HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ie-list@cs.ucl.ac.uk (IE Digest Moderator)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Intelligent systems for Economics digest
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:13:58 GMT



     Announcing the Intelligent systems for Economics digest (IE-digest)
     -------------------------------------------------------------------

The Intelligent  systems  for Economics  digest  aims to  act  as a  forum  to
exchange ideas  on  using  `intelligent'  techniques  to  model  economic  and
financial systems.

Techniques  which  were  originally  developed  to  model  psychological   and
biological processes are  now receiving  considerable attention  as tools  for
modelling and understanding economic and financial processes. These techniques
which include neural networks, genetic  algorithms and expert systems are  now
being used  in a  wide  variety of  applications  including the  modelling  of
economic cycles, modelling of artificial economies, portfolio optimisation and
credit evaluation.

The IE-digest will carry announcements  of papers, calls for papers,  requests
for information and will act as a medium for researchers to exchange ideas  in
this rapidly growing research area. The format of the IE-digest is similar
to other moderated forums such as the "neuron-digest".  

A depository has been set up to deposit papers, bibliographies, and  software,
which can be accessed via FTP. Past issues of the IE-digest will also be  kept
there.


* The Relevant Technologies

Neural networks, Genetic Algorithms, Classifier Systems, Expert Systems,
Fuzzy Logic, Rule Induction, Dynamical Systems Theory (Chaos Theory),
Artificial Life techniques and Hybrid Systems combining these technologies.


* The IE-digest welcomes postings on the application of these
  technologies in the following areas. (The list is not exhaustive).

  Economic Applications:
  Modelling artificial economies, Forecasting economic time series,  modelling
  behavioural Decision Making, modelling the evolution of economic webs,
  modelling economic development, modelling structural changes in economies
  and Artificial Adaptive Agents.


  Financial Applications:
  Portfolio Optimisation, Forecasting and modelling Financial Markets,
  Understanding Financial News, Risk Management, Trading Systems,
  Credit Evaluation, Bond Rating, and Modelling Artificial Traders and Markets,
  and other related applications.


 Send administrative requests (additions, deletions to the list etc) to:

                                     IE-list-request@cs.ucl.ac.uk

 Send contributions to:
                                     IE-list@cs.ucl.ac.uk


 (For users in the UK, IE-list-request@uk.ac.ucl.cs
                       IE-list@uk.ac.ucl.cs)


 The archive for papers,software, and back issues can be accessed via
 anonymous ftp; 
               at  cs.ucl.ac.uk    - The directory name is:   ie
                   (128.16.5.31)

[The documents are available by FTAM and can be for NIFTP and info-server too.]


 List Moderator: Suran Goonatilake, Dept. of Computer Science,
                 University College London, Gower St., London WC1E 6BT, UK

                 surang@cs.ucl.ac.uk
From: chesney@golden.cps.msu.edu (David R Chesney)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Legality of Expert Systems
Keywords: liability, legality
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:15:16 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University

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
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
From: forbis@carson.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:16:20 GMT

Hi, 

I believe your central point is well taken but I wish to convince you that
a small side issue weakens the overall argument.

In article <1992Sep6.200121.4383@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>                  THE TURING TEST IS NOT A TRICK:
>      TURING INDISTINGUISHABILITY IS A SCIENTIFIC CRITERION

[much deleted]

>In my own papers I have tried to explain how trickery, deception and
>impersonation have nothing at all to do with the scientific import of
>Turing's criterion (Harnad 1989, 1991). AI is not a party game. The
>game was just a metaphor. 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!

I agree with this and wish to support it.

>In fact, one of the reasons no computer has yet passed the TT may be that
>even successful TT capacity has to draw upon robotic capacity. A TT
>computer pen-pal alone could not even tell you the color of the flower
>you had enclosed with its birthday letter -- or indeed that you had
>enclosed a flower at all, unless you mention it in your letter. An
>infinity of possible interactions with the real world, interactions of
>which each of us is capable, is completely missing from the TT (and
>again, "tricks" have nothing to do with it).

I wish you would relax this criterion just a bit.  I think that while some
interaction with the real world is required, a mechanical pen-pal need not
have the ability to pass the TTT.

Consider...

Many of us have played video games at some time during our life.  These
video games have a pretty sophisticated display and very simple controls.
The experience of playing the video game involves very little outside the
game and the player.  If a TTPP had a buffer from the video display memory
of the video game and could output the control bits to the machine it could
gain knowledge of the game though the way it did so might in no way be
mistaken for TTT capable.

Likewise, a movie might be digitalized and processed by the TTPP in a way
completely different from the way a human might view a movie.

Computer animation is becoming ever more realistic though its production is
not real time, however, real time VR is not required by a TTPP whose processing
is not real time.

