Slashdot Mirror


IT Snake Oil — Six Tech Cure-Alls That Went Bunk

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Dan Tynan surveys six 'transformational' tech-panacea sales pitches that have left egg on at least some IT department faces. Billed with legendary promises, each of the six technologies — five old, one new — has earned the dubious distinction of being the hype king of its respective era, falling far short of legendary promises. Consultant greed, analyst oversight, dirty vendor tricks — 'the one thing you can count on in the land of IT is a slick vendor presentation and a whole lot of hype. Eras shift, technologies change, but the sales pitch always sounds eerily familiar. In virtually every decade there's at least one transformational technology that promises to revolutionize the enterprise, slash operational costs, reduce capital expenditures, align your IT initiatives with your core business practices, boost employee productivity, and leave your breath clean and minty fresh.' Today, cloud computing, virtualization, and tablet PCs are vying for the hype crown." What other horrible hype stories do some of our seasoned vets have?

38 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bad news is that artificial intelligence has yet to fully deliver on its promises.

    Only idiots, marketers, businessmen and outsiders ever thought we would be completely replaced by artificially intelligent machines. The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps. So many forms of automation are technically basic artificial intelligence, it's just very simple artificial intelligence. While you might want to argue that the things we benefit from are heuristics, statistics and messes of if/then decision trees, successful AI is nothing more than that. Everyone reading this enjoys benefits of AI but you probably don't know it. For instance, your hand written mail is most likely read by a machine that uses optical character recognition to decide where it goes with a pretty good success rate and confidence factor to fail over to humans. Recommendation systems are often based on AI algorithms. I mean, the article even says this:

    The ability of your bank's financial software to detect potentially fraudulent activity on your accounts or alter your credit score when you miss a mortgage payment are just two of many common examples of AI at work, says Mow. Speech and handwriting recognition, business process management, data mining, and medical diagnostics -- they all owe a debt to AI.

    Having taken several courses on AI, I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind. I don't ever recall reading anything other than fiction claiming that humans would soon be replaced completely by thinking machines.

    In short, I don't think it's fair to put it in this list as it has had success. It's easy to dismiss AI if the only person you hear talking about it is the cult-like Ray Kurzweil but I assure you the field is a valid one (unlike CASE or ERP). In short, AI will never die because the list of applications -- though small -- slowly but surely grows. It has not gone 'bunk' (whatever the hell that means). You can say expert systems have failed to keep their promises but not AI on the whole. The only thing that's left a sour taste in your mouth is salesmen and businessmen promising you something they simply cannot deliver on. And that's nothing new nor anything specific to AI.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by John+Whitley · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps.

      Actually, there was a period very early on ('50s) when it was naively thought that "we'll have thinking machines within five years!" That's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950's. A film reel which was shown as the first thing in my graduate level AI class, I might add. Sadly, I no longer have the reference to this clip.

      One major lesson was that there's an error in thinking "surely solving hard problem X must mean we've achieved artificial intelligence." As each of these problems fell (a computer passing the freshman calc exam at MIT, a computer beating a chess grandmaster, and many others), we realized that the solutions were simply due to understanding the problem and designing appropriate algorithms and/or hardware.

      The other lesson from that first day of AI class was that the above properties made AI into the incredible shrinking discipline: each of its successes weren't recognized as "intelligence", but often did spawn entire new disciplines of powerful problem solving that are used everywhere today. So "AI" research gets no credit, even though its researchers have made great strides for computing in general.

    2. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ERP could work if the vendors would realistically deal with GIGO.

      Unless you lock down the permissions so tightly that the system is unusable, your users will enter bad data. They'll add new entries for objects that already exist, they'll misspell the name of an object and then create a new object instead of editing the one they just created. They'll make every possible data entry error you can imagine, and plenty that you can't.

      We'd see a lot more progress in business software applications if all vendors would follow two rules:

      1. Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the future
      2. Any interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.
    3. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having taken several courses on AI, I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind.

      Not today, after the "AI Winter". But when I went through Stanford CS in the 1980s, there were indeed faculty members proclaiming in print that strong AI was going to result from expert systems Real Soon Now. Feigenbaum was probably the worst offender. His 1984 book, The Fifth Generation (available for $0.01 through Amazon.com) is particularly embarrassing. Expert systems don't really do all that much. They're basically a way to encode troubleshooting books in a machine-processable way. What you put in is what you get out.

