Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 5 Issue 238
AIList Digest Monday, 19 Oct 1987 Volume 5 : Issue 238
Today's Topics:
Queries - Fire, Women, and Dangerous Things & RB5X Robot &
Introductory Books on Lisp & "Eliza-Like" People Stories &
Net Mail to UK,
Application - Expert Systems for Fault Diagnosis,
Humor - "Eliza-Like" People Stories,
Education - Learning-Software Reference,
Business - Expert Systems Company Financing,
Opinion - The Success of AI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Oct 87 08:27:52 GMT
From: cunyvm!unknown%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Fire, Women, and Dangerous Things
I finally located a copy of George Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and
Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind" and
a quick look through the chapters seems to indicate that it
is an interesting synthesis.
Anyone out there read it already? I am interested in what
those with more experience in AI than I have think of Lakoff's
approach to categorization.
John M. Ford fordjm@byuvax
"The thing I hate about psychologists is that they are always
*classifying* everyone..."
------------------------------
Date: Fri 16 Oct 87 15:01:26-PDT
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Subject: Query: "Not quite a toy" Robot
For lack of any more obvious place to ask this...
I have been given "custody" of a very sick "Not quite a toy" robot. (The R2D2
sort-of clone that is often seen attracting attention to vendors at trade
shows.) The robot was given to the principal of a small private school who
gave it to me in the hope that I can repair it, so they can use it at their
fund raising events. The problem is that although it has a manufacturer's
name, city and model/serial number, the manufacturer (RB Robot Corporation of
Golden, Colorado model RB5x) doesn't exist (according to the phone company).
Does anyone know someone who might have another of RB's robots (and have
schematics, or any documentation at all)? I'd rather fix what's there if I
can, instead of rebuilding the complete electronics sub-system from scratch.
Thanks in advance,
Matt Heffron BEC.HEFFRON@ECLA.USC.EDU
PS. I know that this is sort of a shot in the dark, but "netlanders" are
sufficiently knowledgeable that if anyone would know how to get some info
for this, they would. Thanks. MH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 87 11:03:46 PDT
From: glasgow@marlin.nosc.mil (Michael G. Glasgow)
Subject: Introductory books on Lisp
I am new to AIList and AI programming and want to learn Lisp.
I have been looking through Steele's book, Common Lisp", and
have discovered that this is more of a reference manual than a
beginners guide. What I am wondering is if anyone can give me
the names of some good introductory Lisp books to get me started.
Thanks in Advance,
michael
Net: glasgow@marlin.nosc.mil
Reallife: NOSC - Code 423
271 Catalina Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
------------------------------
Date: 16-OCT-1987 17:09:17
From: HANCOXPJ@MAIL.ASTON.AC.UK
Date: 16-Oct-1987 16:56 BST
Subject: Request for information
From: Dr P J Hancox <HANCOXPJ@uk.ac.aston>
Dept: Computer Science
Tel No: 021 359 3611 X4652
TO: Remote Addressee ( _POST IKBSBB@RL.VD )
TO: Remote Addressee ( _POST AILIST-REQUEST%COM.SRI.STRIPE@
CC: Remote Addressee ( _KIRK::WOONIMA )
I'm constructing a qualitative model for financial analysis and planning
for my PhD which I should finish in late 1988. I intend to supplement this
model with quantitative data held in a Financial Modelling
system(FPS/EPS2), to handle ambuiguous situations. I am therefore interested
in any work on:
qualitative models for financial analysis
automated interfacing between expert systems and financial
modelling systems.
Is there anyone out there doing or interested in similar work?
Irene Woon
JANET: woonimy@uk.ac.aston.kirk
uucp: ...seismo!mcvax!ukc!astonk!woonimy
phone: + 44 21 359 3611 extn 4272
Snailmail: Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics
Aston University
Birmingham. B4 7ET
United Kingdom
------------------------------
Date: 15 Oct 87 18:18:12 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: "Eliza-like" people stories
I'm doing a paper on the relation of human conscious processes to
those of AI programs. I'm looking for stories which illustrate the
extent to which apparent human intelligence may actually consist of
Eliza-like verisimilitude. Example:
Customer: I'd like to return this pair of shoes. They're
both left shoes and one is two sizes smaller than
the other.
