LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA (04/20/85)
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI> AIList Digest Saturday, 20 Apr 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: Requests - AI in Agriculture & GCLisp on a TI, Reports - ES Tools Paper, Bindings - Walter Reitman, Program - Expert Legal Systems, Discussion - Knowledge and Information, Linguistics - Hangul and Cherokee, Opinion - Policy & Humor & Emotions & Duplicating Humans ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 11:57:58-PST From: Peter Friedland <FRIEDLAND@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> Subject: AI in agriculture I have a friend who has just been hired by the US Dept. of Agriculture to explore advance computer applications, including AI, to problems in agriculture. If anybody has any information about existing systems or research in this area, please send it to FRIEDLAND@SUMEX (or publish on the AILIST). Thanks, Peter ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 85 9 32 CST From: Douglas young <young@uofm-uts.cdn> Subject: GCLisp Please can anyone tell me if there is a way of being able to use Golden Common Lisp on a TI Professional ( equipped with 512k )? Thanks. Douglas Young ( University of Manitoba ) young%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Fri 19 Apr 85 15:53:14-PST From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> Subject: es tools paper I have gotten an incredible number of responses for the ES paper I have offered. I didn't realize that that many people even read AIList. As a result I will have it made into a Stanford Knowledge Systems Lab (KSL) paper. I am saving all the addresses and will have copies mailed out asap. If you are in a rush to get this information let me know ... if the 'emergency' cases are small in number I can send out a photocopy of the Macintosh output right away. I will also try to make an announcement about the mass mailing so you should have to worry about whether you got missed. mark ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 1985 14:22-EST From: BATES@BBNG.ARPA Subject: address for Walter Reitman In the latest issue of the AIList newsletter, someone mentioned that Walter Reitman's address was unknown. Here it is, in case you'd like to publish it: Dr. Walter Reitman Palladian Software Inc. 41 Munroe Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Apr 85 08:14 EST From: Carole D Hafner <hafner%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: Expert Legal Systems Responding to John Kastner's request in AILIST V3 #46: Northeastern University in Boston is in the process of developing a new program in Law and Computer Science. Although we are not ruling out work on traditional "computer law" issues (software protection, liability of computer system vendors, privacy, etc.), our primary interest is the use of computers to model and/or enhance the process of "legal reasoning" - whatever that is!! Thus, legal expert systems, natural language processing and intelligent legal retrieval systems are the areas we want to develop. We are very interested in hearing from potential graduate students who want to work on AI and Law - and also potential faculty! Don Berman Carole Hafner School of Law College of Computer Science berman%northeastern@csnet-relay hafner%northeastern@csnet-relay Northeastern University Boston MA 02115 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 85 10:12:47 PST (Thu) From: Jeff Peck <peck@sri-spam> Subject: RE: Knowledge Exploration (some suggestions) A good overview of the problem of defining "information" is in "Theories of Information" [edited] by Machlup and Mansfield (John Wiley 1984). Its a thick volume, with articles by a large number researchers in information science/computer science/cognitive science, but reading just the prologue and epilogue will give you a good overview of the current thinking about Information and Knowledge. In particular, it will warn you about trying to extend from the Shannon definition of the word, which generally tends to confuse the user, (and the English language). Machlup is biased toward the position is that Information is what is told from one human to another; all other uses are derived metaphorically from that usage. Personally, I would suggest that Information and Knowledge are related just as Communication and Memory; Information is Knowledge in transit, or conversely, Knowledge is stored Information. Knowledge is what you "Know", Information is what you don't know; it's what you want to get so that you may Know something. In this case, we can agree in principle with Shannon, that the amount (or value) of information in a signal/symbol is related to the amount of NEW knowledge we recieve. "Datum", as Machlup points out, is latin for "given"; So, in any context in which a particular object is not the result of immediate inference or derivation, that information or knowledge may be considered as data. Inference and analysis may then proceed from data to derive new knowledge, new "knowns" from the "givens". These "knowns", when transmitted to a new process, then become the "givens" for the next round of analysis. So, data is analysed to create knowledge, which is transmitted as information, and may then again become data and knowledge. This explains the relationships, based on function, context and point-of-view, but leaves open the question of the type or kind of object information is, or the means of representation for these objects. The bottom line, I think, is that all of these (info, knowledge, data) must be seen in the context of their use: the purpose of intelligence is to make (good) decisions. The memories, beliefs, inferences, predictions, expectations, etc., that are used to make an "intelligent" choice, or an "informed decision", are knowledge. Whether something is knowledge can only be judged by its relationship to decisions that must be made. I suggest that any theory of knowledge must include a theory of decisions and utility. * for those philosphers who still beleive in "true, justified belief" as the definition of knowledge, I submit that "true, justified belief" is just a special case of "things that are useful in making good decisions". I suggest that the latter is the more fundamental and more useful concept. peck@sri-spam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 85 8:58:13 EST From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch> Subject: Hangul and Cherokee