      Machine learning, though, has made progress in recent years. There's now some decent theory underneath. Neural nets, simulated annealing, and similar ad-hoc algorithms have been subsumed into machine learning algorithms with solid statistics underneath. Strong AI remains a long way off.

      Compute power doesn't seem to be the problem. Moravec's classic chart indicates that today, enough compute power to do a brain should only cost about $1 million. There are plenty of server farms with more compute power and far more storage than the human brain. A terabyte drive is now only $199, after all.

    4. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Funny

      seriously, are you me?

      I don't think so but the possibility can't be ruled out without further investigation. Have you ever tried to expose a database application to users and subsequently lost all faith in humanity?

    5. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've never worked for a software company but as the "computer guy" I got to help move people from the "emailing spreadsheets around" workflow to basic MS Access database applications (I know just enough about databases to be horrified about the idea of using Access for critical business functions but it's better than Excel).

      As the maintenance manager of a factory I got to help the plant manager make software purchasing decisions. I've come to the conclusion that mid-sized to large corporations should just bite the bullet and hire their own programmers. If it makes sense to design your product and design your own assembly lines and design your own tooling, jigs and fixtures then it makes sense to design your own software. Any cost savings you can achieve by outsourcing to a more specialized company never seems to materalize.

    6. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Intron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One good example is speech recognition. This was a hot topic of research in the 70s. Now its a $20 DSP chip.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    7. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by daveime · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm still getting therapy.

      We had a simple field on a form to "Supply a Telephone Number". The users didn't, so we used JS to validate they had filled it in.

      Then they filled in garbage, so we enforced numerals only. The users entered "1111111" everywhere.

      Then we enforced standard number formats based on a Country selector, with correct International Dialling Codes and pattern / format matching. The users entered "0044 (1)1111111" everywhere.

      Finally we checked that the numbers didn't look like "0044 (1)1111111" i.e. too many repeated characters, after extensive testing to avoid false-positives. The users now enter "0044 (1)2121212" everywhere.

      The more you Idiot-Proof a system, the smarter the Idiots become. Not smarter at actually entering the correct data, just smarter at bypassing the protections you put in place.

    8. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by murdocj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just out of curiosity... did you ever try to find out WHY people were making entries with invalid phone numbers? Is it at all possible that instead of your users being idiots, they HAD to make an entry, but the phone number was one piece of data that simply wasn't available?

      If I've learned anything over a lot of years of programming, it's that when your users absolutely insist on doing something contrary to what your program wants them to do, it's time to sit down and listen.

    9. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We had a simple field on a form to "Supply a Telephone Number". The users didn't, so we used JS to validate they had filled it in."

      So instead of validation server-side you rely on validation client-side?

      "The more you Idiot-Proof a system, the smarter the Idiots become. Not smarter at actually entering the correct data, just smarter at bypassing the protections you put in place."

      Hummm... Why are your users entering such telephone numbers as 1111111? Are you *sure* they do it on mistake? Or might it be that they don't *want* to give their telephone number to you for their own valid reasons and you still didn't add the option "I don't have or don't want to share my telephone number with you"?

      I'm not sure which keyboard end is the idiot one in this case.

    10. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by mvdwege · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A very good example, that. That $20 DSP does nothing but a brute force search on certain sound patterns. This is not in any way similar to how humans process speech.

      I am not in the camp that says humans have a certain ineffable something that computers can never replicate, but using brute force pattern matching is not the way to find out just how human perception works and reimplementing it in a machine. Chess, BTW, is an example of the opposite: even humans do a brute force search down the decision tree. Sometimes they're trained enough to prune the tree quickly, but that is no different from the common algorithms currently in use.

      As Douglas Hofstadter puts it, the most interesting things happen in those 100ms between seeing a picture of your mother and going 'Mom!', and we're nowhere near understanding that problem space enough to implement it in AI. At least, we weren't a couple of years back. I haven't kept up with current developments though.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    11. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not in any way similar to how humans process speech

      How do humans do it?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    12. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by daveime · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In fact, this was an internal web based app for our office, which dealt with hotel reservations.

      When setting up a new hotel on the system, the users (our staff), had to find and supply the telephone number as part of the standard contact details we needed for every hotel.

      Do you know of any hotel that DOESN'T have a telephone, and if so, how would we call them to make a reservation ?

