Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 8 Issue 075
AIList Digest Saturday, 3 Sep 1988 Volume 8 : Issue 75
Queries:
Newell's Knowledge Level
Machine Translation
Responses:
Prolog, etc. (2)
How do I learn about AI, Prolog, and/or Lisp (2)
The "A/D->ROM->D/A" sigmoid idea by Antti
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 88 16:36:12 GMT
From: IT21%SYSB.SALFORD.AC.UK@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Newell's Knowledge Level
From: Andrew Basden, I.T. Institute, University of Salford, Salford.
Please can anyone help clarify a topic?
In 1982 Allen Newell published a paper, 'The Knowledge Level' (Artificial
Intelligence, v.18, p.87-127), in which he proposed that there is a level
of description above and separate from the Symbol Level. He called this
the Knowledge Level. I have found it a very important and useful concept
in both Knowledge Representation and Knowledge Acquisition, largely
because it separates knowledge from how it is expressed.
But to my view Newell's paper contains a number of ambiguities and
apparent minor inconsistencies as well as an unnecessary adherence to
logic and goal-directed activity which I would like to sort out. As
Newell says, "to claim that the knowledge level exists is to make a
scientific claim, which can range from dead wrong to slightly askew, in
the manner of all scientific claims." I want to find a refinement of it
that is a bit less askew.
Surprisingly, in the 6 years since the idea was introduced there has
been very little discussion about it in AI circles. In psychology
circles likewise there has been little detailed discussion, and here the
concepts are only similar, not identical, and bear different names. SCI
and SSCI together give only 26 citations of the paper, of which only four
in any way discuss the concepts, most merely using various concepts in
Newell's paper to support their own statements. Even in these four there
is little clarification or development of the idea of the Knowledge
Level.
So I am turning to the AILIST bulletin board. Has anyone out there any
understanding of the Knowledge Level that can help in this process?
Indeed, is Allen Newell himself listening to the board?
Some of the questions I have are as follows:
1. Some (eg. Dennett) mention 3 levels, while Newell mentions 5. Who is
'right' - or rather, what is the relation between them?
2. Newell says that logic is at the Knowledge Level. Why? I would have
put it, like mathematics, very firmly in the Symbol Level.
3. Why the emphasis on logic? Is it necessary to the concept, or just
one form of it? What about extra-logical knowledge, and how does his
'logic' include non-monotonic logics?
4. The definition of the details of the Knowledge Level is in terms of
the goals of a system. Is this necessary to the concept, or is it just
one possible form of it? There is much knowledge that is not goal
directed.
Alexander et. al. and Clancey both question Newell's adherence to logic
and goals, but do not discuss the case. Can anyone shed any light? I
have further questions, which I will put directly to some of those who
reply. Or (please tell me) should I put them on the board? And would
anyone like a summary from me of my findings?
Thank you, in advance.
Andrew Basden
Information Technology Institute, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
JANET: abasden@uk.ac.salf.b
Phone: (44) 61 736 5843 x510; Telex: 668680 (Sulib);
Fax: (44) 61 745 7808
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 88 15:59:50 PDT
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: machine translation
Could someone send me some good references on machine translation?
Please send mail directly to me, as I often have trouble keeping up
with the list.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic.arpa
------------------------------
Date: 1 Sep 88 05:29:19 GMT
From: quintus!ok@unix.sri.com (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Prolog, etc.
In article <1034@mtund.ATT.COM> newton@mtund.ATT.COM (Newton Lee) writes:
>In a previous article, Paul Fishwick writes:
>> Does anyone know of a PD version of Prolog that will run under UNIX.
>> It must come with source since we would like to able to use it on
>> any UNIX machine (including Gould, SUN, VAX, etc.)? We currently have
>
>We use C-Prolog on our UNIX machines (VAX, MIPS, 3B20, UNIX PC, etc.)
>It is based on the Prolog system written in IMP by Luis Damas (and
>Lawrence Byrd) for the ICL 2900 computers. For more info, contact
>Fernando Pereira, EdCAAD, Dept. of Architecture, University of Edinburgh.
>
>Newton Lee
>AT&T Bell Laboratories
C Prolog is not public domain and never has been.
Fernando hasn't been at EdCAAD for about five years; he is currently
at SRI Cambridge. EdCAAD is still the place to ask about C Prolog.
You might find Stony Brook Prolog more what you're looking for.
It's covered by a GNU-style "copyleft", but that shouldn't bother
a .edu site. The contact is Saumya Debray: debray@arizona.edu.
I'd be tempted to mention that Q------ Prolog is really great, more
than worth the price, but it doesn't run on Goulds, so I shan't (:-).
By "any UNIX machine", I hope Fishwick means "any 32-bit byte-addressed
virtual-memory machine running V.2 or later or 4.1BSD or later". A 286
running Xenix is a UNIX machine, but don't expect porting C Prolog or
SB Prolog to it to be trivial.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 88 17:49:32 GMT
From: aplcen!jhunix!apl_aimh@mimsy.umd.edu (Marty Hall)
Subject: Re: Prolog, etc.
