Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 8 Issue 091
AIList Digest Monday, 26 Sep 1988 Volume 8 : Issue 91
Philosophy -- Why do AI? (4 messages)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Sep 88 20:56:11 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!serene!pnet12!bstev@ucsd.edu (Barry
Stevens)
Subject: Re: Why?
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
> Why does anyone want artificial intelligence?
> A major determinant of how fragmented science is is how much communication
>takes place. I submit here that the information explosion is for the most part
>an explosion in redundancy brought about by a communication bottleneck. Our
>goal is then to find a way to open up this bottle neck. It is here, again that
>AI (especially in relation to intelligent data bases) may come to the rescue.
Along with the need to handle increasing amounts of information, comes an
increased need for performance:
Timeliness -- the speed at which information must be processed has
increased dramatically. (e.g. computer console messages
in a commercial datacenter with multiple CPUs need to be
analyzed at the rates of 5 to 50 per SECOND. )
Accuracy -- decisions must be made at accuracies that are beyond the
sustained ability of human experts (e.g process control
systems needing 0.1% accuracy in set point values for
hundreds of variables set every minute for 24 hrs/day)
Cost -- expert knowledge must be employed in situations where
the presence of experts can't be afforded (e.g. stock
or commodity trading systems based on expert systems
and/or neural nets)
Availability- most experts are fond of their weekends and evenings, and
make a very big deal over their vacations. AI methods can
make their skills available 24 hrs, 365 days/year.
I have surveyed many companies in their use of AI techniques. My personal
feeling, supported by no one else at this point, is that the "why" of AI
will be answered when the following application is implemented and becomes
widespread:
A mid level manager must analyze a budget report once a week. He uses
the rules he follows as the basis for an expert system: "If the
variance is greater than $1000 in Acct 101, OR the TOTAL in Line 5
is greater than 10% of plan, OR ... " an then delegates the expert
system and his rule base of 10, 15, or 20 rules to HIS SECRETARY, AI
and expert systems will have come of age in industry.
The big question will be answered not by robotics applications, or speaker
independent speech recognition, or writer-independent character
recognition, or even smart data bases. (Most professionals don't use data
bases), but by simple tasks, done by almost everyone in the work
environment, taken over or delegated to someone else as a result of AI. The
AI applications that do that will propogate across the workplace like LOTUS
or other truly horizontal applications.
UUCP: {crash ncr-sd}!pnet12!bstev
ARPA: crash!pnet12!bstev@nosc.mil
INET: bstev@pnet12.cts.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Greene <dg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why?
In <digest.sXB3k7y00Ukc40RUZb@andrew.cmu.edu> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark
William Hopkins) writes:
>The first thing that comes to mind is our current situation
>as regards science -- its increasing specialization. Most people will
>agree that this is a trend that has gone way too far ... to the extent that
>we may have sacrificed global perspective and competence in our
>specialists; and further that it is a trend that needs to be reversed.
>Yet fewer would dare to suggest that we can overcome the problem.
I agree that this is serious and that AI, as an inherently interdisciplinary
field, has the potential to pull areas together. However, there is tremendous
pressure within the academic community to encourge and reward *focused* efforts
in a narrow area, at least until you become a tenured old-sage :-)
It's very time consuming to keep up with multiple fields to any real depth but
even as you look for synergy you hear your advisor saying, "It won't get
published if the the editors don't have a department for it..." Even when
there is a department, it is suggested that you remove the excess (other
disciplines) to make it more relevent or accessible to the regular readership.
I think it's worth the effort, but it would certainly help if it weren't such
an uphill struggle.
-David
-----------------
David Perry Greene GSIA
dg1v@andrew.cmu.edu Carnegie Mellon University
"You're welcome to use my oppinions, just don't get them all wrinkled."
------------------------------
Date: 19 Sep 88 06:59:52 GMT
From: TAURUS.BITNET!shani@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Why?
In article <6823@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu.BITNET writes:
> Why does anyone want artificial intelligence?
>
> What is it that you're seeking to gain by it? What is it that you would have
> an intelligent machine do?
Well, well waddaya know! :-)
Not long ago, an endless argument was held in this newsgroup, reguarding AI
and value-systems. It seem that the reason this argument did not (as far as
I know) reach any constructive conclousions, is that the question above was
never raised... So realy? what do we expect an intelligent machine to be like?
Or let me sharp the question a bit:
How will we know that a machine is intelligent, if we lack
the means to measure (or even to define) intelligence ?
This may sound a bit cynical, but it is my opinion that setting up such
misty goals, and useing therms like 'intelligence' or 'value-systems' to
describe them, is mainly ment to fund something which MAY BE beneficial
(since research is allmost always beneficial in some way), but will never
reach those goals... why who would like to fund a research which will only
end up with easyer to use programming languages or faster computers?
O.S.
BTW: I wish it wasn't like that. It could be wonderful if RND financing was
not goal-depended... all and all, the important thing is the research
itself.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Sep 88 20:32:10 GMT
From: quintus!certes!jeff2@unix.sri.com ( jeff)
Subject: Re: Why?
in article <867@taurus.BITNET>, shani@TAURUS.BITNET says:
>
> In article <6823@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu.BITNET writes:
>> Why does anyone want artificial intelligence?
>>
>> What is it that you're seeking to gain by it? What is it that you would have
>> an intelligent machine do?
>
> Or let me sharp the question a bit:
>
> How will we know that a machine is intelligent, if we lack
> the means to measure (or even to define) intelligence ?
>
> This may sound a bit cynical, but it is my opinion that setting up such
> misty goals, and useing therms like 'intelligence' or 'value-systems' to
> describe them, is mainly ment to fund something which MAY BE beneficial
> (since research is allmost always beneficial in some way), but will never
> reach those goals... why who would like to fund a research which will only
> end up with easyer to use programming languages or faster computers?
>
Consider the following:
1): it takes nearly 30 years (from conception to expert level)
to train a new programmer/software engineer
2): the average "expert expectancy" of this person is (I'm guessing)
probably 10 - 15 years
3): there are nearly 100,000,000 working people with ideas to improve
the way their jobs are done.
4): that (perhaps) 1 person in 10 of these has the skills to
automate the job.
At least two people are required to automate some portion of a task; one to
describe the process and one to automate it; this increases the cost of the
automation process (two salaries are being paid to do one job), and limits
the number of tasks that can be automated at any one time to the number of
automaters available.
As a result, the number of tasks to be automated is expanding much more
rapidly than the number of people to automate it. Given that few automaters
remain experts in their field long enough to be fully replaced, we have no
choice but to reduce the skill level required to automate a task if we want
to improve our abilities to automate tasks. This alone is justification for
research into "easy to use" languages.
Additionally, it would be nice if AI could create a tool for the development
of the other automation tools that are sufficiently close to those in current
use (e.g. English) that little training is required to use them.
--
/*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Jeff Griffith Teradyne/Attain, Inc., San Jose, CA 95131 (408)434-0822
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are strictly my own.
Paths: jeff@certes!quintus or jeff@certes!aeras!sun
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