While the failure of a TTPP may be attributed to the failure of the model it
"experiences", to the extent that model approximates reality (as understood
by the person evaluating the TTPP,) the "experiencing" of the model would
seem sufficient.

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Danny Faught)
Subject: Re: What really is AI?
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:21:22 GMT

When you back up to the philosophical level, hardware and software are
basically the same thing.   The only difference is speed (hardware is
faster) and flexibility (software can be changed more easily).

Is there any evidence that the "software" and "hardware" of the brain
are really distinct either?
-- 
Danny Faught    danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu
Save this sig - I'll be famous someday
Newsgroups: comp.ai,aus.ai,syd.seminar
From: timm@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Menzies)
Subject: UNSW AI SEMINAR: 11/9: Compton on Qualitative Reasoning
Reply-To: timm@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Menzies)
Organization: none
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:33:40 GMT

               University of New South Wales

         School of Computer Science and Engineering

             Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

                       Seminar Series

TITLE:         The Meaning of Qmod

WHO:           Paul Compton, Com. Sci. UNSW

WHEN:          1-2pm, Friday, 11 Sept, 1992.

ABSTRACT:      The QMOD algorithm has been the  backbone  of
               the    hypothesis  testing    research    for
               several   years  now.  Real-world  hypotheses
               in  the  domain of  neuro-endocrinology  have
               been analysed  using   QMOD.   However,   the
               QMOD   algorithm   has  not  been  as   well-
               specified  as  other   (less-used)   qualita-
               tive  modelling   algorithms.   This  seminar
               presents a more precise description  of  QMOD
               to provide a basis for further  develop- ment
               of this algorithm.

WHERE:         Rm 212, Samuel Building,  University  of  New
               South Wales. Enter off Botany Street, stop at
               gate and  ask  grey  men  for  day  pass  and
               instructions.  Park  in  the main car park on
               your left.  The Samuels bulding is  the  gray
               building   directly  behind  the  gates  with
               strange shield-like objects over the windows.

INQUIRIES:     timm@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Menzies)

--------------------------------------------------------------

                       PLEASE NOTE:

If you have a seminar that you would like to present at this
forum, contact Tim.
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: "Jan Van den Bussche" <vdbuss@bigeye.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Table tennis playing machine
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington (guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:36:51 -0500

I am looking for a text that discusses and explains why it is so difficult to
design and construct a machine that plays, say, table tennis. 

If possible, please reply by e-mail.  Thanks in advance.

Best wishes, --Jan Van den Bussche
Newsgroups: comp.ai,bionet.biology,computational
From: valdes+@CS.CMU.EDU (Raul Valdes-Perez)
Subject: postdoc in computational biology
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:40:22 GMT

We are seeking candidates for a post-doctoral fellowship at Carnegie
Mellon University in the area of Computational Biology (Cell Biology).
The fellow would carry out computational research on specific
biological problems in collaboration with members of the School of
Computer Science and the Center for Light Microscope Imaging and
Biotechnology.

The ideal candidate would likely hold a recent Ph.D. in Computer
Science (e.g., Artificial Intelligence or Computer Vision), possess
some knowledge of Biology, especially Cell Biology, and demonstrate an
inclination to enter deeply into real-life problems drawn from the
natural sciences.
   
Inquiries to:

Dr. Raul Valdes-Perez
School of Computer Science 
(or Center for Light Microscope Imaging and Biotechnology)
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

FAX: 412 681 5739
TEL: 412 268 7127
Internet: valdes@cs.cmu.edu
From: popx@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: error tolerant English parser
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:46:40 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Sep7.005009.11353@latcs1.lat.oz.au>, jiang@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jiansheng Jiang) writes:
> Most of existing natural language parsers are designed to analyze structurally 
> correct sentences. For the purpose of second language learning, this is not 
> enough, since beginners of a new language often make some structural errors. I
> am currently looking for some parsers that can not only work as a recogniser 
> (that is, simply say 'no' to a structurally ill-formed sentence) but are 
> actually able to do some sort of analysis to ill-formed sentence. I find some 
> parsers based on Marcus' deterministic parsing theory belong to this type, but 
> I think there must be other approaches but don't know what they are. The 
> particular questions I have are:
> 
>   1. are there any approaches better than using ad-hoc methods for analysing 
> sentences containing structural errors?
> 
>   2. if there are, then are there any parsers actually developed (programmed)
> based on those approaches? Where can I find them or who can I contact to get 
> more information about them? 
>
In my Prolog library, I have a copy of Yazdani and O'Brien's "Linger"
natural-language corrector. A lot of the error-detection is ad-hoc, but
there is a systematic distinction between "weak" and "strong" syntactic 
errors: the former require less repair on the final parse tree. The
grammatical formalism has been designed so that teachers can indicate
common lexical and syntactic errors, and so that Linger can build "best-fit"
parse trees even after it detects an error. (I get this from a paper on
Linger: I'm not an expert.)