Sorry, Jan Steinman, at least one elegant writing system is more recent than that of Hangul: in the early 1800s, Sequoya (aka George Guess) invented a very sophisticated syllabary for the Cherokee language. Each of its 85 characters represents one of the possible syllables of the language. This writing system enabled the Cherokees to write down their elaborate system of laws and to publish newspapers in their language. They still do publish Cherokee newspapers, though they disbanded as a tribe in 1906. Their legal tomes still await scholarly study, many in possession of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. A bit of history: the Cherokees were quite successful farmers and businesspeople, a nation with a republican form of government (not to be confused with the present GOP!) under a written constitution. Then gold was discovered in their territory. A treaty obtained from a small group in the tribe was claimed to be binding on the whole tribe. Their autonomy as a nation was upheld by the US Supreme Court, and the tribe overwhelmingly repudiated the treaty, but the State of Georgia used military force and President Andrew Jackson refused to intervene, hence the `Trail of Tears' from the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama to Oklahoma. (Occurs to me that `Improper Mathematics' could well be rewritten to this tune!) Devanagari, used to write Sanskrit and its descendants, and many other languages influenced by the spread of Buddhism, is also a syllable- oriented script, but does have distinct marks for vowels. I should be surprised if it did not influence King Sejong's scholars. Bruce Nevin bbncch.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 85 23:57 EST From: Paul Fishwick <Fishwick%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: A final note on humor... In response to the "Special Issue on Humor" of the AI bboard, I would like to make some comments concerning the somewhat involved treastises presented therein: > I simply suggest that it be left at the level of: > > 1. If something offends you tell the offender and, if > appropriate, the net audience. [Ok, agreed -pf] > 2. Remember the individual involved. Next time something > comes up about that person you will know their > character is probably suspect, or at the very least > their sense of judgement. > > I for one would feel severely punished if someone so seriously > suspected my character. An entire audience like this would be > crushing. This sounds like something from a CIA primer. Can we not voice our opinions freely without mass condemnation? I for one would feel "severely punished" if I could not voice what I felt without constantly being concerned about being "crushed." > So, should it be published? Maybe, but not as humor; it should be > quoted (mention vs use) as an example of vicious pseudo-humor. If > it must always be presented in the context of its reality, its > disguise must be removed. Then the author presents metaphors relating to viruses, pathogens, antigens and DNA sequences which I find quite entertaining but highly romantic. The part about removing disguises reminds me of one of the earlier comments made by someone: namely, that we should remove disguises associated with cartoons since they often contain violent acts. And, heaven forbid that we should watch slap-stick. I found "Freud's Theory of Jokes and Censors" interesting. It might suggest an inquiry into the meaning of 'funny'. What exactly does 'funny' mean? I would be interested in someone would give me a definition of 'funny' (no Webster's interpretations, please). Amazingly enough, these heated discussions about humor might have some relevance to AI after all...A computational model which would relate to humor: I can see it now - If only I could attach a voice box to my PC and come up with an algorithm (I would stick it in the corner of my living room with a microphone so that it could listen-in at parties....) [I believe that both McCarthy and Minsky have published papers on humor. -- KIL] The point is that many people found Polly Nomial hilarious and many people found it disgusting. The question is: can we look across the fence and appreciate someone else's point of view (not necessarily changing our own view)? There is nothing wrong with either view. Now, lets get back to some AI, shall we? -paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1985 09:47 EST From: BATALI%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Midnight Theorizer From: MINSKY Perhaps this, too, explains the prolonged, mourning-like depression that follows sexual or other forms of personal assault. No matter that the unwelcome intimacy of violence may be brief; it nonetheless affects one's attachment machinery, however much against one's wish. So the suggestion is that the rape-victim feels bad because she has formed an attachment-bond to her attacker? The same "mechanism" is involved as in the formation of her attachment-bonds to other people? So she feels bad not because she has been raped, but because her rapist has then left her? Is there a shred of evidence that any rape victim has ever felt this way? Is this theory somehow suggesting that there really isn't much of a difference between rape and seduction and falling in love? Is it being assumed that fear, pain and loss of self-esteem is not enough to "explain the prolonged depression" that follows sexual assault? [Surely the phrase "affects one's attachment machinery" should be interpreted as "damaging" or "adversely affecting" the mechanism. -- KIL] ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 15-Apr-85 16:50:04-BST From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa> Subject: Street Speak The current debate over censorship and jokes in the AI Digest leads me to think that there is something fundamentally wrong. If your are trying to mimic the human mind, you have do both sides of the brain. But if you are using a computer, you can only duplicate the logical thought process and not the emotional thought process. Gordon Joly aka The Joka. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 16-Apr-85 10:06:40-BST From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa> Subject: Man as Machine Hardware = Brain Firmware = Instinct Software = Intelligence. "If man is any sort of a machine he is a learning machine" Jacob Bronowski on The Ascent of Man. Gordon Joly ------------------------------ End of AIList Digest ********************