In a previous article, fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu writes:
>Does anyone know of a PD version of Prolog that will run under UNIX.
>It must come with source .....
SB Prolog is a PD, compilable C&M Prolog with source included. They say
that it runs on "Berkeley UNIX or related operating systems," I know that
it compiles and runs fine on a Sun under 3.x. The University of Arizona
will ship you 1600 bpi tar tapes for "distribution costs" of $20 in
N. America, $40 overseas. I am unaware of anonymous ftp sites.
SB-Prolog Distribution
Department of Computer Science
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Regards-
- Marty Hall
-------
--
apl_aimh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MS 100/601
...uunet!jhunix!apl_aimh AAI Corporation
apl_aimh@jhunix.bitnet PO Box 126
(301) 683-6455 Hunt Valley, MD 21030
------------------------------
Date: 1 Sep 88 11:37:31 GMT
From: pur-phy!sawmill!mdbs!kbc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin Castleberry)
Subject: Re: How do I learn about AI, Prolog, and/or Lisp
> Microsoft has a Lisp for MS-DOS (supposedly it is Common
> Lisp, but again, I haven't played with it).
Is this true? Microsoft has a lisp?
Technical Support for mdbs products:
KMAN (a relational db environment),
GURU (an expert system development environment),
MDBS III (a post-relational high performance dbs)
(Our products run in VMS, UNIX, OS/2 and MSDOS.)
is available by emailing to: support@mdbs.uucp
or
{rutgers,ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!pur-ee!mdbs!support
The mdbs BBS can be reached at: (317) 447-6685
300/1200/2400 baud, 8 bits, 1 stop bit, no parity
Kevin Castleberry (kbc)
Director of Customer Services
Micro Data Base Systems Inc.
P.O. Box 248
Lafayette, IN 47902
(317) 448-6187
For sales call: (800) 344-5832
------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 88 19:08:26 GMT
From: uhccux!todd@humu.nosc.mil (Todd Ogasawara)
Subject: Re: How do I learn about AI, Prolog, and/or Lisp
In article <984@mdbs.UUCP> kbc@mdbs.UUCP (Kevin Castleberry) writes:
>> Microsoft has a Lisp for MS-DOS (supposedly it is Common
>> Lisp, but again, I haven't played with it).
>Is this true? Microsoft has a lisp?
Yes, Microsoft has a Lisp they license from a firm in Honolulu called
Soft WareHouse. Soft WareHouse sells the same product under the name
muLISP-87. muLISP itself is NOT a Common Lisp. However, it comes with a
support library (source code in Lisp included) that adds the Common Lisp
functions to muLISP.
They also have an optional incremental compiler (I think this option is
$100 or so, I haven't bought it myself).
muLISP is no replacement for a big expensive Lisp workstation. But, if you
want a small, inexpensive, relatively speedy full Lisp development, I
recommend you look at this package.
It is small and fast enough to use on my 4.77MHz 8088-based Toshiba T-1000
when I feel like doing some Lisp programming away from my office in the
shade of a tree.
Soft WareHouse also has an interesting license. It reads "the software
shall be run on at most five (5) computers residing in a single building or
facility, under the control of END USER." Pretty reasonable, I think.
--
Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Faculty Development Program
UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd
ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux
INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU <==I'm told this rarely works
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 16:17:04 CDT
From: lugowski@ngstl1.csc.ti.com
Subject: response to the "A/D->ROM->D/A" sigmoid idea by Antti
Concerning the "analog/digital --> ROM --> digital/analog" neural sigmoids:
Over here in Texas, Gary Frazier (central research labs, Texas Instruments)
and I (ai laboratory, same) have played with a very similar idea for over
a year now. We would have loved to have kept it to ourselves a bit
longer in order to quietly work out its implications, writing a nice
understated little paper about what it buys and what it doesn't, but
-- sigh -- Antti's note from the prettier end of Europe forces our hand:
1. Consider not using ROM in favor of RAM. This allows you to learn the
sigmoid, if you're so inclined, or otherwise mess with it in real-time.
2. Leave off the A/D and D/A conversions (for speed's sake) if there's
a way to compute the thing in analog (often there is).
3. Consider other functions, rather different from sigmoids and consider
other uses other than neural summation for network node activities.
4. Expect interesting system properties to emerge from this rather innocent
looking hardware move. More on this in our forthcoming paper.
Some clues for those who want to think this through in the interim:
(1) implementations for neural darwinism?, (2) more bang for the
hyper"plane" buck?, (3) faster convergence than pure gradient descent
in weight space?
Well, we could always turn out to be totally off base on this, but here's
the goods just in case we're not. Comments? Anyone else tinkering thusly?
-- Marek Lugowski
AI Lab, DSEG, Texas Instruments
P.O. Box 655936, M/S 154
Dallas, Texas 75265
lugowski@resbld.csc.ti.com
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