      There are sometimes instances where some fields MUST be filled in, otherwise the whole record becomes worthless.

    13. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by mgblst · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, we tried ringing them...

    14. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Velex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do humans do it?

      It's a fascinatingly complex process. Seriously, read up a bit on Wikipedia and perhaps take a few foreign languages. There are many, many points of failure. I think it's interesting to consider Orwell's argument about language in 1984. When thinking of Orwell, I'm glad that I've had the opportunity to be exposed to as many languages as I have. The more languages I learn, even if only a few words and concepts, the more modes of thinking I open myself up to. A new language to me can sometimes introduce a whole new viewpoint on the world, simply through the specific connotations and denotations. Usually denotations are easy to translate, however connotations can pose such of a problem that sometimes we prefer to just outright borrow a word from another language to express precisely our meaning. Language can evoke all 5 senses.

      Personally, I'm fascinated by language, written and spoken. There are words I learned in Germany that I still use today even though I'm no longer anywhere near fluent (use it or lose it). For example, in English we have a "shortcut," but I can't readily think of the opposite unless I use the German word "Umweg." Another example: as I was looking at art in a story today I came across some Japanese characters (because we know that hanging up symbols you have no idea about is so cool), I noticed that the kanji for woman was one of the radicals in a kanji that was translated as "tranquility." It made me wonder who, thousands of years ago, thought about the concept of tranquility and decided that the lower radical should be the symbol for "woman." I could go on like this. Suffice to say, language is perhaps the single tool we use to define our consciousness has humans.

      I'd further pontificate that unless we were to create an AI for whom language is as prevasive as in the human mind, chasing strong AI will always result in failure.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
  2. Virtualization has worked by mveloso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not sure why virtualization made it into the potential snake-oil of the future. It's demonstrating real benefits today...practically all of the companies I deal with have virtualized big chunks of their infrastructure.

    I'd vote for cloud computing, previously known as utility computing. It's a lot more work than expected to offload processing outside your organization.

    1. Re:Virtualization has worked by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup, even for "just" development, virtualization has been a great gift. With one or two beefy machines, each developer can have an exact mirror of a production environment, and not cause issues on the production side or even for other developers while testing code and such.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Virtualization has worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers, yet contractors and vendors sell it to any company with a couple of servers. You should virtualize you email ($2,000 by itself, give or take a little), web server, ($2,000 by itself, give or take a little), source control ($1,000 by itself, give or take a little, and a couple of others. So you have maybe $10,000 in 5 to 6 servers needed to run a small to mid-size company and spend tens of thousands to put them on one super-server running a complex setup of virtualized servers...oh no, the motherboard died and the entire biz is offline.

      Virtualization has it's place, but only at the larger companies.

    3. Re:Virtualization has worked by VoidEngineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having been involved in a business start-up for a year or so now, I'd have to disagree. Virtualization is indispensible for QA testing. Being able to run a virtual network on a personal PC lets me design, debug, and do proof-of-concepts without requiring the investment in actual equipment. Virtualization isn't just about hardware consolidation: it's also about application portability. Small companies have just as much need for QA testing, hardware recycling, and application portability as the large ones.

    4. Re:Virtualization has worked by digitalhermit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I administer hundreds of virtual machines and virtualization has solved a few different problems while introducing others.

      Virtualization is often sold as a means to completely utilize servers. Rather than having two or three applications on two or three servers, virtualization would allow condensing of those environments into one large server, saving power, data center floor space, plus allowing all the other benefits (virtual console, ease of backup, ease of recovery, etc..).

      In one sense it did solve the under-utilization problem. Well, actually it worked around the problem. The actual problem was often that certain applications were buggy and did not play well with other applications. If the application crashed it could bring down the entire system. I'm not picking on Windows here, but in the past the Windows systems were notorious for this. Also, PCs were notoriously unreliable (but they were cheap, so we weighed the cost/reliability). To "solve" the problem, applications were segregated to separate servers. We used RAID, HA, clusters, etc., all to get around the problem of unreliability.

      Fast forward a few years and PCs are a lot more reliable (and more powerful) but we still have this mentality that we need to segregate applications. So rather than fixing the OS we work around it by virtualizing. The problem is that virtualization can have significant overhead. On Power/AIX systems, the hypervisor and management required can eat up 10% or more of RAM and processing power. Terabytes of disk space across each virtual machine is eaten up in multiple copies of the OS, swap space, etc.. Even with dynamic CPU and memory allocation, systems have significant wasted resources. It's getting better, but still only partially addresses the problem of under-utilization.

