uucp@winfree.UUCP.UUCP (06/27/87)
Path: winfree!hp-lsd!hpldola!ben
From: ben@hpldola.HP.COM (Benjamin Ellsworth)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
Subject: Re: Why Did The $6,000,000 Man Run So Slowly?
Message-ID: <13330001@hpldola.HP.COM>
Date: 26 Jun 87 20:42:14 GMT
References: <870615144826.2.NICHAEL@BUBBAROMDOS.PALLADIAN.COM>
Organization: HP Logic Design Oper. -ColoSpgs
Lines: 15
From my film classes at school, I had gathered that the reason that the
action sequences in Kung Fu were slowed down for emphasis. When you
slow a scene down, whatever the content, you emphasize the action of
that scene. This is especially effective for violent action. Any good
anti-hunting film will slow down any shots of an actual Bambi kill.
The effect of slowing is to force the viewer to perceive the action in
more detail (and hence with greater emphasis) than he/she could view it
at normal speed. Speeding up a scene has the opposite effect.
Benjamin Ellsworth
hplabs!hpldola!ben
*** This posting is about the use of temporal distortion in film
making, not a statement regarding the morality of hunting. stampe@uhccux.UUCP (David Stampe) (07/03/87)
Path: uhccux!stampe From: stampe@uhccux.UUCP (David Stampe) Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: On how AI answers psychological issues Message-ID: <651@uhccux.UUCP> Date: 3 Jul 87 18:01:33 GMT References: <8706301418.AA08078@sunl.ICS> Distribution: world Organization: U. of Hawaii, Manoa (Honolulu) Lines: 44 In-reply-to: norman%ics@SDCSVAX.UCSD.EDU's message of 30 Jun 87 14:18:40 GMT norman%ics@SDCSVAX.UCSD.EDU (Donald A. Norman) writes: > Thinking about "how the mind works" is fun, but not science, not > the way to get to the correct answer. In fact it's the ONLY way to get the correct answer. Experiments don't design themselves, and they don't interpret their own results. We don't see with outward eyes or hear with outward ears alone. The outward perception or behavior does not exist without the inward one. If you practice your remembered violin in your imagination, while your actual violin is being repaired, you, as well as the violin, may sound much better when the repairs are finished. I am a linguist. I write a tongue twister on the board that they haven't hear before: 'Unique New York Unique New York Unique New York....' My students watch silently, but when I ask them what errors this tongue twister induces, they immediately name the very errors I discovered before class, when I tried to pronounce it aloud. You didn't have to say it aloud, either, did you? It is not introspection that is AI's trouble. It is that an expert system, for example, isn't likely to model expertise correctly until it is designed by someone who is himself the expert, or who knows how to discover the nature of the expert's typically unconscious wisdom. Linguistics has struggled for over a century to develop tools for learning how human beings acquire and use language. It seems likely that a comparable struggle will be required learn how the expert diagnostician, welder, draftsman, or reference librarian does what he or she does. I often feel that when a good student of language takes a job building a natural language interface for some AI project, in her work -- though it may be viewed by others in the project as marginal, if not menial -- she is more likely to turn up something of scientific import than are those working on the core of the project. This is just because she has spent years learning to learn how experts -- in this case language users -- do what they do. On the other hand, she is not likely to believe that programs can realistically model much of the human linguistic faculty, at least in the imaginable future. For example, computer parsers presuppose grammars. But it is not clear whether children, the only devices so far known to have mastered any natural language, come equipped with any analogous utilities. David Stampe, Linguistics, Univ. of Hawaii