HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: p_misiak@unibwh.unibw-hamburg.de (Carlo Misiak)
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
Organization: University of Federal Armed Forces Hamburg
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:37:08 GMT

In article <Bu7rCD.CMG.1@cs.cmu.edu> sef@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu writes:


       From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)

       If I can push a nail into the wall with my own hands, then why would I build
       a hammer?

       If I can pull a plough, then why would I make a tractor?

       To get into the domain of computers; if I can perform 50 Gigaflops then
       why would I need a Cray?

       One does not make machines that merely duplicate human function - they must
       do it better.

   Nonsense!  We make machines all the time that do jobs that a person could
   do, but doesn't want to.  Consider automatic pilots, automatic door
   openers, automatic elevators, home dishwashers, or even dial-operated
   telephone exchanges.  One could argue that a human can do each of these
   tasks better than the equivalent machine, but the human would get bored,
   want to be paid a lot, go on strike, etc.  So a machine that does these
   tasks WELL ENOUGH is valuable, even if it's not nearly as good as a human.
   Then the humans can spend their time doing things that humans like better
   (or, in certain economic systems, they can starve).

   -- Scott

No nonsense ! If you evaluate performance with a function that keeps an eye on
costs ( as I understand is done in certain economic systems ), you will
probably come to the conclusion that any machine that actually is employed is
better than a human. BTW, I do not believe that a machine that will have a
chance to meet the TTT-criterion currently propagated by Harnad will ever be
built in order to merely duplicate human-function - no return on investment,
since there is the strong assumption that this kind of machine would like to
spend its time doing things that TTT-proven machines like better.



 
--
Carlo Misiak

*** All that we C or Scheme is but a mind in the machine *** (remember POE) ***

Xref: sparky comp.ai:3356 comp.robotics:1730 comp.ai.philosophy:5981
From: kyre@reed.edu (Aerick of Ghorka)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Help on Psych NN or PDP Thesis
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:42:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reed Insane Asylum

As an afterthought, any information I could get on connectionism would also
be very useful.

Please send all replies directly to me whenever possible.

Thanks,
Erik Gorka (kyre@reed.edu)

-- 
* Everything that my fingers have typed is strictly the product of their own *
* demented imaginations.  -- Erik Gorka (kyre@reed.edu)			     *
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312))
Subject: viruses
Summary: Are computer viruses alive?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:47:16 GMT


In article <bhotvedt-140992175833@usemac70.uio.no>, bhotvedt@gollum.uio.no 
(Tor Houghton) wrote:

>In article <1992Aug24.002009.20472@access.usask.ca>, choy@skorpio.usask.ca
>(I am a terminator.) wrote:
>
>> FAQ time. Do computer viruses have intelligence?
>
>Nope. Only a set of choices (and that's only the most advanced ones).
>
>Cheers,
>
># Tor Houghton

        I think a better question might be: "Are Computer viruses alive?".  
They replicate, store information, and evolve (with help).

        A interesting article on this subject is:

        J. Doyne Farmer and Alletta d'A. Belin, "Artificial Life: The Coming 
Evolution", In `Artificial Life II', Edited by Christopher G. Langton, Charles 
Taylor, J. Doyne Farmer and Steen Rasmussen, Proceedings Vol.  X, Santa Fe
Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, pp. 815-840.  Redwood City, 
CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1992.

There are many more interesting articles on artificial life topics in this 
book.

        Richard Nistuk
        ph36@unixg.ubc.ca         nistuk@troll.physics.ubc.ca
From: aj639@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu
Subject: ICASS AI
Date: 8 Sep 1992 18:31:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: aj639@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Cox)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I just heard this term and was wondering what it meant andwhat it does.

Anyone, anyone?