      So what's the solution? Maybe a big, highly reliable box with multiple applications running? Sound familiar?

    5. Re:Virtualization has worked by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, the funny thing is, real snake oil actually does what it was originally supposed to do. "Snake oil" comes from traditional Chinese medicine (as a cure for joint pain), and was made from the fat of the Chinese water snake, Enhydris chinensis. It is extremely high in omega-3 fatty acids (particularly EPA), and is very similar to what is sold today as fish oil. Omega-3 fatty acids (in particular, EPA) are now known to reduce the progression and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

      Now, in the US, a variety of hucksters took fats from any old snake (if it even involved snake oil at all) and made all sorts of miraculous, unsubstantiated claims about what it would do. But concerning in its original role in Chinese medicine, snake oil likely did exactly what it was claimed to do.

      --
      Look at me, still talking while there's science to do.
    6. Re:Virtualization has worked by publiclurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about using VMWare to make sure you are not doing something decidedly stupid. I have VMWare images of every platform our software supports. I can easily verify that everything works as advertised without running all over the place snagging time on different machines. And if I encounter an issue on a particular setup, I can save a snapshot for later or restore the machine to it's pre-install state and try again.

  3. disappointing... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 5, Funny

    very disappointed that the word "synergy" did not appear in either linked article or the summary.

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
  4. My Meta-assessment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IT snake oil: Six tech cure-alls that went bunk
    By Dan Tynan
    Created 2009-11-02 03:00AM

    Today, cloud computing [4], virtualization [5], and tablet PCs [6] are vying for the hype crown. At this point it's impossible to tell which claims will bear fruit, and which will fall to the earth and rot.

    [...]

    1. Artificial intelligence
    2. Computer-aided software engineering (CASE)
    3. Thin clients
    4. ERP systems
    5. B-to-b marketplaces
    6. Enterprise social media

    1. AI: Has to have existed before it can be "bunk"
    2. CASE: Regarding Wikipedia, it seems to be alive and kicking.
    3. Thin Clients: Tell that to the guys over at TiVo that thin-client set-top-boxes are bunk.
    4. ERP Systems: For low complexity companies, I don't see why ERP software isn't possible.
    5. Web B2B: He is right about this one.
    6. Social media: Big companies like IBM have been doing "social media" within their organization for quite some time.It's just a new name for an old practice

    And as far as his first comment,

    "Today, cloud computing [4], virtualization [5], and tablet PCs [6] are vying for the hype crown. At this point it's impossible to tell which claims will bear fruit, and which will fall to the earth and rot."

    [4] Google.
    [5] Data Servers.
    [6] eBooks and medical applications.

    1. Re:My Meta-assessment by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a pattern here. Many of the hyped technologies eventually find a nice little niche. It's good to experiment with new things to find out where they might fit in or teach us new options. The problem comes when they are touted as a general solution to most IT ills. Treat them like the religious dudes who knock on your door: go ahead and talk to them for a while on the porch, but don't let them into the house.
           

  5. The Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has vaporware all over it.

  6. There is just one Myth. by cybergrue · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It arises when the salesman tell the clueless management that "This product will solve all your problems!"

    Bonus points if the salesman admits that he doesn't need to know your problems before selling it to you.

  7. Microsoft silverlight by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That went over real well once they saw user visits drop by almost half...

  8. I don't see anything wrong with this list... by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 5, Funny

    We need to bring about a paradigm shift, to think outside the box, and produce a clear synergy between cloud computing and virtualization.

    1. Re:I don't see anything wrong with this list... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

      We need to bring about a paradigm shift, to think outside the box, and produce a clear synergy between cloud computing and virtualization.

      Damn it all, man. Your don't produce synergy! You leverage synergy. Please get it right will you? The sooner you do, the sooner you can return to your core competency and synthesize some maximum value for your investors. M'kay?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  9. Thanks for linking to the print version by harmonise · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a bit OT but I wanted to say that snydeq deserves a cookie for linking to the print version. I can only imagine that the regular version is at least seven pages. I hope slashdot finds a way to reward considerate contributors such as him or her for making things easy for the rest of us.

