Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 1 Issue 071
AIList Digest Thursday, 6 Oct 1983 Volume 1 : Issue 71
Today's Topics:
Humor - The Lightbulb Issue in AI,
Reports - Edinburgh AI Memos,
Rational Psychology,
Halting Problem,
Artificial Organisms,
Technology Transfer,
Seminar - NL Database Updates
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 Oct 83 0053 EDT (Thursday)
From: Jeff.Shrager@CMU-CS-A
Subject: The lightbulb issue in AI.
How many AI people does it take to change a lightbulb?
At least 55:
The problem space group (5):
One to define the goal state.
One to define the operators.
One to describe the universal problem solver.
One to hack the production system.
One to indicate about how it is a model of human lightbulb
changing behavior.
The logical formalism group (16):
One to figure out how to describe lightbulb changing in
first order logic.
One to figure out how to describe lightbulb changing in
second order logic.
One to show the adequecy of FOL.
One to show the inadequecy of FOL.
One to show show that lightbulb logic is non-monotonic.
One to show that it isn't non-monotonic.
One to show how non-monotonic logic is incorporated in FOL.
One to determine the bindings for the variables.
One to show the completeness of the solution.
One to show the consistency of the solution.
One to show that the two just above are incoherent.
One to hack a theorm prover for lightbulb resolution.
One to suggest a parallel theory of lightbulb logic theorm
proving.
One to show that the parallel theory isn't complete.
...ad infinitum (or absurdum as you will)...
One to indicate how it is a description of human lightbulb
changing behavior.
One to call the electrician.
The robotics group (10):
One to build a vision system to recognize the dead bulb.
One to build a vision system to locate a new bulb.
One to figure out how to grasp the lightbulb without breaking it.
One to figure out how to make a universal joint that will permit
the hand to rotate 360+ degrees.
One to figure out how to make the universal joint go the other way.
One to figure out the arm solutions that will get the arm to the
socket.
One to organize the construction teams.
One to hack the planning system.
One to get Westinghouse to sponsor the research.
One to indicate about how the robot mimics human motor behavior
in lightbulb changing.
The knowledge engineering group (6):
One to study electricians' changing lightbulbs.
One to arrange for the purchase of the lisp machines.
One to assure the customer that this is a hard problem and
that great accomplishments in theory will come from his support
of this effort. (The same one can arrange for the fleecing.)
One to study related research.
One to indicate about how it is a description of human lightbulb
changing behavior.
One to call the lisp hackers.
The Lisp hackers (13):
One to bring up the chaos net.
One to adjust the microcode to properly reflect the group's
political beliefs.
One to fix the compiler.
One to make incompatible changes to the primitives.
One to provide the Coke.
One to rehack the Lisp editor/debugger.
One to rehack the window package.
Another to fix the compiler.
One to convert code to the non-upward compatible Lisp dialect.
Another to rehack the window package properly.
One to flame on BUG-LISPM.
Another to fix the microcode.
One to write the fifteen lines of code required to change the
lightbulb.
The Psychological group (5):
One to build an apparatus which will time lightbulb
changing performance.
One to gather and run subjects.
One to mathematically model the behavior.
One to call the expert systems group.
One to adjust the resulting system so that it drops the
right number of bulbs.
[My apologies to groups I may have neglected. Pages to code before
I sleep.]
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 1-Oct-83 15:13:42-BST
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <bundy@edxa>
Reply-to: bundy@rutgers.arpa
Subject: Edinburgh AI Memos
If you want to receive a regular abstracts list and order form
for Edinburgh AI technical reports then write (steam mail I'm afraid)
to Margaret Pithie, Department of Artificial Intelligence, Forrest
Hill, Edinburgh, Scotland. Give your name and address and ask to be put
on the mailing list for abstracts.
Alan Bundy
------------------------------
Date: 29 Sep 83 22:49:18-PDT (Thu)
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3046
The book mentioned, Metaphors We Live By, was written by George Lakoff
and Mark Johnson. It contains some excellent ideas and is written in a
style that makes for fast, enjoyable reading.
--Rick Dinitz
uicsl!dinitz
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 83 10:32:35-PDT (Wed)
From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: RE: Rational Psychology [and Reply]
I must say its been exciting listening to the analysis of what "Rational
Psychology" might mean or should not mean. Should I go read the actual
article that started it all? Perish the thought. Is psychology rational?
Someone said that all sciences are rational, a moot point, but not that
relevant unless one wishes to consider Psychology a science. I do not.
This does not mean that psychologists are in any way inferior to chemists
or to REAL scientists like those who study physics. But I do think there
is a difference IN KIND between these fields and psychology. Very few of
us have any close intimate relationships with carbon compounds or inter-
stellar gas clouds. (At least not since the waning of the LSD era.) But
with psychology, anyone NOT in this catagory has no business in the field.
(I presume we are talking Human psychology.)