Mike
-- 
Okay, look for AmoNER Disk #4 on:
ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (128.174.5.59) in /amiga/amoner
nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) in /pub/amiga/programming/amos
From: ndiaye@sol.cs.uni-sb.de (Alassane &)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu
Subject: REFERENCES
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:29:18 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Saarbruecken -- Germany

hello netters,

what is Resource-Limited Reasoning? is it the same as anytime algorithms?
any hint would be appreciated.
thanks.

alassane -- ndiaye@cs.uni-sb.de
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
|NET: ndiaye@cs.uni-sb.de				    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|POST: Alassane NDIAYE   	   |                        |
|      FB 14 - Informatik IV	   | PHONE: +49-681-302-4135|
|      Universitaet des Saarlandes |                        |
|      Im Stadtwald 15		   |------------------------|
|      D-6600 Saarbruecken 11	   | FAX:   +49-681-302-4421|
|      Federal Republic of Germany |			    |
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: ndiaye@sol.cs.uni-sb.de (Alassane &)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu
Subject: REFERENCES
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:26:47 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Saarbruecken -- Germany

hello netters,
I'd like to implement a distributed negotiation architecture, where I
have n agents, which are grouped in teams of m agents (m is variable).
these m-agents can be involved in the processing of a task (e.g.
planning, parsing, ...). these m-agents then have to negotiate locally and
to decide, which of them will solve the task according to some
constraints (eg. resource limitation, time, skills, etc.)
the agents are realised as CLOS-classes and the messages as CLOS-methods.
some important questions I've been investigating are how to realise
the distributed control and how to modelise the negotiation framework?

I'd be very glad for every hint about literatur or implemeted systems.
please e-mail me directly. thanks in advance
-------------------------------------------------------------
|NET: ndiaye@cs.uni-sb.de				    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|POST: Alassane NDIAYE   	   |                        |
|      FB 14 - Informatik IV	   | PHONE: +49-681-302-4135|
|      Universitaet des Saarlandes |                        |
|      Im Stadtwald 15		   |------------------------|
|      D-6600 Saarbruecken 11	   | FAX:   +49-681-302-4421|
|      Federal Republic of Germany |			    |
-------------------------------------------------------------
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
|NET: ndiaye@cs.uni-sb.de				    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|POST: Alassane NDIAYE   	   |                        |
|      FB 14 - Informatik IV	   | PHONE: +49-681-302-4135|
|      Universitaet des Saarlandes |                        |
|      Im Stadtwald 15		   |------------------------|
|      D-6600 Saarbruecken 11	   | FAX:   +49-681-302-4421|
|      Federal Republic of Germany |			    |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.ai.edu:417 sci.cognitive:407
From: scduncan@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Sean C. Duncan)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu,sci.cognitive
Subject: CogSci Grad Program List?
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:40:44 GMT
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

If anyone happens to have the list of Cognitive Science graduate programs,
could you please mail it to me?  I seem to have lost mine recently.

Thanks,
-- 
Sean C. Duncan, scd@einstein.bgsu.edu :: scduncan@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
_______________________________________________________________________
From: asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu
Subject: Re: REFERENCES
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:27:42 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <NDIAYE.92Sep10102918@sol.cs.uni-sb.de> ndiaye@sol.cs.uni-sb.de (Alassane &) writes:
>hello netters,
>
>what is Resource-Limited Reasoning? is it the same as anytime algorithms?
>any hint would be appreciated.
>thanks.
>
>alassane -- ndiaye@cs.uni-sb.de

Resource Limited Reasoning recognizes the fact that the world may change
during the time that reasoning is taking place thus making obsolete the
premises on which that reasoning was based. It also recognizes that there
is no such thing as "perfect" or even adequate knowledge of the world. 
So it studies techniques to do reasoning in such situations. 

Resource limited reasoning besides having a philosophical content relies
on a lot of techniques of which anytime algorithms are a part. Theres lots
more to Resource Limited Reasoning than just those however. 

I had taken a seminar given by Martha Pollack last term at the University
of Pittsburgh, if you are interested in references send me e-mail and I 
will mail them to you.

Anandeep Pannu
From: ed14+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Duh)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu
Subject: CLIPS Conference Proceeding
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:30:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.IeeY0pS00WB6I5QnUe
Organization: Masters student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I am looking for the following conference proceedings:

1) NASA Johnson Space Center First CLIPS Users Conference Proceedings
2) NASA Johnson Space Center Second CLIPS Users Conference Proceedings

I'd appreciate if anyone tell me the publisher and the ordering
information.

