Systems, Man & Cybernetics - April 2016 - 13

entities and journal editors
he advocates an almost formal
get tired of the same old
approach to the adoption of useful
CI has in fact
terms. Is my attitude about
buzzwords. Ask yourself right
become a fairly
this a little too cynical?
now: is computational intelligence
Probably. But I think it's
catchy? Maybe a little less so than
high-level term that
pretty accurate. [20]
20 years ago, right?
encompasses lots of
Have things changed in 2016? I
Apparently buzzwords come
don't think so. It would be trivial
in two flavors: good buzzwords
technical activities,
for me to dismiss CI as just a
and bad buzzwords. A quote from
much like the terms
good buzzword, but cer tainly
t he web sit e A bout .com /Gr a that's a large part of its appeal
mmar and Composition supports
mathematics
and a logical explanation for its
this explicitly:
or physics.
astonishing growth. But when
The Fortune 500 communiProf. X tells you that he or she
cations professionals surveyed for this stylebook are
h a s worke d i n t he a r e a of
split down the middle when
computational intelligence for
it comes to the use of buzzwords in business writover 35 years, it makes you wonder how people outside
ing. Approximately half disdain buzzwords of any
of our technical community will inter pret such a
kind while the other half think some buzzwords
statement. After all, if I tell you that Prof. Y is an English
are effective (for instance, bottom line, globalize,
professor, you may wonder in what specialty-poetry,
incentivize, leverage, paradigm shift, proactive,
Yeats, science fiction, novellas, American literature,
robust, synergy and value-added). As a general
grammatical construction-but you will certainly have a
rule, use buzzwords judiciously, always keeping
pretty good general idea about what Prof. Y must do.
the readers in mind. "If a buzzword is lively and
Would you have the same understanding about Prof. X? I
capable of injecting some spunk into a dull senam guessing no.
tence (and it does not alienate the readers), then
use it. (Cunningham and Greene, 2002)" [33]
Where Are We Today?
Ask yourself another question: is computational
I think the debate about CI versus AI, including questions
intelligence lively? Does it spark your interest? Does it
such as "Is it CI or AI?" or "Does one of these areas
spark the interest of your students and colleagues? And
include the other, do they overlap?" and so on are really
super importantly perhaps-does it catch the eye and
pretty moot today. I agree with Craenen and Eiben, who
tickle the fancy of a dean or program director who might
remark in [22] that the boundary between CI and AI has
fund your research? I believe that good buzzwords are
diminishing borders. They point out the symbiosis of
an integral part of science and engineering! Below is the
these two areas by noting that topics such as EC, FS, and
explanation I offered for the phenomenal growth of the
NN a re frequently given a broad treatment in A I
term CI in 1998.
textbooks, while core publications such as the International Journal of Computational Intelligence and
Applications consider symbolic AI as one of the areas
Bezdek Weighs in on CI-Again!??
integrated into CI.
Why [is CI so popular]? Well, I'm not really sure.
CI has in fact become a fairly high-level term that
But I suspect that there are two main reasons.
encompasses lots of technical activities, much like the
First, the technical community is somewhat disterms mathematics or physics, both of which can be
enchanted with (perceptions, anyway, of) the
divided into finer sets of more specialized areas. For
basis of AI research. I will argue here that AI
example, just as in mathematics, there are differential
tackles really hard problems, and that goals may
equations, ordinary differential equations, and linear
have been set unrealistically high in the early
ordinary differential equations, we can break down
days of AI. And second, scientists and engineers
ea ch bra nch of CI, e.g., EC genet ic a lgor it h m s,
have a certain hunger-maybe even a justifiable
mutation, and so on. And in the vernacular of the day,
need-for new terms that will spark interest and
when we say we work in CI, it's a branding (of us) by
help sell papers, grant proposals, research and
this term. I find no harm in this, nor should I take
development programs and even products. These
offense if others disagree. After all, most of us don't
are the defining characteristics of the so-called
care whether the Houston Astros baseball team play
buzzword, of which CI is currently a prime examtheir games in Astro Field, Enron Field, or Minute Maid
ple. After all, computational neural networks in
Park, do we? It's still baseball; only the name of the
their best-known form have been around since
playing field has changed over the years. For that
1943 [26], evolutionary computation since 1954
matter, the Houston Astros began as the Colt 45s, but
[27], and fuzzy sets since 1965 [28]. Funding
Ap ri l 2016

IEEE SyStEmS, man, & CybErnEtICS magazInE

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Systems, Man & Cybernetics - April 2016