Clerk: We don't take returns. How do we know you haven't
worn them?
[from Reader's Digest]
Please send stories to me rather than the net...
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 87 14:04:55 MDT
From: yorick%nmsu.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: Net mail to UK
Can any informed person out there tell me what is going on with
e-mail to the UK? There seems to have been some radical change
in the last month or so completely independent of the general
change in destination formats in the US (e.g. com, edu, gov, cs.net
and all that). The standard final component @ucl-cs.arpa no
longer seems to work as it has for a decade or so. A new
format is occuring in UK originating messages, in this list and elsewhere,
namely @nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk but that doesnt seem to
work as a destination from the US, moreover it is highly confusing
as it seems to import the internal UK JANET symbols (ac.uk)
into the arpanet address. Since it doesnt work maybe it doesnt matter.
There doesnt seem must use asking UK people as they dont know why
they can get out as usual but people aree having more trouble
reaching them. Another thing is that the preceding part of
the UK addresses (e.g. essex.ac.uk) in bloggs%essex.ac.uk@nss.whatever
is now being quoted randomly in orogianting headers in both orders
e.g. essex.ac.uk and uk.ac.essex. It always used to be the former.
Maybe someone in the UK knows what is going on there as it seems
that it must be UK rather that US stupidity. I'd be really
grateful for any wizard who can tell me either what's going
on, or, better still, how to get back to standard reliable
transatlantic e-mail.
Yorick Wilks.
[NSS.CS.UCL.AK.UC seems to have dropped out of the host
table at the moment. There is an entry for NS2..., but
the socket number differs from [128.41.9.3] and so must
be something other than a typo. UCL also has entries for
VTEST, TUNNEL, SAM, and TIGER, but not for UCL-CS. As for
the problems of the last month, I am beginning to get some
leads. The new Arpanet system insists that addresses contain
only official host names, and Arpanet hosts will convert
aliases to socket numbers if they can't determine the official
names. Many Unix systems, though, are still willing to send
and receive host aliases, but will reject mail to socket
numbers (since such mail in the past has been associated with
mailer loops). Mail from an Arpanet host to a Unix host may
therefore fail if the Arpanet host tables are not set up
exactly right. Many Unix postmasters are not aware of this
glitch, or perhaps do not know how to verify and correct the
Arpanet host tables. I presume that this has been the case
with UCL, although I don't know the nature of their system.
I will attempt to get things straightened out if I can get
a message through to UCL. -- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: 16 Oct 87 15:09:58 GMT
From: moss!erc3bb!may@RUTGERS.EDU (M.A.Yousry)
Subject: Re: Engineer/Scientist Expert System info
In article <8710150650.AA02610@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
brower%sef.DECnet@NWC-143B.ARPA.UUCP writes:
>
> 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.
>
We are working on an expert system to find root causes of fault
in a manufacturing process. We are using a statistical system to
filter the observations coming from the process, such as defects, or
analog measurments..then a rule based system is triggered by the statistical
output, uses the engineering knowledge and expertise to find root
causes of faults in the process.
Bob Parry ihnp4!erc780!bep
Mona Yousry ihnp4!erc780!may
------------------------------
Date: 16 Oct 87 14:00:48 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!vertigo!roller@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (P.MICHAELIS)
Subject: Re: "Eliza-like" people stories
> I'm doing a paper on the relation of human conscious processes to
> those of AI programs. I'm looking for stories which illustrate the
> extent to which apparent human intelligence may actually consist of
> Eliza-like verisimilitude.
I know this looks like a portion of a "M*A*S*H" script, but it really
did happen this way:
YOUNG, OVERWORKED DOCTOR: Why have you come to the hospital?
RECENTLY WOUNDED SOLDIER: Shrapnel wounds, sir.
YOUNG, OVERWORKED DOCTOR: How long have you been noticing these symptoms?
-- Paul Michaelis {AT&T Spine}!vertigo!roller
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 87 13:59:30 EDT
From: rapaport@cs.Buffalo.EDU (William J. Rapaport)
Subject: induction
>From: rw@aiva.edinburgh.ac.UK (Richard White)
Subject: Query - Learning software
The Edinburgh Computing and Social Responsibility (CSR) group
are looking for software which may be used or adapted for use
in an AI teaching module ...
Take a look at:
Robert L. Causey, "Simulations and Experiments in Philosophy of Science,"
[IBM] Perspectives in Computing, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring 1987), pp. 23-33.
William J. Rapaport
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
(716) 636-3193, 3181
uucp: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!rapaport
internet: rapaport@cs.buffalo.edu
[if that fails, try: rapaport%cs.buffalo.edu@relay.cs.net
or: rapaport@buffalo.csnet ]
bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs.bitnet
------------------------------
Date: 16 Oct 87 18:08:44 GMT
From: faline!sabre!gamma!pyuxp!pyuxv!sr@bellcore.bellcore.com (S
Radtke)
Subject: Re: Expert Systems Company Financing...
In article <810@iscuva.ISCS.COM> randyg@iscuva.UUCP (Randy Gordon) writes:
>
>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.
Come on, Randy, let's hear what the wildly successful AI projects were.
Most success stories I've heard had to be discounted considerably. They
tend to be stories about developments that are full of promise, rather
than systems that pay dividends or work for a living. The reports from
DEC about Xcon, for instance, did not include bottom line calculations
that include system development cost retrieval and maintenance cost, though
such support systems are part of the infrastructure and are hard to show as
profit centers.
Steve Radtke
pyuxv!sr
------------------------------
Date: 17 Oct 87 18:26:55 GMT
From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!barry_night-person_stevens@uc
bvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: you CAN get funding for expert systems activities
It's true that the companies started around the large, LISP-based AI machines
have not done well.
I have recently finished a survey of 179 companies buying and using expert s
system tools. Also studied - several vendor companies for expert system
products. In short, the big machines aren't what they want -- that's why
the companies didn't do well.
Computer science-y things arent what they want, either. They are using
systems most that are:
simple to use, and in English (not in PROLOG)
easy to use to access databases, both in PCs and in mainframes
easy to interconnect, and to integrate with their corporate data, pgms
The smaller, simpler systems are doing well.
Also, venture capital firms are cautious about startups. Most prefer to let
someone else take the big risks. A few firms, such as Crosspoint and
The Sprout Group, will deal with seed.
To get funding from a professional source, you need more than a top drawer
product idea. You need a quality management team, or the knowledge that one
needs to be built; you need a good marketing study, PROVING that a demand
for your product exists, and sizing that demand. These, at a minimum.
If you also have a good handle on how your venture will work operationally,
you are just that much better off. Most of all, you'll need a good estimate
of what needs to be done to get your idea into production, and how much it
will cost. You also need a top-quality professional technical team to
do it with.
It may help to realize that you're fighting significant odds. In researching
a book I just completed (How to Write A Successful Business Plan, AMACOM)
we surveyed 900 venture capital firm and compiled some statistics.
only 1 in 2,500 plans that arrive "over the transom" at a VC firm
are ever funded.
if plans arrive through a trusted associate, 1 in 50 of those plans
are funded.
Getting funded then becomes a process: put together a top-quality, unique
product idea; get a quality, experienced management and professional
team together; PROVE THAT YOUR PRODUCT WILL SELL, preferably by actual
sales; put a set of thorough financial projections for revenue and
... you get the picture by now. Most people who put together a business plan
and try and get funding will probably not get funding.
Those companies that have followed the steps I've hinted at DO have a shot
at funding. There is a fund being set up just for the funding of companies
in the AI area, and that would be a logical place to start.
Yes, some of the big-machine companies have failed. Yes, investors have been
burned, and most of them are staying away. Yes, there has been too much
"smoke and mirrors" about AI. But... investments are STILL being made in
expert systems companies. But to get YOUR shot, you have to BUILD a venture
that IS AN ATTRACTIVE INVESTMENT.