Regards,

Edward S. Duh
Graduate School of Industrial Administration
Carnegie Mellon University
Internet: ed14@andrew.cmu.edu
From: zb@laotzu.doc.ic.ac.uk (Zacharias Bobolakis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Elephant2000
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:13:09 GMT
Organization: Imperial College, London, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: laotzu.doc.ic.ac.uk


Any pointers to John McCarthy's language Elephant2000? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Zac.
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets
From: vankay@enel.ucalgary.ca (Vidyasagar Vankayala)
Subject: Fuzzy Logic for Video Recorder Stabilization ?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:04:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Keywords: Fuzzy Logic, video recorder stabilization, references wanted


Hi

Could some one suggest some references/earlier work on using fuzzy
logic for stabilizing video recorders ?

Please email responses to vankay@enel.ucalgary.ca. I will summarize if
there is enough interest.


thanx for your time.


Cheers,
Vidya.



-- 
Email : vankay@enel.ucalgary.ca     OR    vankayal@uncamyr.ucalgary.ca
Slogan.SCI : (Version 1.0.0)
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3468 alt.hypertext:766 comp.ai.edu:419
From: wagener@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Pamela Pincha-Wagener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,alt.hypertext,comp.ai.edu
Subject: Re: Number of Expert Systems currently in use
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:15:58 GMT
Followup-To: comp.ai
Distribution: comp,alt
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

I've got in hand a list of "expert systems" that the US Department of
Interior put out for the Coal Mining industry. They use these
as ways to get out information to coal mines on how to control
methane and respirable dust, improve underground production,
and analyze fan problems.

They are:
		FanPro
		Scrubberpro
		SprayPro
		Longwall Production Assistant
		Drumpro for longwalls
		Dustpro for longwalls
		Sealed Gob Assistant
		Dustpro for Continuous Miners
		Methpro
		Spontaneous Combustion Expert System

For more information contact
	Fred Kissel
	Bureau of Mines
	Pittsburg Research Center
	P.O.Box 18070
	Cochrans Mill Road
	Pittsburg, PA 15236

	Ph. (412) 892-6679
	Fax (412) 892-4259
From: nau@frabjous.cs.umd.edu (Dana Nau)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,rec.puzzles
Subject: Re: How do I solve the 8/15... Puzzle (was (Is it connected))
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:50:07 GMT
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742


   From: matthew@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Matthew McDonald)
   Newsgroups: comp.ai,rec.puzzles
   Date: 8 Sep 92 04:10:03 GMT
   Organization: Psychology Department, University of Queensland

	   I believe there's a very simple algorithm for these puzzles
   that will reach the solution in a reasonable number of moves.

	   Could anybody tell me what algorithm is? (Most puzzle books
   seem to only use Loyd's 15 puzzle to illustrate parity, saying that
   actually solving the puzzle is trivial...)

	   I can see plenty of ways of doing it but none of them are 
   both simple and efficient for the larger versions of the puzzle.
   (I do have a serious reason for wanting to know...)

It *is* trivial, provided that you are satisfied with a
less-than-optimal solution (i.e., one that takes more than the least
possible number of moves).  When I was a kid, I could solve the
15-puzzle in a few seconds, using the following simple-minded
algorithm:

    for i = 1 to n (where n is the total number of tiles)
	put tile i into its proper place,
	    while preserving the locations of tiles 1 through i-1

The only place there's any problem is that you have to temporarily
disturb the tiles in the second-to-last row in order to get the tiles
in the last row into their proper order.  But there's a simple
procedure for that, too.  Try it a few times and you'll probably
figure it out.

