ABSTRACT
The open texture of the vehicle-in-the-park ordinance could to some degree be mitigated by further definition. But some concepts are such that their indeterminacy cannot be reined in except in application to specific cases, and then often only in conjunction with other vague concepts. The foregoing implementation of the vehicle-in-the-park problem cannot cope successfully with Fuller’s hypothetical about the statue, for the system has no way to distinguish between a statue and an ordinary vehicle. The simple foregoing vehicle-in-the-park implementation may overemphasize somewhat the ad hoc nature of rule-and-frame systems. Rule-and-frame systems of greater sophistication circumvent some of the problems of simple systems. The vehicle-in-the-park system required a considerable amount of definition to achieve even the simplest results. The vehicle-in-the-park system shows some of the limitations of connectionist artificial intelligence (AI). Classical AI and connectionist AI different views of what sort of machine the mind may be like.