Ca or write -- I'll help if I can. Barry Stevens, PO Box 2747, Del Mar,
CA 92014. 619-755-7231
------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 87 22:34:36 GMT
From: violet.berkeley.edu!ed298-ak@jade.Berkeley.EDU (Edouard
Lagache)
Subject: Re: The Success of AI (Analysis of AI lack of progress).
Anyone interested in the question of A.I. success (or lack of it)
should have a look at Hubert Dreyfus's work. He has written two
books which are critical of present A.I. methodologies, and make
a purswasive argument for why present approaches to A.I. won't
work.
The books are:
What Computers Can't Do; the Limits of Artificial Intelligence
(Harper & Row, 1979)
Mind over Machine; The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise
in the Era of the Computer
(co-authored with Stuart Dreyfus and Tom Athanasiou, The
Free Press, 1986).
It perhaps goes without saying that Hubert Dreyfus is one of the
most disliked persons of A.I. researchers. However, no one in this
field can really afford to not be aware of Dreyfus's concerns.
Edouard Lagache
School of Education
U.C. Berkeley
lagache@violet.berkeley.edu
------------------------------
Date: 17 Oct 87 22:09:05 GMT
From: cbmvax!snark!eric@rutgers.edu (Eric S. Raymond)
Subject: Re: The Success of AI
In article <1922@gryphon.CTS.COM>, tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) writes:
> Computers do not process natural language very well, they cannot
> translate between languages with acceptable accuracy, they
> cannot prove significant, original mathematics theorems.
I am in strong agreement with nearly everything else you say in this article,
especially your emphasis on a need for a new paradigm of mind. But you are,
I think, a little too dismissive of some real accomplishments of AI in at
least one of these difficult areas.
Doug Lenat's Amateur Mathematician program was a theorem prover equipped with
a bunch of heuristics about what is 'mathematically interesting', essentially
methods for grinding out interesting generalizations and combinations of known
theorems. Lenat fed it the Zermelo-Frankel set theory axioms and let it run.
After n hours of chugging through a lot of nontrivial but already-known
mathematics, it 'conjectured' and then proved a bunch of new results on the
number-theoretic properties of Pythagorean triples (3-tuples of integers of
the form <x, y, sqrt(x**2 + y**2)>).
I was a theoretical mathematician at the time I saw the AM paper. It was
*fascinating*. The program could probably have done a lot more, but it
eventually choked on the size of its own LISP data structures.
So at least one of your negative assertions is incorrect.
I never heard of this line of research being followed up by anyone but
Doug Lenat himself, and I've never been able to figure out why. He later
wrote a program called EURISKO that (among other things) won that year's
Trillion-Credit Squadron tournament (this is a space wargame related to
the _Traveller_ role-playing game) and designed an ingenious fundamental
component for VLSI logic. I think all this was in '82.
> I believe the great success of AI has been in showing that
> the old dualistic separation of mind and body is totally
> inadequate to serve as a basis for an understanding of human
> intelligence.
Correct. But while recognizing this, let's not lose sight of the real
accomplishments of AI in the purely-symbolic domain (whatever happened to
Steve Harnad, anyhow?).
I think AI has the same negative-definition problem that "natural philosophy"
did when experimental science got off the ground -- that once people get a
handle on some "AI" problem (like, say, playing master-level chess or automated
proof of theorems) there's a tendency to say "oh, now we understand that; it's
*just* computation, it's not really AI" and write it out of the field (it would
be interesting to explore the hidden vitalist premises behind such thinking).
So at any given time the referents for AI in peoples' minds are failures and
unproved speculations, and the field goes through these manic-depressive cycles
as it regroups around a new theory, problem or technology, explores it enough
to make it useful for others, and then loses it to the rest of the world.
Case in point: in the 1950s, *compilers* were considered "AI". I'm not old
enough to remember that, but some of you may be. So, don't throw out the
ship with the bath water -- er, that is, don't give up the baby -- er, oh,
*you* know what I mean. AI is a useful category not in spite of all the
ambiguity and confusion and excitement that surrounds it, but *because* of
that.
--
Eric S. Raymond
UUCP: {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax,vu-vlsi}!snark!eric
Post: 22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
