Neat Versus Scruffy: How Early AI Researchers Classified Epistemic Cultures of Knowledge Representation

Accounts of the history of symbolic artificial intelligence (AI) often categorize researchers and their programs through binary oppositions: logicist versus procedural, or alternatively, neat versus scruffy. These terms were often referenced throughout the 1970s and 1980s by AI researchers at institutions in the United States and Europe to document epistemic and esthetic differences in approaches to knowledge representation. In this article, I historicize and situate these binary oppositions, showing how researchers leveraged them in discourse to demarcate the beliefs and commitments underpinning certain AI approaches. I argue that the labels helped knowledge representation scholars identify, trouble, and grapple with the epistemological and stylistic pluralism of the field, resituate epistemic legitimacy and authority with certain design approaches, and in turn constitute the boundaries of symbolic AI.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing
Published
2024-12-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/mahc.2024.3498692
Primary Topic
Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Neat Versus Scruffy: How Early AI Researchers Classified Epistemic Cultures of Knowledge Representation

Lindsay Poirier
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing
Computational and Text Analysis Methods
article

Neat Versus Scruffy: How Early AI Researchers Classified Epistemic Cultures of Knowledge Representation

Lindsay Poirier
article en

Abstract

Accounts of the history of symbolic artificial intelligence (AI) often categorize researchers and their programs through binary oppositions: logicist versus procedural, or alternatively, neat versus scruffy. These terms were often referenced throughout the 1970s and 1980s by AI researchers at institutions in the United States and Europe to document epistemic and esthetic differences in approaches to knowledge representation. In this article, I historicize and situate these binary oppositions, showing how researchers leveraged them in discourse to demarcate the beliefs and commitments underpinning certain AI approaches. I argue that the labels helped knowledge representation scholars identify, trouble, and grapple with the epistemological and stylistic pluralism of the field, resituate epistemic legitimacy and authority with certain design approaches, and in turn constitute the boundaries of symbolic AI.

IEEE Annals of the History of ComputingVol. 47(2)
Smith College (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Computational and Text Analysis Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Neat Versus Scruffy: How Early AI Researchers Classified Epistemic Cultures of Knowledge Representation — Lindsay Poirier · IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS