Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 1 Issue 076
AIList Digest Thursday, 13 Oct 1983 Volume 1 : Issue 76
Today's Topics:
Intelligent Front Ends - Request,
Finance - IntelliGenetics,
Fuzzy Logic - Zadeh's Paradox,
Publication - Government Reviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 13-Oct-83 12:04:24-BST
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <bundy@edxa>
Reply-to: bundy@rutgers.arpa
Subject: Request for Information on Intelligent Front Ends
The UK government has set up a the Alvey Programme as the UK
answer to the Japanese 5th Generation Programme. One part of that
Programme has been to identify and promote research in a number of
'themes'. I am the manager of one such theme - on 'Intelligent Front
Ends' (IFE). An IFE is defined as follows:
"A front end to an existing software package, for example a finite
element package, a mathematical modelling system, which provides a
user-friendly interface (a "human window") to packages which without
it, are too complex and/or technically incomprehensible to be
accessible to many potential users. An intelligent front end builds a
model of the user's problem through user-oriented dialogue mechanisms
based on menus or quasi-natural language, which is then used to
generate suitably coded instructions for the package."
One of the theme activities is to gather information about
IFEs, for instance: useful references and short descriptions of
available tools. If you can supply such information then please send it
to BUNDY@RUTGERS. Thanks in advance.
Alan Bundy
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 83 0313 PDT
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI>
Subject: IntelliGenetics
[Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]
From Tuesday's SF Chronicle (page 56):
"IntelliGenetics Inc., Palo Alto, has filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission to sell 1.6 million common shares in late November.
The issue, co-managed by Ladenburg, Thalmann & Co. Inc. of New York
and Freehling & Co. of Chicago, will be priced between $6 and $7 a share.
IntelliGenetics provides artificial intelligence based software for use
in genetic engineering and other fields."
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 13-Oct-83 16:00:01-BST
From: RICHARD HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.@edxa>
Reply-to: okeefe.r.a. <okeefe.r.a.%edxa@ucl-cs>
Subject: Zadeh's apartment paradox
The resolution of the paradox lies in realising that
"cheap apartments are expensive"
is not contradictory. "cheap" refers to the cost of
maintaining (rent, bus fares, repairs) the apartment
and "expensive" refers to the cost of procuring it.
The fully stated theorem is
\/x apartment(x) & low(upkeep(x)) =>
difficult_to_procure(x)
\/x difficult_to_procure(x) =>
high(cost_of_procuring(x))
hence \/x apartment(x) & low(upkeep(x)) =>
high(cost_of_procuring(x))
where "low" and "high" can be as fuzzy as you please.
A reasoning system should not conclude that cheap
flats don't exist, but rather that the axioms it has
been given are inconsistent with the assumption that
they do. Sooner or later you are going to tell it
"Jones has a cheap flat", and then it will spot the
flawed axioms.
[I can see your point that one might pay a high price
to procure an apartment with a low rental. There is
an alternate interpretation which I had in mind, however.
The paradox could have been stated in terms of any
bargain, specifically one in which upkeep is not a
factor. One could conclude, for instance, that a cheap
meal is expensive. My own resolution is that the term
"rare" (or "rare and highly sought") must be split into
subconcepts corresponding to the cause of rarity. When
discussing economics, one must always reason separately
about economic rarities such as rare bargains. The second
assertion in the syllogism then becomes "rare and highly
sought objects other than rare bargains are (Zadeh might
add 'usually') expensive", or "rare and highly sought
objects are either expensive or are bargains".
-- Ken Laws ]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 13 Oct 83 03:38:21-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Zadeh Syllogism
Expensive apartments are not highly sought.
Items not in demand are cheap.
-> expensive apartments are cheap.
or The higher the price, the lower the demand.
The lower the demand, the lower the price.
-> the higher the price , the lower the price.
ergo ?? garbage in , garbage out!
Why am I thinking of Reagonomics right now ????
Werner (UUCP: { ut-sally , ut-ngp } !utastro!werner
ARPA: werner@utexas-20
PS: at this time of the day, one gets the urge to voice "weird" stuff ...
-------
[The first form is as persuasive as the original syllogism.
The second seems to be no more than a statement of negative
feedback. Whether the system is stable depends on the nature
of the implied driving forces. It seems we are now dealing
with a temporal logic.
An example of an unstable system is:
The fewer items sold, the higher the unit price must be.
The higher the price, the fewer the items sold.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy.
-- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 83 13:16 PDT
From: GMEREDITH.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Sensitivity Issue and Self-Awareness
I can understand the concern of researcher people about censorship.
However, having worked with an agency which spent time extracting
information of a classified nature from unclassified or semi-secure
sources, I have to say that people not trained in such pursuits are
usually very poor judges of the difference between necessary efforts to
curb flow of classified information and "censorship".
I can also guarantee that this country's government is not the alone in
knowing how to misuse the results of research carried out with the most
noble of intents.
Next, to the subject of self-awareness. The tendency of an individual
to see his/her corporal self as distinct from the *I* experience or to
see others as robots or a kind of illusion is sufficient to win a tag of
'schizophrenic' from any psychiatrist and various other negative
reactions from those involved in other schools of the psychological
community.
