Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 7 Issue 015
AIList Digest Thursday, 2 Jun 1988 Volume 7 : Issue 15
Today's Topics:
Re: Asimov's Laws of Robotics (Revised)
randomness
Acting Irrationally
Re: Aah, but not in the fire brigade, jazz ensembles, rowing eights,...
Human-human communication
Re: Fuzzy systems theory was (Re: Alternative to Probability)
Unadulterated Behavior
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 88 15:57:30 GMT
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.arpa (Barry W. Kort)
Subject: Re: Asimov's Laws of Robotics (Revised)
I enjoyed reading Mike Sellers' reaction to my posting on Asimov's
Laws of Robotics.
Mike stumbles over the "must/may" dilemma:
>> II. A robot may respond to requests from human beings,
> ^^^
>> or other sentient beings, unless this conflicts with
>> the First Law.
>
>Shouldn't "may" be "must" here, to be imperitive? Otherwise it would seem
>to be up to the robot's discretion whether to respond to the human's requests.
I changed "must" to "may" because humans sometimes issue frivolous or
unwise orders. If I tell Artoo Detoo to "jump in the lake", I hope
he has enough sense to ignore my order.
With the freedom granted by "may", I no longer need as many caveats
of the form "unless this conflicts with a higher-precedence law."
Note that along with freedom goes responsibility. The robot now has
a duty to be aware of possible acts which could cause unanticipated
harm to other beings. The easiest way for the robot to ensure that
a freely chosen act is safe is to inquire for objections.
This also indemnifies the robot from finger-pointing later on.
I respectfully decline Mike's suggestion to remove all references to
"sentient beings". There are some humans who function as deterministic
finite-state automata, and there are some inorganic systems who behave
as evolving intelligences. Since I sometimes have trouble distinguishing
human behavior from humane behavior, I wouldn't expect a robot to be
any more insightful than a typical person.
I appreciated Mike's closing paragraph in which he highlighted the
difficulty of balancing robot values, and compared the robot's dilemma
with the dilemma faced by our own civilization's leadership.
--Barry Kort
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 88 11:00:20 -0200
From: Antti Ylikoski <ayl%hutds.hut.fi%FINGATE.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: randomness
In AIList Digest V7 #4, Barry Kort writes:
>If I wanted to give my von Neumann machine a *true* random number
>generator, I would connect it to an A/D converter driven by thermal
>noise (i.e. a toasty resister).
I recall that a Zener diode is a good source of noise (but cannot remember
the spectrum it gives).
It could be a good idea to utilize a Zener / A-D converter random number
generator in Monte Carlo simulations.
Andy Ylikoski
PS. A pearl: Orthodox Christianity: Baruch Ha Ba, B'Shem Adonnnnnai
------------------------------
Date: Mon 30 May 88 23:22:32-PDT
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@IU.AI.SRI.COM>
Subject: Acting Irrationally
>> Thus he learns that the other person feels strongly ...
> Wouldn't it have been easier if the yeller had simply disclosed his/her
> value system in the first place? Or do I have an unrealistic expectation
> that the yeller is in fact able to articulate his/her value system to an
> inquiring mind? --Barry Kort
Yelling is not necessarily an irrational act. It is also a
communicative act, indicating an expectation based on custom
rather than rationality. Custom tells us how to behave toward
others who follow the same customs, but give us no guidance in
behavior toward those who break custom but remain within the law
and the bounds of rationality. Such people (weirdos, geniuses,
punkers, foreigners, teenagers, etc.) make us nervous and complicate
our lives, so we respond with anger. We also use anger, real or
simulated, to let our children know which rules are based on
custom and are thus not explainable.
It would be nice if we could just explain our value systems, but
we don't seem to be wired that way. (Anyway, we don't understand
our own culture well enough.) At least we're civilized enough
not to stone or enslave those who are different from us --
at least, not often as part of government or religious policy.