The way this difference might exert itself is quite hard to predict, tho
in my brief foray into psychology it was not so hard to spot. The great
danger is a highly amplified form of anthropomorphism which leads one to
form technical opinions quite possibly unrelated to technical or theoretical
analysis. In physics, there is a superficially similar process in which
the scientist develops a theory which seems to be a "pet theory" and then
sets about trying to show it true or false. The difference is that the
physicist developed his pet theory from technical origins rather than from
personal experience. There is no other origin for his ideas unless you
speculate that people have a inborn understanding of psi-mesons or spin
orbitals. Such theories MUST have developed from these ideas. In
psychology, the theory may well have been developed from a big scary dog
when the psychologist was two. THAT is a difference in kind, and I think
that is why I will always be suspicious of psychologists.
----GaryFostel----
[I think that is precisely the point of the call for rational psychology.
It is an attempt to provide a solid theoretical underpinning based on
the nature of mind, intelligence, emotions, etc., without regard to
carbon-based implementations or the necessity of explaining human psychoses.
As such, rational psychology is clearly an appropriate subject for
AIList and net.ai. Traditional psychology, and subjective attacks or
defenses of it, are less appropriate for this forum. -- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: 2 Oct 83 1:42:26-PDT (Sun)
From: ihnp4!ihuxv!portegys @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: the Halting problem
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.565
I think that the answer to the halting problem in intelligent
entities is that there must exist a mechanism for telling it
whether its efforts are getting it anywhere, i.e. something that
senses its internal state and says if things are getting better,
worse, or whatever. Normally for humans, if a "loop" were to
begin, it should soon be broken by concerns like "I'm hungry
now, let's eat". No amount of cogitation makes that feeling
go away.
I would rather call this mechanism need than emotion, since I
think that some emotions are learned.
So then, needs supply two uses to intelligence: (1) they supply
a direction for the learning which is a necessary part of
intelligence, and (2) they keep the intelligence from getting
bogged down in fruitless cogitation.
Tom Portegys
Bell Labs, IH
ihuxv!portegys
------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 83 20:22:47 EDT (Mon)
From: Speaker-To-Animals <speaker%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Re: Artificial Organisms
Why would we want to create machines equivelent to people when
organisms already have a means to reproduce themselves?
Because then we might be able to make them SMARTER than humans
of course! We might also learn something about ourselves along
the way too.
- Speaker
------------------------------
Date: 30 Sep 83 1:16:31-PDT (Fri)
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: November F&SF
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.774
Some of you may be interested in reading Isaac Asimov's article in the
latest (November, I think) Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. The
article is entitled "More Thinking about Thinking", and is the Good
Doctor's views on artificial intelligence. He makes a very good case
for the idea that non-human thinking (i.e. in computers and
dolphins) is likely to be very different, and perhaps superior to, human
thinking. He uses an effective analogy to locomotion: artificial
locomotion, namely the wheel, is completely unlike anything found in
nature.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 83 23:17:18 EDT
From: Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc@brl-bmd>
Subject: Re: Alas, I must flame...
I don't believe, as you assert, that the motive for clearing
papers produced under DOD sponsorship is 'econnomic' but, alas,
military. You then may justly argue the merits of non-export
of things militarily important vs the benefuits which acaccrue
to all of us by a free and open exchange.
I'm not taking sides--yet., but am trying to see the issue
clearly defined.
Brint
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 83 8:16:20 EDT
From: Earl Weaver (VLD/VMB) <earl@brl-vat>
Subject: Flame on DoD
No matter what David Rogers @ sumex-aim thinks, the DoD "review" of all papers
before publishing is not to keep information private, but to make sure no
classified stuff gets out where it shouldn't be and to identify any areas
of personal opinion or thinking that could be construed to be official DoD
policy or position. I think it will have very little effect on actually
restricting information.
As with most research organizations, the DoD researchers are not immune to the
powers of the bean counters and must publish.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 3 Oct 83 16:44:24-PDT
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Ph.D. oral
[Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]
Computer Science Department
Ph.D. Oral, Jim Davidson
October 18, 1983 at 2:30 p.m.
Rm. 303, Building 200
Interpreting Natural Language Database Updates
Although the problems of querying databases in natural language are well
understood, the performance of database updates via natural language introduces
additional difficulties. This talk discusses the problems encountered in
interpreting natural language updates, and describes an implemented system that
performs simple updates.
The difficulties associated with natural language updates result from the fact
that the user will naturally phrase requests with respect to his conception of
the domain, which may be a considerable simplification of the actual underlying
database structure. Updates that are meaningful and unambiguous from the
user's standpoint may not translate into reasonable changes to the underlying
database.
The PIQUE system (Program for Interpretation of Queries and Updates in English)
operates by maintaining a simple model of the user, and interpreting update
requests with respect to that model. For a given request, a limited set of
"candidate updates"--alternative ways of fulfilling the request--are
considered, and ranked according to a set of domain-independent heuristics that
reflect general properties of "reasonable" updates. The leading candidate may
be performed, or the highest ranking alternatives presented to the user for
selection. The resultant action may also include a warning to the user about
unanticipated side effects, or an explanation for the failure to fulfill a
request.
This talk describes the PIQUE system in detail, presents examples of its
operation, and discusses the effectiveness of the system with respect to
coverage, accuracy, efficiency, and portability. The range of behaviors
required for natural language update systems in general is discussed, and
implications of updates on the design of data models are briefly considered.
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
