Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 4 Issue 100
AIList Digest Thursday, 24 Apr 1986 Volume 4 : Issue 100
Today's Topics:
Queries - Parallel Languages & Tutoring Systems &
Object-Oriented Support For Common Lisp & LISP Coding Standards,
Methodology - LISP Coding Standards & String Reduction & Shape,
Comments - Use of the Xerox Name & Search,
Philosophy - Consciousness,
Review - OpEd Seminar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon 21 Apr 86 09:09:03-EST
From: Michael van Biema <MICHAEL@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: Parallel Languages:
The Dado project at Columbia is in the process of preparing a paper in
which we hope to give a taxonomy of parallel programming languages.
We ask that you be so kind as to send us any papers on languages that
you may have implemented or that you are designing. This would be not
only very helpful to us, but useful to the community as well.
If your language is being designed to run on a particular architecture
please include a description of the particular architectural features
of the machine. Also, if you could briefly describe to us:
1) The state of development of your language.
2) The intended application area.
3) The intended or current user community.
4) Your thoughts on the current state of parallel language design.
What particular problems does your language address.
If you do not have time for the survey questions please do send a copy
of the papers or even just references to them! Thank you for your
time and we look forward to sending you a copy of this survey,
Michael van Biema
Columbia University
Dept. of Computer Science
New York, N.Y. 10027
------------------------------
Date: 23 Apr 1986 12:41-EST
From: Eswaran.Subrahmanian@H.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Tutoring Systems
I am currently creating a bibliography of computer aided tutoring
systems. I would like references to literature on both AI based
and non-AI based systems. I will be willing to send anybody who may
want a copy of the compiled bibliography.
Thanks in advance
Eswaran Subrahmanian
ARPA: eswaran@h.cs.cmu.edu.arpa
Postal: Eswaran Subrahmanian
DH 226 Design Research Center
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh Pa 15213.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Apr 86 20:14:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix
!ins_amrh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: LISP coding standards
Is anyone aware of any official LISP coding standards comparable to
the standards for Pascal, Ada, etc? Folks at my new employer have
been looking...
-Marty Hall.
Arpa: (preferred) hall@hopkins
CSnet: ("") hall.hopkins@csnet-relay
uucp: seismo!umcp-cs!jhunix!ins_amrh
allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_amrh
------------------------------
Date: 19 Apr 86
From: "Jennings, Richard" <jennings@lll-icdc.ARPA>
Subject: Object Oriented Support For Common Lisp
I am working on a project trying to couple a good programming
environment exploiting object oriented paradigms to a grid of
INMOS Transputers. Rather than build up everything from the
OCCAM development system, I would like to use the VAX LISP (a
variant of Common Lisp) environment augmented with a public
domain (preferably) object oriented package as a model for the
system I intend to build for the Transputers.
1) I would like pointers to environments which are compatible
(sit on top of) VAX LISP which directly support object oriented
programming;
2) notes from those who may be working on (or interested in)
such projects; and
3) responses sent directly to me since I do not have regular
access to AILIST. I will summarize.
Richard Jennings
PO Box 808 L-228 (L-228 is CRITICAL)
LLNL
Livermore, CA 94550
ARPA: preferred -> jennings%icdc@lll-crg
slow, reliable -> jennings@lll-crg
(INMOS is a company which has probably trademarked OCCAM and
TRANSPUTER)
------------------------------
Date: 22 Apr 86 16:03:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!bsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: LISP coding standards
Look at Guy Steele's book Common Lisp. All Lisps seem to be going
in this direction, implementing as large a subset of Common Lisp as
is possible. It's my understanding that Symbolics will be releasing
a new version of its system that will default to Common Lisp this
summer (instead of having to specify it in the mode line).
------------------------------
Date: 22 Apr 86 03:17:10 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cit-vax!alfke@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
(J. Peter Alfke)
Subject: Re: String reduction
Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords:
In article <994@umn-cs.UUCP> amit@umn-cs.UUCP (Neta Amit) writes:
>In article <1031@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) writes:
>>Does anybody have any references to articles on string reduction
>>as a reduction technique for applicative languages (or anything
>>else)? They seem to be almost impossible to find! Anything welcome.
>
>String reduction as a model of computation was suggested by
>A.A.Markov, in his 1954(?) paper, and is proved to be equivalent in
>power to the other two general models of compution (Turing machine and
>the Lambda Calculus).
This sounds similar to Calvin Mooers' TRAC language of mid-sixties. That
language was based entirely on macro expansion; rather strange, but actually
a lot more powerful than the toy it first appeared to be.
