From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:09:52 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats"
Message-ID: <01I460YIKXG08Y50HU@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"tcmay@got.net" 30-APR-1996 19:30:55.47

>More recently, the scruffies have embraced neural nets, emergent
>computation, stochastic computing, genetic algorithms, and similar
>buzzwords. The recent work on "subsumption architectures" (a la Brooks) and
>agent architectures is consistent with viewpoint (though elements of logic
>are of course involved).

	One interesting phenomenon is the in-migration of neats into formerly
scruffy-only domains. For instance, take a look at the third, fourth, and fifth
international conference proceedings on genetic algorithms. You've got
scruffies who are just doing what feels right and seeing if it works (my
viewpoint) and mathematicians/neats who are trying to derive what _should_
work the best. (Of course, there is the problem with the neat approach that
it tends to oversimplify. For instance, many neat-variety equations for
genetic algorithms, such as the original version of the Schema Theorem, don't
take into account differing types of mutations - from a "don't care" symbol
to a 0 or 1 is less of a change from a 0 to a 1.)
	I will be interested in seeing the more final version of this essay.
	-Allen