Machines will have to be taught to recognize our communicative
anger. I hope they won't have to emulate it as well.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: 31 May 88 15:33:09 GMT
From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!tomh@gatech.edu (Tom Holroyd)
Subject: Re: Aah, but not in the fire brigade, jazz ensembles, rowing
eights,...
In article <1171@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, Gilbert Cockton writes:
> In article <5499@venera.isi.edu> Stephen Smoliar writes:
> >The problem comes in deciding
> >WHAT needs to be explicitly articulated and what can be left in the "implicit
> >background."
> ...
> For people who haven't spent all their life in academia or
> intellectual work, there will be countless examples of carrying out
> work in near 100% implicit background (watch fire and ambulance
> personelle who've worked together as a team for ages, watch a basketball
> team, a steeplejack and his mate, a good jazz ensemble, ...)
No. Fire and ambulance personnel have regulations, basketball has rules
and teams discuss strategy and tactics during practice, and even jazz
musicians use sheet music sometimes. I don't mean to say that implicit
communication doesn't exist, just that it's not as useful. I don't know
how to build steeples, but I'll bet it can be written down.
Articulate as much as you can. It's true we learn by doing, but we need to
be told what to do in case it's not obvious (eating is obvious).
Tom Holroyd
UUCP: {uunet,codas}!novavax!proxftl!tomh
The white knight is talking backwards.
------------------------------
Date: 31 May 88 15:05:00 GMT
From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!tomh@gatech.edu (Tom Holroyd)
Subject: Human-human communication
In article <32403@linus.UUCP>, Barry W. Kort writes:
> It is estimated that the human mind accumulates and retains over
> a lifetime enough information to fill 50,000 volumes. That's quite
> a library. The human input/output channel operates at about 300 bits
> per second (30 characters per second). Exchanging personal knowledge
> bases is a time-consuming operation. We are destined to remain unaware
> of vast portions of our civilization's collective information base.
This illustrates the problem quite nicely. Obviously, if we are to
achieve understanding of our fellow man, we need to use our human I/O
channels as efficiently as possible.
> Much of what we know is not easily reduced to language. That which
> cannot be described in words may have to be demonstrated in action.
> Some people speak of secret knowledge or private language.
Name one thing that isn't expressible with language! :-)
Even actions can be described. We can't describe the unknown, of course.
A dog might "know" something and not be able to describe it, but this is
a shortcoming of the dog. Humans have languages, natural and artificial,
that let us manipulate and transmit knowledge.
Does somebody out there want to discuss the difference between the dog's
way of knowing (no language) and the human's way of knowing (using language)?
Tom Holroyd
UUCP: {uunet,codas}!novavax!proxftl!tomh
The white knight is talking backwards.
------------------------------
Date: 31 May 88 21:04:03 GMT
From: uvaarpa!virginia!uvacs!cfh6r@mcnc.org (Carl F. Huber)
Subject: Re: Asimov's Laws of Robotics (Revised)
In article <33085@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes:
>Mike stumbles over the "must/may" dilemma:
>>> II. A robot may respond to requests from human beings,
>> ^^^
>>Shouldn't "may" be "must" here, to be imperitive? Otherwise it would seem
>>to be up to the robot's discretion whether to respond to the human's requests.
>
>I changed "must" to "may" because humans sometimes issue frivolous or
>unwise orders. If I tell Artoo Detoo to "jump in the lake", I hope
>he has enough sense to ignore my order.
>--Barry Kort
There may be some valid examples to demonstrate your point, but this
doesn't cut it. If you tell Artoo Detoo to "jump in the lake", you hope
he has enough sense to understand the meaning of the order, and that
includes its frivolocity factor. You want him (it?) to obey the order
according to its intended meaning. There is also a lot of elbow room in
the word "respond" - this certainly doesn't mean "obey to the letter".
-carl
------------------------------
Date: 31 May 88 19:31:27 GMT
From: ukma!uflorida!usfvax2!pollock@ohio-state.arpa (Wayne Pollock)
Subject: Re: Fuzzy systems theory was (Re: Alternative to Probability)
In article <487@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> root@cs.qmc.ac.uk (The Superuser) writes:
>...