Beyond that, the above tendencies make relating to 'real' world
phenomena very difficult. That semi coming around the curve will
continue to follow through on the illusion of having smashed those just
recently discontinued illusions in the on-coming car.
Guy
------------------------------
Date: Wed 12 Oct 83 00:07:15-PDT
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Goverment Reviews of Basic Research
I must disagree with Frank Adrian who commented in a previous digest
that "I urge everyone to boycott this conference" and other conferences with
this requirement. The progress of science should not be halted due to some
government ruling, especially since an attempted boycott would have little
positive and (probably) much negative effect. Assuming that all of the
'upstanding' scientists participated, is there any reason to think that
the government couldn't find less discerning researchers more than happy to
accept grant money?
Eric (sorry, no last name) is preoccupied with the fact that government
'paid' for the research; aren't "we" the people the real owners, in that case?
Or can there be real owners of basic knowledge: as I recall, the patent office
has ruled that algorithms are unpatentable and thus inherently public domain.
The control of ideas has been an elusive goal for many governments, but even so,
it is rare for a government to try to claim ownership of an idea as a
justification for restriction; outside of the military domain, this is seems
to be a new one...
As a scientist, I believe that the world and humanity will gain wisdom
and insight though research, and eventually enable us to end war, hunger,
ignorance, whatever. Other forces in the world have different, more short-term
goals, for our work; this is fine, as long as the long-term reasons for
scientific research are not sacrificed. Sure, they 'paid' for the results of
our short-term goals, but we should never allow that to blind us to the real
reason for working in AI, and *NO-ONE* can own that.
So I'll take government money (if they offer me any after this diatribe!)
and work on various systems and schemes, but I'll fight any attempt to
nullify the long term goals I'm really working for. I feel these new
restrictions are detrimental to the long-term goals of scientific search,
but currently, I'm going with things here... we're the best in the world (sigh)
and I plan on fighting to keep it that way.
David Rogers
DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 83 10:26:28 EDT
From: Morton A. Hirschberg <mort@brl-bmd>
Subject: Flaming Mad
I have refrained from reflaming since I sent the initial
conference announcement on "Intelligent Systems and Machines."
First, the conference is not being sponsored by the US
Government. Second, many papers may be submitted by those
affected by the security release and it seemed necessary to
include this as part of the announcement. Third, I attended the
conference at Oakland earlier this year and it was a super
conference. Fourth, you may bite your nose to spite your face if
you as an individual do not want to submit a paper or attend but
you are not doing much service to those sponsoring the conference
who are true scientists by urging boycotts. Finally, below is a
little of my own philosophy.
I have rarely seen science or the application of science
(engineering) benefit anyone anywhere without an associated cost
(often called an investment). The costs are usually borne by the
investors and if the end product is a success then costs are
passed on to consumers. I can find few examples where
discoveries in science or in the name of science have not
benefited the discoverer and/or his heirs, or the investors.
Many of our early discoveries were made by men of considerable
wealth who could dally with theory and experimentation (and the
arts) and science using their own resources. We may have gained
a heritage but they gained a profit.
What seems to constitute a common heritage is either something
that has been around for so long that it is either in the public
domain or is a romanticized fiction (e.g. Paul Muni playing
Pasteur). Simultaneous discovery has been responsible for many
theories being in the public domain as well as leading to
products which were hotly contested in lawsuits. (e.g. did Bell
really invent the telephone or Edison the movie camera?)
Watson in his book "The Double Helix" gives a clear picture of
what a typical scientist may really be and it is not Arrowsmith.
I did not see Watson refuse his Noble because the radiologist did
not get a prize.
Government, and here for historical reasons we must also include
state and church, has always had a role in the sciences. That
role is one that governments can not always be proud of (Galileo,
Rachael Carson, Sakharov).
The manner in which the United States Government conducts
business gives great latitude to scientists and to investors.
When the US Government buys something it should be theirs just as
when you as an individual buy something. As such it is then the
purview of the US Government as to what to do with the product.
Note the US Government often buys with limited rights of
ownership and distribution.
It has been my observation having worked in private industry,
for a university, and now for the government that relations among
the three has not been optimal and in many cases not mutually
rewarding. This is a great concern of mine and many of my
colleagues. I would like a role in changing relations among the
three and do work toward that as a personal goal. This includes
not referring to academicians as eggheads or charlatans;
industrialists as grubby profiteers; and government employees as
empty-headed bureaucrats.
I recommend that young flamers try to maintain a little naivete
as they mature but not so much that they are ignorant of reality.
Every institution has its structure and by in large one works
within the structure to earn a living or are free to move on or
can work to change that structure. One possible change is for
the US Government to conduct business the way the the Japanese do
(at least in certain cases). Maybe AI is the place to start.
I also notice that mail on the net comes across much harsher
than it is intended to be. This can be overcome by being as
polite as possible and being more verbose. In addition, one can
read their mail more than once before flaming.
Mort
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
