Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 5 Issue 235
AIList Digest Thursday, 15 Oct 1987 Volume 5 : Issue 235
Today's Topics:
Queries - Italian AI & NExpert & Scheme as a First Lisp &
Engineer/Scientist Expert Systems &
Connection Machine Applications to Vision &
AI Workstations & Learning Software & Prolog Shopping,
Business - Expert Systems Company Financing & AI Marketing,
Neuromorphic Systems - Terminology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 87 07:26:23 GMT
From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!tony_mak_makonnen@ucbvax.Berk
eley.EDU
Subject: european connection
I would like to E-mail to people in Italy interested in the kind of things we
discuss here . i know there is a connection thru Amsterdam and Turin . Any
pointers on how to do it and who to contact first are appreaciated . I
speak and write italian fluently and will gladly accept messages in that
language
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 13:16 MET
From: SYS_MS@bmc1.uu.se
Subject: NExpert
Neuron Data's NExpert system shell should soon be available for the Macintosh.
Have anyone out there used it for real development. What is the performance
compared to the VAX implementation. Pro's and con's of NExpert?
Mats
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 09:47:42 -0400
From: howell%community-chest.mitre.org@gateway.mitre.org
Subject: Scheme as a first lisp?
I'm interested in learning lisp "in my spare time", and I'd
prefer to do it on my Sun 3/75. For that reason, I'm thinking
about bringing GNU C Scheme up on the Sun. Before I do, I have a few
questions (of obvious neophyte level!). Thanks in advance for
any responses (please respond directly, I'm not on this list).
1) How solid is GNU Scheme? I'm using GNU EMACS and GNU
BISON (== YACC), and I've been really happy with both, so
I imagine GNU Scheme is fairly bug-free...
2) How different is Scheme from Common Lisp and Franz?
3) Is it a good idea/bad idea/neutral idea for someone intending
to learn lisp to start with Scheme?
4) If I go with Scheme, are there other recomended books/articles
in addition to "Structure and Interpretation of Computer
Programs" by Abelson and Sussman(s) [Sussmen? sorry...]
Thanks for any help.
Chuck Howell
the MITRE Corporation, Mail Stop Z645
7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102
(703) 883-6080
ARPA: howell@mitre.arpa
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 87 11:23:00 PDT
From: "SEF::BROWER" <brower%sef.decnet@nwc-143b.arpa>
Reply-to: "SEF::BROWER" <brower%sef.decnet@nwc-143b.arpa>
Subject: Engineer/Scientist Expert System info
We are looking into the possibility of creating an expert system to
capture the expertise of engineers/scientists and would appreciate any
information anyone has on existing systems of this nature or systems being
developed of this nature.
My address is: Brower@NWC-143B.ARPA until 19 Oct. 87.
After Oct. 19 my address changes to: Brower@NWC.ARPA.
Thank you in advance. Roger Brower
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 87 05:19:37 GMT
From: jason@locus.ucla.edu
Subject: Looking for connection machine applications to vision
I am currently beginning to look into the area of vision research
applied to the connection machine, or other connectionist architectures.
I would appreciate any good references and input in this area.
Jason Rosenberg
jason@CS.UCLA.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 19:40 N
From: KOLB%HTIKUB5.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: help! (ai-workstations)
hi out there,
we are a (for Holland) pretty old and matured AI&NLP research group, but
so is our hardware equipment, which we share with the rest of the university.
Now we seem to have the chance of getting some stuff such as workstations
on our own. Any recommendations (or - even more useful - warnings)?
what we're looking for is an integrated environment with good PROLOG-, LISP-
and maybe some object-oriented facilities, but also capable of managing
old-fashioned languages such as pascal and C. Good graphics facilities would
help, too.
Please, reply directly to me. I'm gonna summarize the results for the net,
if wanted.
Thanx, hap kolb
Address: EMAIL: kolb@htikub5.bitnet
SNAILMAIL: hap kolb
Tilburg University - SLE
Postbus 90153
NL-5000 LE Tilburg
The Netherlands
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 87 10:12:40 GMT
From: Richard White <rw%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Subject: Query - Learning software
The Edinburgh Computing and Social Responsibility (CSR) group
are looking for software which may beused or adapted for use
in an AI teaching module which will (hopefully!) be offered to
Scottish school children in 1988, at least on a trial basis.
The module, aimed at 16-18 year olds, is concerned with the
study of learning in both human and machines. Areas of
interest include induction, discovery and analogy based learning.
What we are short of are sample programs which can be used to
illustrate some of the problems involved in the study and simulation
of these processes. By necessity these have to be simple and relatively
small, the target machines being Nimbus's (British IBM-compatible PC).
Prolog would be the preferable language, but then we can't be too choosy!
Software should be public domain as we are running on a **very** small
budget.
If anyone knows of anything which might be suitable we would be very
grateful to hear about it. Could you Email any replies DIRECT to me.
Thanks in anticipation,
Richard White (on behalf of CSR group)
JANET: R.White@uk.ac.edinburgh
ARPA: R.White%uk.ac.ed@nss.ucl.ac.uk
UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.White
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 87 13:46:00 EST
From: cugini@icst-ecf.arpa
Reply-to: <cugini@icst-ecf.arpa>
Subject: Prolog shopping
I'm doing some serious shopping for an industrial strength Prolog
to run under VAX/VMS. The only vendors of which I am aware are:
1. Quintus
2. IF/Prolog (Munich Germany)
3. Prolog-1 from Expert Systems International
Desirable features include:
1. nice environment/editor for changing and testing
2. external DB - preferably based on SQL
3. ability to call external languages, eg FORTRAN routines.
I'd be happy to hear about any new products, assessments, suggestions, etc.
John Cugini <Cugini@icst-ecf.arpa>
------------------------------
Date: 13 Oct 87 16:09:18 GMT
From: jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle)
Subject: Re: Expert Systems Company Financing...
Right now, the venture capital community has had it with expert systems.
Hambrecht of Hambrecht and Quist, one of the more influential venture
capitalists, has been quoted as saying "Artificial intelligence is the most
effective means yet invented for separating investors from their money".
There are no AI startup success stories yet, remember; nothing comparable
to SUN or Lotus has happened. A few companies made it to IPO, but the
stocks never took off. Of the companies that received a lot of public
attention, the score is as follows.
Annual Annual Yesterday P/E
High Low
Intellicorp 11 1/8 4 1/8 5 3/4 29
Teknowledge 21 5/8 8 13 1/4 loss
Symbolics 6 1/8 3 3 1/4 loss
Lisp Machines (bankrupt)
So forget an expert system startup using the venture capital route until
somebody makes it.
But venture capital is a fad-driven industry. Neural nets are hot
this month.
John Nagle
[John tells me there's a downbeat article on AI in the latest
Forbes. (I hope I got that right.) -- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 87 16:11:57 GMT
From: iscuva!randyg@uunet.uu.net (Randy Gordon)
Subject: Re: Expert Systems Company Financing...
But...
That really doesn't reflect on AI's success. There have been quite a number
of wildly sucessful AI projects that I know of, but they are usually buried
deep in companies that do other things, and noone talks about them, so
they won't lose competitive advantage.
None of the pure AI companies really had a chance. All they sold were tools
to solve problems, and consulting services. But one tool generates many
end products, and theres only so much training you can do before your customer
knows as much as you do.
Companies that sell end products that use AI techniques(such as Syntelligence,
or the thousand and one genetic engineering companies) are doing quite well.
So are the ones that use AI as part of a tool to increase productivity or
spread expertise, like Dec.
If any of those pure AI companies had ANYONE with decent marketing(not sales!)
experience, they would have started generating applications, (with tools as a
sideline). Theres a HUGE vein of expertise out there to be mined. Many
industries lack the will, expertise, or political situation to make use of the
knowledge that exists and the AI techniques necessary to utilize it.
AI techniques can fulfill needs that are difficult to answer with other
technologies. In combination with more ordinary programming techniques, you
can provide a demonstratably superior product in many areas. But you have
to be answering needs!
AI companies don't have problems because they are AI, they have problems
because noone in them really understands how to succeed as a business,
rather than as a glorified consulting firm.
Randy Gordon
------------------------------
Date: Wed 14 Oct 87 22:16:47-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@KL.SRI.Com>
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI.COM
Subject: AI Marketing
Part of what we are seeing in AI is the evolution from horizontal to
vertical marketing. Vertical integration (i.e., applications) had to
wait for the horizontal suppliers to develop their machines and software
-- with the exception of a few early systems such as Dendral and R1/XCON.