There was also a language called SAM76 that showed up in 1976, that seemed
close enough to TRAC to warrant a lawsuit. It seemed identical in concept,
with only minor differences in syntax and function-names.
TRAC is pretty easy to implement; I have an incomplete version written in
C that I did some years back. I also have a paper on TRAC which is probably
long out of print by now.
--Peter Alfke
alfke@csvax.caltech.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 86 15:14:13 est
From: franc%UPenn-Grasp%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: shape
>Jerry Hobbs has asked me "What is a hook and what is a ring that we know
>the ring can hang on the hook?" More specifically, what do we have to
>know about hooks and rings in general (for default reasoning) and
>about a particular hook-like object and ring-like object (dimensions,
>radius of curvature, surface normals, clearances, tolerances, etc.)
>in order to say whether a particular ring may be placed on a particular
>hook and whether it is likely to stay in place once put there.
We believe that the ability to model categories or generic objects
would make questions like this easier.
We have approached the problem of category shape representation in the
context of model based object recognition i.e. "how can a computer vision
system recognize different coffee cups based on single category model of a
coffee cup?" Given that the most important common property of objects in a
category is their function, the shape of categorically related objects must
satisfy the same functional constraints. By analysing these constraints we
try to come up with a prototypical shape, and a set of allowable
deformations that account for variations within the category.
I have started thesis work on this topic recently with Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy.
Franc Solina
GRASP Laboratory
University of Pennsylvania
csnet: Franc@Upenn
------------------------------
Date: 22 Apr 86 08:51:55 PST (Tuesday)
From: McNelly.OsbuSouth@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Compuscan
When you say you "used originals and text that had been Xeroxed several
times," do you mean that you copied it on a Xerox copier? Or do you
mean that some sales rep in New York Xeroxed the text into an 820 PC,
then Xeroxed it across the country to the corporate office in Los
Angeles, where the manager Xeroxed all the sales reports together on a
Xerox 6085 (Daybreak) workstation, and then finally Xeroxed that
document to a Xerox 8040 (Raven) laser printer before Xeroxing the
document to an Xerox 8030 File Service for storage?
As someone who wears an "Office Manager's hat," you should know better
than to use Xerox as a verb...
John McNelly
Member Programming Staff
Information Systems Div, Xerox Corp.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 09:21 PST
From: Tom Garvey <GARVEY@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Non-trivial expert systems
I wish you amateur AI guys out there wouldn't try to exalt your own
understanding of the field by making snide, offhand remarks about its
founders: "(*sigh* - Can you tell my first AI course was taught out of
Nilsson's PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE? Nilsson
thought all AI reduced to search.)" Just because you wrote a faulty
program that had no control over its search space is no reason to
conclude (as you apparently do) that search is not an appropriate method
for solving the problem. I would agree with Nilsson that search is a
pervasive aspect of most AI problems -- it is precisely the determinism
of most expert systems that makes them uninteresting from an AI
perspective.
Cheers,
Tom
------------------------------
Date: Fri 18 Apr 86 09:53:30-PST
From: Stephen Barnard <BARNARD@SRI-IU.ARPA>
Subject: performance considered insufficient
Are viruses conscious? How about protozoa, mollusks, insects, fish,
reptiles, and birds? Certainly some mammals are conscious. How about
cats, dogs, and chimpanzees? Does anyone maintain that homo sapiens
is the only species with consciousness?
My point is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. The more
complex the nervous system of an organism, the more likely one is to
ascribe consciousness to it. Computers, at present, are too simple,
regardless of performance. I would have no problem believing a
massively parallel system with size and connectivity of biological
proportions to be conscious, provided it did interesting things.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 86 11:43:18 est
From: Nigel Goddard <goddard@rochester.arpa>
Reply-to: goddard@rochester.UUCP (Nigel Goddard)
Subject: Re: One more little thing
In article <8604152029.AA07125@bucsd.ARPA> tes@bostonu.CSNET writes:
>
>Nigel Goddard wrote in Volume 4 Issue 87
>
>> I meet [people] who I consider to be very "unconscious",
>> i.e. their stated explanations of their motives and actions
>> seem to me to completely misunderstand what I consider to
>> be the *real* explanations.
>
>What, by Jove, is a "*real* explanation" ??????????????????????
>I can't digest my food properly until I find out.
>
> Tom Schutz
> CSNET: tes@bu-cs
A *real* explanation is an explication of MY internal model, as opposed to
someone else's internal model. I trust you will suffer no longer.
