Date: Wed 20 Apr 1988 22:48-PDT From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws Reply-To: AIList@KL.SRI.COM Us-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (415) 859-6467 Subject: AIList V6 #76 - Hot Topics, Goals of AI, Free Will To: AIList@KL.SRI.COM Status: RO AIList Digest Thursday, 21 Apr 1988 Volume 6 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Opinion - Hot Research Topics & Goals of AI & Free Will ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 11:11:35 HAE From: Spencer Star Subject: Re: AIList V6 #69 - Queries Exiting work in AI. There's lots of it. The three criteria are: 1. Highly thought of by at least 50% in the field. 2. Positive contribution 3. Real AI Machine learning is a real AI field; there is general agreement that learning is central to real AI. Machine learning is perhaps the major subfield devoted to AI learning, although most other subfields also touch upon learning. Some, like neural networks, are centered on learning. Surprisingly, I don't see that much controversy in machine learning. There is solid progress being made on several fronts. Recent controversies have been on esoteric issues like whether there is a tradeoff between generalization and efficiency, whether facts in the deductive closure of a system can be said to be learned, etc. No big battles with rival camps raging at each other. There is, however, solid research. Hal Valiant and David Haussler have made good theoretical progress at defining a certain type of learning. Explanation-based learning is a very exiting hot!!! area for research right now. At the Stanford Symposium many people made progress reports on hybrid systems that use the deductive inference engine based on PROLOG-EBG or EGGS or some variant, and then include inductive techniques to do learning on both deductive and inductive levels. Another area involves classification trees of the sort generated by Quinlan's ID3 program. There is wide agreement that this is a positive contribution. And it is not a controversial technique. SOAR is an architecture being worked on by people at severl universities. Although the claims of the group have been controversial, the actual work they are doing is well thought of. And copies of the program are available to researchers for their own experimentation. Take your pick. There is lots to choose from. Spencer Star ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 14:08:45 GMT From: hubcap!ncrcae!gollum!rolandi@gatech.edu (rolandi) Subject: consensus in ai and psychology In response to Ehud Reiter's: >I was recently asked (by a psychology graduate student) if there was >any work being done in AI which was widely thought to be exciting and >pointing the way to further progress. Specifically, I was asked for work >which: > 1) Was highly thought of by at least 50% of the researchers in >the field. > 2) Was a positive contribution, not an analysis showing problems >in previous work. > 3) Was in AI as narrowly defined (i.e. not in robotics or vision) >I must admit that I was (somewhat embarassingly) unable to think of >any such work. All the things I could think of which have people excited >(ranging from non-monotonic logic to connectionism) seemed controversial >enough so that they could not be said to have the support of half of all >active AI researchers. Psychology itself would look pretty bad if asked the same sort of questions. No discipline is more factionalized than psychology. Its representatives range from scientific materialists to existential philosophers I don't think you could get 50% of psychologists to even agree as to the proper subject matter of their discipline. Walter Rolandi rolandi@gollum.UUCP NCR Advanced Systems Development, Columbia, SC University of South Carolina Departments of Psychology and Linguistics ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 14:19:46 GMT From: mit-amt!mob%mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Mario O Bourgoin) Reply-to: mit-amt!mob%media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Mario O Bourgoin) Subject: Re: Prof. McCarthy's retort A better, cute and compact argument for Lisp: Scheme. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Apr 18 10:48:41 EDT 1988 From: sas@BBN.COM Subject: Why AI? ---- Slightly humorous ---- I wonder if we can get the same arguments going about "business programming". For example, ----- - How can you tell if a program is a business program? They deal with dollars (or other monetary units). Hmm, so an employee assignment program which only deals with people's names, times and office numbers is not a business program. How about, it deals with time or money? So if we write a program to see who is elible for class IIB promotions, but we don't actually check existing salaries, then it isn't a business program, but if it checks salaries then it is. So how about, people, time or money? I see, so a program that can read Victorian novels and answer questions about them is a business program. - Why do we program in COBOL? After all, COBOL is a pretty specialized language that can barely run on a SUN 3/50. You can obviously rewrite anything written in COBOL in C. But C doesn't support pictures. Good grief, you can write a library