Subject: AIList Digest V4 #62

From: vtcs1::bitnet% (AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 86 15:12:09 est

Received: From WISCVM(SMTPUSR1) by VTCS1 with RSCS id 3866
          for FOX@VTCS1; Thu, 17-APR-1986 15:14 EST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by wiscvm.wisc.edu on 04/17/86 at 09:40:53 CST
Mail-From: LAWS created at 20-Mar-86 15:08:32
Date: Thu 20 Mar 1986 15:06-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #62
To: AIList@SRI-AI
ReSent-date: Wed 16 Apr 86 21:54:48-PST
ReSent-From: Ken Laws <[email-masked]>
ReSent-To: [email-masked]

AIList Digest            Friday, 21 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 62
     
Today's Topics:
  Publications - Prolog Books & Prolog Tutorial Software,
  Comment - Uses of FORTRAN,
  Theory : Turing Test & Computer Intelligence
     
----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:47:46 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: PROLOG Books
     
``Start Problem Solving with PROLOG" by Tom Conlon.
Published in 1985 by Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, U.K.
ISBN 0-201-18270-X.
This book uses micro-PROLOG (available for Sinclair
Spectrum/(Timex 2000?) and IBM PC, for example). It
includes many examples and complete programs, one,
for example, for playing Tic-Tac-Toe.
     
Gordon Joly
ARPA: [email-masked]
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
     
------------------------------
     
Date: 17 Mar 86 02:50:44 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!utai!uthub!utecfa!logicwa
      @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Logicware)
Subject: new Prolog textbook/tutorial software
     
Readers may be interested in a new Prolog textbook and tutorial
software that myself and two colleagues have put together.
The package is called:
    The MPROLOG Primer
     
The book --- A Primer for Logic Programming --- is a 500 page
textbook (18 chapters) with many example programs that are
fully explained.
     
The tutorial software --- MTUTOR --- contains 9 tutorials on
execution subjects (backtracking, recursion and so forth) and
instruction in use of the built-in predicates.  In addition,
there is a "freeform" area where you can enter and test you
own programs.
     
The package is intended both as a general introduction to logic
programming and to Prolog.  It should be of interest to:
    -- anyone wanting an inexpensive introduction to Prolog
    -- anyone requiring an introductory textbook to teach Prolog
    -- anyone who is familiar with other Prologs but who want to
       make an assessment of MProlog before purchasing the
       language.
     
The tutorial software which accompanies the book will run on the
following machines:
      -- IBM PC/XT/AT (and compatibles) (512K needed)
      -- Tektronix 4404
      -- VAX/VMS
      -- VAX/UNIX
      -- ISI
and portings are currently underway for:
      -- SUN
      -- APOLLO
     
Price of the package is 49.95 (US Funds)
     
For more information send electronic mail or contact our customer
service representative:
       Roger Walker,
       Logicware, 1000 Finch Ave. W.
       Suite 600,
       Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 2V5
       416-665-0022
     
Richard J. Young
     
------------------------------
     
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:50:20 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Future AI Language (Vol 4 # 57).
     
Some AI packages  soon could have interfaces to numerical code,
particularly those in process control; expert systems will make
decisions about a fault, then a simulation, written in FORTRAN,
will be run to see if the fix will work.
     
Gordon Joly
ARPA: [email-masked]
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
     
------------------------------
     
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 11:59:30 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: More on Turing and the Turing test.
     
>From AIList Vol 4 # 56 :- ``: he [Turing] designed it to be nothing more
than a philosophical conversation-stopper.''
     
>From  "Turing's Man : Western Culture in the Computer Age",  by J. David
Bolter :-  `` It would be a machine that knew men and women better  than
they knew themselves.  Turing was optimistic about  the prospect of this
supercomputer : " I believe that in  about fifty years' time  it will be
plausible to  programme computers  ...  to make them play  the imitation
game so well that an  average interregator will not have more  than a 70
per cent  chance of making the right  identification after  five minutes
of questioning" (Feigenbaum and Feldman, Computers and Thought, 19).''
     
Since this is not directly quoting from Turing's own work,  it cannot be
regarded  as being the giving  the true version of his own hopes for the
test.  Bolter continues in the  next paragraph with :- ``  The appeal of
Turing's test is easy to understand.  It offers an operational defintion
of intelligence  quite in the  spirit of  behavioral psychology  in  the
postwar era. A programmer can measure success by statistics - the number
of human subjects fooled by the machine.''
     
Gordon Joly
ARPA: [email-masked]
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
     
------------------------------
     
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:49:26 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: More on IQ tests for Computers.
     
           ``How a pair of dull-witted programs
           can look like geniuses on I.Q. tests.''
This article appeared  in the March issue  of Scientific American
in the Computer Recreations column of A.K.Dewdney which discusses
the concept of an IQ test for computers, (cf Vol 3 # 164 et seq).
He  mentions the HI Q  program  of Marcel Feenstra,  which solves
problems of  the "sequence completion"  and "numerical analogies"
types. This scores 160 on the corresponding parts of the IQ tests
described by Hans J. Eysenck.  Dewdney describes his own putative
program SE Q.
Dewdney paraphrases ``The Mismeasure of Man'' by Stephen J. Gould
and says :- ``What it comes to is this: The traditional I.Q. test
rests on the unstated assumption that intelligence, like strength,
is a single quality of human physiology that can be measured by a
graded series of tasks.''
So far, so good.
He  then  quotes  Gould  directly :- `` Our brains are enormously
complex computers''.
Hmmm... getting a bit fishy.
Finally, he says :- `` Does  the score on  the  test measure  the
intelligence of the computer?  If it does not,  just how does one
go about measuring the intelligence of a computer, whether it is
made of silicon and  plastic  or carbon and  tissue?  The answer:
Probably not by running some I.Q. program through a battery of
tests.''
Two gripes with this. Who are the carbon/tissue *computers* he is
talking about?  Secondly, computers will  never be "intelligent";
however software might *appear* intelligent in certain respects.
Nuff said.
     
Gordon Joly
ARPA: [email-masked]
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
     
P.S. Funny, I thought the Answer was 42.
     
`` The monkey spoke!'' - Zaphod Beeblebrox on Arthur Dent.
     
------------------------------
     
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 15:51:04 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Future Ph.D.
     
The worlds first Ph.D. to an AI system awarded today for PiQ's work
in the field of ...
     
The World Times, 2185.
     
The Joka.
     
------------------------------
     
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 08:34:35 -0500
From: johnson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - A Third Quantisation?

|Now,  supposing a system  has been built which  "passes" the test. Why
|not take  the process  one stage  further?  Why not  try to design  an
|intelligent system which can decide whether *it* is talking to machine
|or not?
|
|Gordon Joly
|ARPA: [email-masked]
|UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

Let me get this straight, a human cannot distinguish machine M1 from another
human, but machine M2 *can* distinguish M1 from a human. Will machines of type
M2 then debate about whether it is possible for a human to be modified to pass
the M2turing test?  Alternatively, perhaps M2s should try to create M3 s.t.
an M3 cannot be distinguished from a human by an M2, or how about an M4, which
is a machine that an M2 cannot distinguish from an M1?  But wait, how can an
M2 be sure that an M4 is not simply a copy of an M1?  Is some descendent of the
turing test a test that which tries to infer the nature of the designer from
the design?
     
[email-masked]
     
------------------------------
     
End of AIList Digest
********************