Nigel Goddard
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 20:35:28 WST
From: munnari!wacsvax.oz!marke@seismo.CSS.GOV (Mark Ellison)
Reply-to: wacsvax!marke@seismo.CSS.GOV (Mark Ellison)
Subject: Re: More wrangling on consciousness
In article <8604180725.AA11124@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> "CUGINI, JOHN"
<cugini@nbs-vms.arpa> writes:
>At the technical level, I think it's simply wrong to dismiss
>brains as a criterion for consciousness - if mechanism M
>causes C (consciousness) and enables P (performance), then
>clearly it is an open question whether something that can do P,
>but does not have M, does or does not have C.
Mechanism M causes C? You know many people who (may) have brains, and
you have no DIRECT evidence that they are conscious.
You only have direct evidence of one case of C (barring ESP, etc.),
and no DIRECT evidence of that person's brain.
Except for the performances in each case.
>At the "gut" level I think the whole tenor of the reply misses
>the point that consciousness is a very "low-level", primitive
>sort of phenomenon. Do severely retarded persons have "the
>ability to learn to understand the *real* reasons for their
>actions...an ability to abstract and to make an internal model
>of the self" ? or cows, or cats? Yet no one, I hope, doubts
>that they are conscious (eg, can feel pain, experience shapes,
>colors, sounds).
We only know of their ability to feel pain, experience shapes, colors,
sounds, etc., by their reactions to those stimuli. In other words,
by their performance. But on the other hand their performance might
not involve abstract statements.
>This has very little to do with any clever
>information processing capabilities. And it is these "raw
>feelings" that a) are essential to what most people mean by
>consciousness and b) seem least susceptible to implementation by
>Lisp machines, regardless of size.
I would argue that "raw feelings" in others are known only by their
performance. In effect we egomorphise(I don't know the right word,
I mean something like anthropmorphise with regard to oneself) them.
And we (some of us) do the same to machines, if not so seriously.
`The <machine> is really struggling today.'
`The process is tired (niced).'
One criterion that I have not seen yet proposed is the following.
It is more useful to pretend that people are conscious than not.
They tend to cause you less pain, and are more likely to do what you want.
So I'll believe someone's 8600 or Cray is conscious if it works better,
according to whatever criteria I have for that at the moment, when I so
believe.
---
Mark Ellison lambda f . (lambda x . f x x) (lambda x . f x x)
Department of Computer Science, CSNet: marke@wacsvax.oz
University of Western Australia, ARPA: marke%wacsvax.oz@seismo.edu.gov
Stirling Highway, UUCP: ..!seismo!munnari!wacsvax!marke
Nedlands, Western Australia, 6009.
PHONE: (09) 380 2305 OVERSEAS: +61 9 380 2305
------------------------------
Date: Tue 22 Apr 86 12:55:27-CST
From: Aaron Temin <CS.Temin@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: seminar reviews
Ken -
Given that ailist posts seminar announcements, I would like to
encourage folks who attend the seminar to post summaries/critiques/reviews
of them. Then we see the differences between what the researcher
hoped to accomplish v. what really seems to exist. I append a short
review of Sergio Alvarado's talk on his OpEd system, which I
just returned from hearing.
----
This is a review of the seminar given by Sergio Alvarado on his OpEd
system at the Univ. of Texas on 22 April. The announcement and
abstract have been posted to ailist previously.
The nub of the talk seemed to be that one is interested in
understanding arguments and the supports (beliefs) for the arguments.
Domain is letters to the editor. A belief seems to be an atomic
entity that implies another belief or supports an argument.
There are various arguments (strategies?), about 30 all together.
Alvarado calls the arguments ArgumentUnits, and an
editorial parses into an argument-graph.
The system parses English text into argument graphs, and can
"answer" questions from this. The example text was a short
(10 sentence) paragraph from an '82 letter by Milton Friedman
about import/export and the steel and automobile industries.
It parsed into two argument units and about 8 belief (though
in somecases there is "double counting" -- belief1 might be
"Friedman believes tariffs are good" and belief2 is just
the opposite "Reagan believes tariffs are bad" or whatever, as
the argument is modelled as having two opposing views.)
Alvarado hinted that there was another sample text but we
didn't see it. He didn't do any of the obvious extensions
e.g. using real-world knowledge of facts external to the
paragraph to make inferences about the argument.
I couldn't see much difference between this and the previous
work done by folks on understanding legal arguments.
-Aaron
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