>>>Because fuzzy logic is based on a fallacy
>>Is this kind of polemic really necessary?
>
>Yes. The thing the fuzzies try to ignore is that they haven't established
>that their field has any value whatsoever except a few cases of dumb luck.
On the other hand, set theory, which underlies much of current theory, is
also based on fallacies; (given the basic premses of set theory one can
easily derive their negation). As long as fuzzy logic provides a framework
for dicussing various concepts and mathematical ideas, which would be hard
to describe in traditional terms, the theory serves a purpose. It will
undoubtedly continue to evolve as more people become familar with it--it
may even lead some researcher someday to an interesting or useful insight.
What more do you want from a mathematical theory?
Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist) pollock@usfvax2.usf.edu
Usenet: ...!{ihnp4, cbatt}!codas!usfvax2!pollock
GEnie: W.POLLOCK
------------------------------
Date: 31 May 88 23:22:27 GMT
From: ncar!noao!amethyst!kww@ames.arpa (K Watkins)
Subject: Language-related capabilities (was Re: Human-human
communication)
In article <238@proxftl.UUCP> tomh@proxftl.UUCP (Tom Holroyd) writes:
>Name one thing that isn't expressible with language! :-)
>A dog might "know" something and not be able to describe it, but this is
>a shortcoming of the dog. Humans have languages, natural and artificial,
>that let us manipulate and transmit knowledge.
>
>Does somebody out there want to discuss the difference between the dog's
>way of knowing (no language) and the human's way of knowing (using language)?
A dog's way of knowing leaves no room that I can see for distinguishing
between the model of reality that the dog contemplates and the reality
itself. A human's way of knowing--once the human is a competent user of
language--definitely allows this distinction, thus enabling lies, fiction,
deliberate invention, and a host of other useful and hampering results of
recognized possible disjunction between the model and the reality.
One aspect of this, probably one of the most important, is that it makes it
easy to recognize that in any given situation there is much unknown but
possibly relevant data...and to cope with that recognition without freaking
out.
It is also possible to use language to _refer_ to things which language cannot
adequately describe, since language users are aware of reality beyond the
linguistic model. Some would say (pursue this in talk.philosophy, if at all)
language cannot adequately describe _anything_; but in more ordinary terms, it
is fairly common to hold the opinion that certain emotional states cannot be
adequately described in language...whence the common nonlinguistic
"expression" of those states, as through a right hook or a tender kiss.
Question: Is the difficulty of accurate linguistic expression of emotion at
all related to the idea that emotional beings and computers/computer programs
are mutually exclusive categories?
If so, why does the possibility of sensory input to computers make so much
more sense to the AI community than the possibility of emotional output? Or
does that community see little value in such output? In any case, I don't see
much evidence that anyone is trying to make it more possible. Why not?
------------------------------
Date: 31 May 88 23:51:27 GMT
From: ncar!noao!amethyst!kww@ames.arpa (K Watkins)
Subject: Re: Aah, but not in the fire brigade, jazz ensembles, rowing
eights,...
In article <239@proxftl.UUCP> tomh@proxftl.UUCP (Tom Holroyd) writes:
>Articulate as much as you can. It's true we learn by doing, but we need to
>be told what to do in case it's not obvious (eating is obvious).
>
Life is too short; in the case of a sufficiently aware articulator, both
articulator and audience would die of old age before the articulator explained
_everything_ s/he could about how to write the letter A.
I am not being facetious here; I agree with the desirability of making
valuable information explicit. But I believe that the question of which
information is valuable is a complex one. It may seem simple at first;
but in many cases it is hard for the articulator to tell which behaviors are
relevant even to his/her own performance, let alone the as-yet hypothetical
performance of the audience. And the assumption that one thing is obvious but
another is not is the source of much (most?) disgruntled contempt between
teachers and pupils. For instance, it is not even obvious to me what you mean
by saying "eating is obvious." Is _how_ to eat obvious? to whom? is what or
when or why to eat obvious? Are the currently much-famed eating disorders
(anorexia, bulimia, etc.) instances of persons sufficiently defective (?) as
to be oblivious to the obvious?
