

Expert Systems: The AI Winter They Built
Expert systems promised to bottle human expertise. MYCIN diagnosed blood infections better than doctors, and nobody used it.
In the 1970s, AI researchers shifted away from general problem-solving toward domain-specific expertise. The insight: instead of building general intelligence, encode the knowledge of a specific expert, a cardiologist, a geologist, a tax lawyer, into a rule-based system. The result was the expert system: a program that reasoned through chains of IF-THEN rules drawn from interviews with human experts.
MYCIN, developed at Stanford between 1972 and 1980, was the most successful early example. It diagnosed bacterial blood infections and recommended antibiotic treatments, matching or exceeding the accuracy of specialists in controlled studies, around 65% accuracy versus 42–62% for human physicians. It explained its reasoning step-by-step. Clinically, it worked. And yet MYCIN was never actually used in clinical practice. The barriers were legal liability, resistance from doctors, and the difficulty of keeping its 600 rules current as medical knowledge evolved.
Through the late 1970s and 1980s, expert systems became a commercial boom. Companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into AI shells, software frameworks for building expert systems. Banks, oil companies, and manufacturers deployed rule-based systems for loan decisions, geological surveys, and equipment diagnosis. The commercial AI industry briefly outpaced academic research. Lisp machines, specialised hardware for running AI code, became a multi-hundred-million-dollar market.
Then, in the late 1980s, the market collapsed. The maintenance cost of rule bases was staggering, as domains changed, rules needed constant updates, and the expertise to maintain them was expensive. Lisp machine manufacturers were wiped out by cheaper general-purpose workstations. DARPA cut funding. The second AI winter arrived. Expert systems had been enormously useful in narrow domains, but they could not generalise, could not learn, and could not adapt without human intervention. Neural networks, quietly developing in universities, were waiting.
What it actually meant
Expert systems collapsed not because rules are wrong but because rules without learning cannot adapt. The maintenance cost grew with domain complexity, and maintenance was the expensive part nobody had priced in advance. Systems that require constant human intervention to stay current are systems that will eventually be abandoned.
What enterprises get wrong today
Enterprises are rebuilding expert systems with LLMs, taking the same rule-based logic and prompting a model to execute it. The prompt is the new rule base. Hallucination is the new maintenance problem. The underlying fragility remains. It is just harder to see and harder to audit.
Related capabilities
More from Moments
Ask about this story
MYCIN diagnosed blood infections better than doctors in controlled studies, and was never used clinically. Expert systems boomed, made millions, and then collapsed in the second AI winter. What would you like to explore about this boom-bust cycle?