I haven't taken the time to do a proper complexity analysis, but I
believe the total number of moves for this algorithm is no worse than
O(n^4).
--
	Dana S. Nau
	Computer Science Dept.		Internet:  nau@cs.umd.edu
	University of Maryland		UUCP:  uunet!mimsy!nau
	College Park, MD 20742		Telephone:  (301) 405-2684
Newsgroups: comp.ai,aus.ai
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: Internet Nomic
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:49:29 GMT

In article <gardner.714985870@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au>, gardner@cs.monash.edu.au () writes:
|> Hi everybody,
|> 
|> Following interest I received in the game Nomic, A Self-Modifying Game Based
|> On Reflexivity In Law,

|> Nomic is a game where each move consists in a proposal by one of the players
|> to change the rules in some fashion. This proposal is then voted on by the
|> other players. It is clear that, after some time, the game being played may
|> resemble only in spirit the game that was initially embarked upon. 
|> 
|> The initial set of rules for the game are contained in Douglas R. Hofstadter's
|> wonderful book, _Metamagical Themas_, in (I think) ch. 4. The rules are
|> quite lengthy, but graspable. They were written by Peter Suber, and an updates
|> version appears in recent book _The Paradox Of Self-Amendment_ (Peter Lang
|> Publishers, 1990)

How about a game of Calvinball? You have to play this with an orange furball
named Hobbes.

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: schuette@wl.com (Wade Schuette)
Subject: Re: Legality of Expert Systems
Keywords: liability, legality
Organization: Warner Lambert / Parke-Davis
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:58:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.181516.4165@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> chesney@golden.cps.msu.edu (David R Chesney) writes:
>Has anyone done any work on liability issues as related to knowledge 
>based systems?  Example:  I confer with an expert and I build an
>expert system for air traffic control.  This system is then used
>at an airport by a air traffic controller.  Plane go booom!  Who's 
>responsible, the original expert who gave incorrect advice, the
>knowledge engineer who built the system, or the air traffic controller 
>who used the incorrect information?
>
>Dave


The FDA has done some thinking about this, in regard to what constitutes
a medical device and who is responsible.  At the current time only a person
is allowed to be responsible, or your software is a "medical device" if it
makes decisions and alters the patient.  (excluding room thermostats, I guess.)
 
Quesition of liability raises the issue of Licensing the practitioners in 
the field, so you have something you can remove, along with a whole set
of Specialty Board exams. 

A related question is, at what point will a Physician or Hospital be 
successfully sued for FAILING to use an expert system which CLEARLY would
have PREVENTED the problem which followed.  (Best use of "expert systems"
possibly being to replace the BOTTOM third of the bell-curve of performance.) 
Forget even "expert".   At what point will a hospital in which a patient dies
due to a milligram per kilogram error in dosing, which could trivially have
been caught by a system which knew the drug, the patient weight, etc., be 
sued for failing to use such a system.     Radio were not required on ships
until an insurance company rejected a claim from a ship which ran aground
in a storm off long Island, when the company said use of a radio would have
alerted the captain and the loss would not have occurred -- suddenly all 
ships got radios.

Wade

D
D
Whole question of liabilityu 
-- 
====================================================================
R. Wade Schuette     |  All opinions expressed are personal.| B>   |
Ann Arbor, MI USA    |                                      |   :) |
schuette@wl.com      |   *** "Synergize Scientists!"  ***   | B>   |
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
From: mark_turnbull.g033@qmgate.mitre.org (Mark Turnbull)
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:58:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.200121.4383@Princeton.EDU> 
harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) wrote:

> The real point of the TT is that if we had a
> pen-pal whom we had corresponded with for a lifetime, we would never
> need to have seen him to infer that he had a mind. So if a machine
> pen-pal could do the same thing, it would be arbitrary to deny it had a
> mind just because it was a machine. That's all there is to it!

> It is arbitrary to
> ask for more from a machine than I ask from a person, just because it's
> a machine (especially since no one knows yet what either a person or a
> machine REALLY is). So if the pen-pal TT is enough to allow us to
> correctly infer that a real person has a mind, then it must by the same
> token be enough to allow us to make the same inference about a
> computer, given that the two are totally indistinguishable to us.

>  Neither the appearance of the candidate nor
> any facts about biology play any role in my judgment about my human pen
> pal, so there is no reason the same should not be true of my
> TT-indistinguishable machine pen-pal.