    --
    Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
  10. The crazy hottie by GPLDAN · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I kind of miss the crazy hotties that used to pervade the network sales arena. I won't even name the worst offenders, although the worst started with the word cable. They would go to job fairs and hire the hottest birds, put them in the shortest shirts and low cut blouses, usually white with black push-up bras - and send them in to sell you switches.

    It was like watching the cast of a porn film come visit. Complete with the sleazebag regional manager, some of them even had gold chains on. Pimps up, big daddy!

    They would laugh at whatever the customer said wildly, even if it wasn't really funny. The girls would bat their eyelashes and drop pencils. It was so ridiculous it was funny, it was like a real life comedy show skit.

    I wonder how much skimming went on in those days. Bogus purchase orders, fake invoices. Slap and tickle. The WORST was if your company had no money to afford any of the infratsructure and the networking company would get their "capital finance" team involved. Some really seedy slimy stuff went down in the dot-com boom. And not just down pantlegs, either.

  11. It's always the hype problem. by loftwyr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the technologies in the article were overhyped but almost all have had real value in the marketplace.

    For example, AI works and is a very strong technology, but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them. Expert systems (a better name) or technologies that are part of them are in place in thousands of back-office systems.

    But, if you're looking for HAL, you have another 2001 years to wait. Nobody seriously is working toward that, except as a dream goal. Everybody wants a better prediction model for the stock market first.

  12. Tech cure-all missing option: emacs by turing_m · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently it cures everything but RSI.

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  13. Those aren't all by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We used to play buzzword bingo when vendors would come in for a show. Some of my personal favorites:

    IT Best Practices - Has anyone seen my big book of best practices? I seem to have misplaced it. But that never stopped vendors from pretending there was an IT bible out there that spelled out the procedures for running an IT shop. And always it was their product at the core of IT best practices.

    Agile Computing - I never did figure that one out. This is your PC, this is your PC in spin class.

    Lean IT - Cut half your staff and spend 3x what you were paying them to pay us for doing the exact same thing only with worse service.

    Web 2.0 - Javascript by any other name is still var rose.

    SOA - What a gold mine that one was. Calling it "web services" didn't command a very high premium. But tack on a great acronym like SOA and you can charge lots more!

    All those are just ways for vendors and contractors to make management feel stupid and out of touch. Many management teams don't need any help in that arena, most of them are already out of touch before the vendor walks in. Exactly why they're not running back to their internal IT people to inquire why installing Siebel is a really BAD idea. You can't fix bad business practices with technology. Fix your business practices first, then find the solution that best fits what you're already doing.

    And whoever has my IT Best Practices book, please bring it back. Thanks.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  14. Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence. Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that. Then those engineer types invented the adding machine. Were people amazed by the advent of intelligent machines? No; they simply reclassified adding and subtracting as "mechanical" actions that required no intelligence at all.

    Fast forward to the computer age, and you see the same process over and over. As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity. Back in the 1960s, when the widely-used programming languages were Fortran and Cobol, the AI researchers were developing languages like LISP that could actually process free-form, variable-length lists. This promised to be the start of truly intelligent computers. By the early 1970s, however, list processing was taught in low-level programming courses and had become a routine part of the software developers toolkits. So it was just a "software engineering" tool, a mechanical activity that didn't require any machine intelligence.

    Meanwhile, the AI researchers were developing more sophisticated "intelligent" data structures, such as tables that could associate arbitrary strings with each other. Did these lead to development of intelligent software? Well, now some of our common programming languages (perl, prolog, etc.) include such tables as basic data types, and the programmers use them routinely. But nobody considers the resulting software "intelligent"; it's merely more complex computer software, but basically still just as mechanical and unintelligent as the first adding machines.

    So my prediction is that we'll never have Artificial Intelligence. Every new advance in that direction will always be reclassified from "intelligent" to "merely mechanical". When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch, it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities, requiring no actual intelligence.

    Whether there will still be things that humans are intelligent enough to do, I can't predict.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  15. AI already succeeded by ghostlibrary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AI already has successes. But, as an AI researcher friend of mine points out, once they succeed it's no longer 'AI'. Things like packet routing, used to be AI. Path-finding, as in games, or route-finding, as with GPS: solved. So yes, AI will never arrive, because AI is always 'other than the AI we already have.'

    --
    A.
  16. Re:What? CASE was a success! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not CASE. CASE was about translating requirements into code without human involvement. Your examples are all about abstraction and APIs.