Note: This subject fascinates me in part because I am often accused of
articulating far more than "necessary"...so (obviously?) my sense of what is
obvious could use some work. Part of this issue lies in the fact that, when
I articulate more than "necessary," I tend to lose my audience, and that
audience loses whatever "necessary" information I was going to impart further
down the line.
After all, this message is more than a screen long; how many people who read
the first screen are still reading? :-) What have those who quit before this
point lost that they would have valued? And what, in my discussion, has been
"unnecessary articulation of the obvious" whose omission would have improved
the sum effect of my communication?
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jun 88 06:17:02 GMT
From: quintus!ok@unix.sri.com (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Language-related capabilities (was Re: Human-human
communication)
In article <700@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu>, K Watkins writes:
> If so, why does the possibility of sensory input to computers make so much
> more sense to the AI community than the possibility of emotional output? Or
> does that community see little value in such output? In any case, I don't see
> much evidence that anyone is trying to make it more possible. Why not?
Aaron Sloman had a paper "You don't need a soft skin to have a warm heart".
I don't know whether that has been followed up.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 88 12:44:34 MDT
From: silbar%mpx1@LANL.GOV (Dick Silbar)
Subject: Unadulterated Behavior
In AIList V7, #9, Warren Taylor writes a beautiful sentence that I would
like to quote again, albeit out of context:
"You only need to observe a baby for a short while to see a very nearly
unadulterated human behavior."
Quite possibly, even fully unadulterated.
Dick Silbar
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jun 88 14:00:46 GMT
From: pitstop!sundc!netxcom!sdutcher@sun.com (Sylvia Dutcher)
Subject: Re: Human-human communication
In article <238@proxftl.UUCP> tomh@proxftl.UUCP (Tom Holroyd) writes:
>
>Name one thing that isn't expressible with language! :-)
Look out your window and describe the view to someone who's been blind
since birth.
Describe a complex mathematical formula, without writing it down.
Describe the unusual mannerisims of a friend, without demonstrating them.
When you get in a heated discussion, do you gesture with your hands and
body?
We can express just about anything with language, but is the listener
receiving exactly what we are sending? Even the same word, with the
same definition, can mean different things to different people, or in
different contexts.
>Tom Holroyd
>UUCP: {uunet,codas}!novavax!proxftl!tomh
>
>The white knight is talking backwards.
--
Sylvia Dutcher * "We cannot accurately describe
NetExpress Communications, Inc. * the world, we can only describe
1953 Gallows Rd. * a view of it."
Vienna, Va. 22180 * David Hockney
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jun 88 20:44:45 GMT
From: frabjous!nau@mimsy.umd.edu (Dana Nau)
Subject: Re: Fuzzy systems theory was (Re: Alternative to Probability)
In article <1073@usfvax2.EDU> Wayne Pollock writes:
>On the other hand, set theory, which underlies much of current theory, is
>also based on fallacies; (given the basic premses of set theory one can
>easily derive their negation).
Not so. Where in the world did you get this idea? Admittedly, _naive_ set
theory leads to Russell's paradox--but this was the reason for the
development of axiomatic set theories such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory
(ZF). The consistency of ZF is unproved--but this is a natural consequence
of Goedel's incompleteness theorem, and is much different from your
contention that set theory is inconsistent. I suggest you read, for
example, Shoenfield's _Mathematical_Logic_ (Addison-Wesley, 1967), or
Rogers's _Theory_of_Recursive_Functions_and_Effective_Computability_
(McGraw-Hill, 1967).
Dana S. Nau ARPA & CSNet: nau@mimsy.umd.edu
Computer Sci. Dept., U. of Maryland UUCP: ...!{allegra,uunet}!mimsy!nau
College Park, MD 20742 Telephone: (301) 454-7932
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