routine. Besides, who makes enough money to really need commas. And it isn't file I/O oriented. You can use structures and call UNIX subroutines. And it doesn't support decimal arithmetic. Call a subroutine and call FASB and explain why the C way of computing interest payments is better than their way. And where's the report generator? I can get more done in 10 lines of RPG than 10 pages of hairy C code .... Serves me right for arguing with a COBOL programmer.. Now that I've sundered every DP department to its philosphical roots, they'll all start hacking 68020 machine code and deactivate my cash machine card. ---- Sound familiar? ---- I'll make the argument that business people use languages like COBOL (or 1-2-3) and AI people use languages like LISP (or LOOPS) because they make it easier to write down the concepts they are dealing so a computer (or other programmer) can understand them. You don't write a loop to slide the dollar sign next to amount payable and you don't shift bits around to see if an item is a fixnum or a rational. Business programmers write programs that deal with the structures of business. This means they deal with people, resources, time and money or whatever else it takes to keep the business running. AI programmers write programs that deal with the structures of knowledge and reasoning. This means they deal with ontologies, relationships, searching, recognition and transformation or whatever else it takes to make a computer perform the tasks that are associated with human intelligence. I won't try and define "intelligence" here and I won't try and define "business" here. Seth ---- Letter Foot ---- ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 16:52:09 GMT From: govett@avsd.uucp (David Govett) Subject: Re: AIList V6 #67 - Future of AI > > - Watch those Pony Express arguments. Remember, the Pony Express was > a temporary hack. It ran for a bit under two years before it was > replaced by the transcontinental railroad. > Not true. The PE was obviated by the transcontinental telegraph in 1861, I believe. The transcontinental RR wasn't completed until May 1869. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 1745 PDT From: John McCarthy Subject: re: AIList V6 #72 - Queries [In reply to message sent Sun 17 Apr 1988 23:35-PDT.] McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969): ``Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), Machine Intelligence 4, American Elsevier, New York, NY discusses the problem of free will for machines. I never got any reaction to that discussion, pro or con, in the 19 years since it was published and would be grateful for some. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 19:32:00 GMT From: channic@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Free Will I can't justify the proposition that scientific endeavors grouped under the name "AI" SHOULD NOT IGNORE issues of free wil, mind-brain, other minds, etc. If these issues are ignored, however, I would strongly oppose the use of "intelligence" as being descriptive of the work. Is it fair to claim work in that direction when fundamental issues regarding such a goal are unresolved (if not unresolvable)? If this is the name of the field, shouldn't the field at least be able to define what it is working towards? I personally cannot talk about intelligence without concepts such as mind, thoughts, free will, consciousness, etc. If we, as AI researchers make no progress whatsoever in clarifying these issues, then we should at least be honest with ourselves and society, and find a new title for our efforts. Actually the slight modification, "Not Really Intelligence" would be more than suitable. Tom Channic Dept. of CS Univ. of Illinois channic@uiucdcs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4|decvax}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!channic ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 88 20:09:47 EST From: carole hafner Subject: Future of AI In article <1134@its63b.ed.ac.uk> gvw@its63b.ed.ac.uk (G Wilson) writes: >I think AI can be summed up by Terry Winograd's defection. His >SHRDLU program is still quoted in *every* AI textbook (at least all >the ones I've seen), but he is no longer a believer in the AI >research programme (see "Understanding Computers and Cognition", >by Winograd and Flores). > I'm glad to see "Understanding Computers and Cognition" mentioned in this discussion. It includes a lengthy section listing all the "justifications" for AI, and then refutes them one by one. Conspicuously absent from this list is "curiosity". I think AI is the expression of the species' curiosity about this new artifact (the computer) that it has invented. We want to find out what else can it do, how smart can we make it, can we find a way to make it improve itself? Of course, we have to pretend that we have socially relevant goals like helping people or national defense in order to get the money to pursue these inquiries. And sometimes the two (curiosity and socially relevant goals) are compatible, since we need some tasks to focus our attention and test our theories. Is this heresy? Or merely stating the obvious? --Carole Hafner ------------------------------ End of AIList Digest ********************