' artificial intelligence, the way neurologists understand it. It's just going to take a lot longer to get there.