The horizontal market has saturated, though, partly because it is much
easier to develop a general-purpose system than it is to really understand
a customer's applications and needs (in addition to developing an AI
system capable of handling previously unsolved problems). Unless some
new market opens up -- business, military, educational, or consumer --
the horizontal companies have now sold to everyone interested in buying.
The companies that will survive are the ones cultivating vertical markets
such as warehousing or the printing industry. In some cases these companies
are now offering higher priced software with reduced functionality, but
with vocabulary and customer support aimed at a specific industry. In
other cases the applied systems have not yet become visible simply because
it takes a long time to turn a general tool into a useful tool. Expert
systems are not dead; the successful ones are just going through another
development cycle. The resulting proprietary systems will be hyped in
the trade journals rather than the research journals, and will be part
of the commercial woodwork from now on.
-- Ken
------------------------------
Date: 11 Oct 87 03:32:10 GMT
From: wcalvin@well.UUCP (William Calvin)
Reply-to: wcalvin@well.UUCP (William Calvin)
Subject: Re: Neural Networks - Pointers to good texts?
Best book on neural networks is THE CRUSTACEAN STOMATOGASTRIC GANGLION by
Selverston and Moulins (Springer 1987). If you mean neural-like networks,
try the Rumelhart et al PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED PROCESSING (MIT Press 1986).
We brain researchers sure get tired of hearing neural-like networks
referred to as "neural networks", an established subject for 25 years since
the days of Limulus lateral inhibition. Calling silicon networks "neural" is
about like the hype in the early days when every digital computer was
called a "brain" by the media.
William H. Calvin
University of Washington NJ-15, Seattle WA 98195
wcalvin@well.uucp wcalvin@uwalocke.bitnet
------------------------------
Date: 13 Oct 87 03:30:21 GMT
From: sabbath.rutgers.edu!leasure@rutgers.edu (David E. Leasure)
Subject: Re: Neural Networks - Pointers to good texts?
wcalvin@well.UUCP (William Calvin) writes:
> We brain researchers sure get tired of hearing neural-like networks
>referred to as "neural networks", an established subject for 25 years since
>the days of Limulus lateral inhibition. Calling silicon networks "neural" is
>about like the hype in the early days when every digital computer was
>called a "brain" by the media.
Maybe we could all agree on a more faithful/less ingratiating term?
Maybe connectionist processing models or neuromorphic (after
Touretzky), or fine-grained parallel processing? (even Rumelhart's
Parallel Distributed Processing?)
David E. Leasure
Rutgers/AT&T
[Connectionism is a subset of the neuromorphic approach that uses
coarse -- or distributed -- coding instead of single nodes to
represent concepts. It's like representing all entities by feature
vectors instead of by symbol or name. Fine-grained parallel processing
includes new architectures such as the Connection Machine that are
not related to neural networks (beyond being ideal simulation
substrates). I don't know how PDP differs from any other distributed
processing, but the latter includes contract nets and inferential
databases. I'm willing to use "neuromorphic", although I'm not sure
that any one term can adequately describe this diverse field. The
name that sticks, though, will be the one that is most effective in
prying money from the military and governmental fuding agencies -- and
I suspect that "neural networks" will win precisely because of its
misleading connotations. -- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 87 13:35:59 GMT
From: ssc-vax!dickey@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Frederick J Dickey)
Subject: Re: Neural Networks - Pointers to good texts?
In article <4191@well.UUCP>, wcalvin@well.UUCP (William Calvin) writes:
> We brain researchers sure get tired of hearing neural-like networks
> referred to as "neural networks", an established subject for 25 years since
> the days of Limulus lateral inhibition.
I think the above says that "biological" neural nets have been studied as a
formal discipline for 25 years and that this great ancestry gives biology
prior claim to the term "neural nets". Assuming that this is a correct
interpretation, let me make the following observation. In 1943, McCulloch
and Pitts published a paper entitled "A logical calculus of the ideas
immanent in neural nets". Minsky and Papert (Perceptrons) state that this
paper presents the "prototypes of the linear threshold functions". This paper
stikes me as clearly being in the "neural net-like" tradition. Now
1987-1943 = 44. Also note that 44 > 25. Therefore, it apears that the
"neural net-like" guys have prior claim to the term "neural net". :-).
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