Well, that's all there would be to it if, whenever I embarked on a 
lifetime pen-pal relationship, I could make no reasonable assumptions 
about the nature of the pen-pal.  I wouldn't arbitrarily deny a pen-pal 
its mind just because I knew it to be a machine of a different type than I 
am, nor would I expect its performance to be better in any respect than 
that of the human I assume has a mind, but isn't there a lot left out if one 
takes the responses, verbal and otherwise, of a device, to be the only 
relevant (and indeed, sufficient) information to be used in judging the 
presence of a mind?  I'm not willing to jettison all the other things I 
believe about my currently likely pen-pals and state that biological facts 
play no part in my assessment of the chances that my correspondent has a 
mind.  The TT is only "enough to allow us to correctly infer that a real 
person has a mind" with the appropriate background information.  Of 
course, you may be saying (and may have said elsewhere) that we have no 
reason to even consider anything other than the responses and that those 
who do consider other factors ought to rethink their habits ... 

I'll feel a lot more confident about making inferences about "having a 
mind" after we DO know "what a person REALLY is."  And, of course, 
creating an artifact that passes TT, TTT, and perhaps TTTT ought to at 
least provide some good clues about that.  Until then, I don't know why I 
should consider expert performance by a device dissimilar to myself to be 
evidence of anything but expert performance by a device dissimilar to 
myself.


Mark Turnbull
all my opinions are products of the Zeitgeist only, NOT my employer or 
school
mark_turnbull.g033@qmgate.mitre.org OR turnbull@cns.bu.edu
From: tyleri@rhqvm19.VNET.IBM.COM (Irv Tyler)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 10:58:57 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: AI Programing Language
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

This thread is confusing an AI paradigm/strategem with an implementation
language.  Any AI paradigm can be implemented in a large
variety of ways, using a variety of languages and/or shells.  Certain
paradigms lend themselves better to one or another language/shell depending
on the platform (mainframe, workstation, etc.), the environment (batch, online,
DOS, OS/2...) and the nature of the problem domain.  Also to consider are the
required minimum performance/response time/turnaround time and the skill of the
developer in the use of the selected implementation language/shell.  Often an
unskilled implementation in a "more appropriate" language can turn out to be
poorer (from a number of viewpoints) than a skilled implementation using a
less appropriate language/shell.  Even Assembler Language can be used to
advantage in the right circumstances by the right individual - whether
AI-related or not.
Irv Tyler
+------------------ With Apologies to Rod Serling ---------------------+
| There is  a fifth  dimension  beyond  that which  is  known  to man. |
| It is  the middle ground  between  light and  shadow,  between craft |
| and profession, between derivative and creative, between conventional|
| and  extraordinary,  between  understanding  and  judgment,  between |
| practical and unsaleable.  And it lies between  the pit of our fears |
| and  the  summit  of  our  knowledge.   This  is  the  dimension  of |
| imagination -- it is an area we call "The Twilight Zone".            |
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: rkorczyk@sadis05.sa.aflc.af.mil (RICK KORCZYK - SCDR (AI LAB))
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.shells,comp.robotics,comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE/EXPERT SYSTEMS SYMPOSIUM
Summary: AI/ES Symposium
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Symposium
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:01:44 GMT
Followup-To: comp.ai
Distribution: comp.misc,comp.programming,dod.general
Organization: 1923CCSG/SC Kelly AFB, San Antonio, TX


        ************************************************************
        *                                                          *
        *                     The Third Annual                     *
        *                                                          *
        *     Artificial Intelligence/Expert Systems Symposium     *
        *                                                          *
        ************************************************************

        What:   Third Annual AI/ES Symposium

        Where:  Kelly AFB, San Antonio  TX

        When:   6-7 October

        Details:  The Public is invited to view exhibitions in AI/ES
                  starting 6 Oct 0900 and ending 7 Oct 1200.
                  On exhibit will be products from AI vendors from all
                  over the United States as well as projects developed
                  for the Air Force.
                  Sponsored by the Communications/Computer Systems
                  Directorate and the Office of Chief Scientist
                  Engineer, the Symposium will also feature workshops
                  featuring Robotics, Neural Networks, and Intelligent
                  Tutorial Systems.
                  Both government and industry leaders will be
                  speaking on the application of this technology.


                  For more information contact:

          Phone:  Kevin Frisbie (512) 925-7611

          E-mail: kfrisbie@sadis02.sa.aflc.af.mil