Elsewhere in your message, you said you want a Lisp version, so my code
may do you no good. However, it comes with some sample grammers for French,
English, German and Spanish, and with two papers on the design, plus
references. You can FTP it from the Imperial College archive at
    src.doc.ic.ac.uk
in the directory
    packages/prolog-pd-software
and file
    linger.tar.Z
You will need to de-compress and then de-tar it.

Don't contact me about Linger, because I had nothing to do with its
development - the authors' Email addresses are given with the files.

(Those interested: the other files in this directory are other Prolog
programs or libraries. See README (short) and CATALOGUE (long)
for details. Contributions wanted, please.)

Jocelyn Paine
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: vankay@enel.ucalgary.ca (Vidyasagar Vankayala)
Subject: Expert System Shells, Info Please
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 23:42:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Keywords: Expert system shells, info, and ftp pointers wanted
Followup-To: vankay@enel.ucalgary.ca



Hi

I need answers to the following questions. 

1)	Is there a PD version of OPS 5 or OPS 83 ?

2)	What are the tools/shells available for Expert system
	development in both PD and commercial domain ? 
	Any further info re: the suitability and connectibility to 
	C/C++ code will be highly appreciated.


If this is an FAQ, please point me to sources for info.

Thanx very much 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!
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
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 13:54:49 GMT

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

   ...

   The only open questions are (1) whether there is more than one way to
   design a candidate to pass the TTT, and if so, (2) do we then need a
   stronger test, the TTTT (neuromolecular indistinguishability), to pick
   out the one with the mind? My guess is that the constraints on the TTT
   are tight enough, being roughly the same ones that guided the Blind
   Watchmaker who designed us (evolutionary adaptations -- survival and
   reproduction -- are largely performance matters; Darwinian selection
   can no more read minds than we can).

What about a TTTT that incorporates that what is depicted in Asimovs 
`Bicentennial Man' -- not that I do not agree with a mere TTT ...


--
Carlo Misiak

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

Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: sef@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:07:24 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


    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
From: barton@latcs1.lat.OZ.AU (Douglas P Barton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Looking for Lexicon
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:24:41 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: What ORGANISATION???  This mess is total chaos!!!

Hello world!!!

I am looking for an English lexicon which has been separated into various word
categories, ie proper noun, common noun, mass noun, verb, etc...  it would be
nice if this lexicon was reasonably large too, say around 40k words...

hope someone out there can help...

advTHANXnce

-- 

Douglas Barton - barton@latcs1.oz.au
		"My ,son.  Take for thyself another world,
 		 for that which I leave thee is too small..."

And your fortune for today --

A very intelligent turtle
Found programming UNIX a hurdle
	The system, you see,
	Ran as slow as did he,
And that's not saying much for the turtle.
From: watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Petition for withdrawal of NRC report: Computing the Future
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:23:08 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>  Juris Hartmanis, the chairman of the committee
>    that wrote the report, thinks you should read the whole 200 pages
>    at $28 of it, but that's a lot to expect from a lot of people.  The
>    preface and executive summary, obtainable by ftp as described below
>    will be enough for most, since it is these parts are the most
>    objectionable.

Perhaps Juris Hartmanis could be convinced to make a machine-readable
version of the report available for free? It might also be a good
idea to post a text version of the executive summary.

While I respect the opinions and reputations of the authors of
the petition, I'd like more information before signing a petition.

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312))
Subject: Re: AI Expert Magazine, any good?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:13:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.143932.419@cactus.org> wiley@cactus.org (Mark S. Wiley) writes:
>I want to learn more about what's currently going on in AI, is AI Expert
>magazine a good source?
>-- 
>Mark S. Wiley
>mark.wiley@cactus.org

Hi Mark,

	I think AI Expert is a fairly good, up-to-date source of information,
though it is fairly technical.  I find that many of the articles go right 
over my head (I'm a fourth year physics student).  Whenever I buy a copy of 
AI Expert I sometimes think to myself "Why the HELL did I buy this?", but 
then I read an article carefully and learn somthing about genetic algorithms, 
C++, or neural networks and I feel much better.

	I also find the example programs that go with the very interesting
and instructional.  When the source code is not included, it can be obtained
via anonymous ftp (the address of the site escapes me at the moment, maybe 
me.uta.edu  ?). 

	You might also look at a "AI Magazine" and there are some IEEE 
publications.

	I hope this helps.  Contact me by email (as if I know anything) 
if you want.


Richard Nistuk
	ph36@unixg.ubc.ca
	nistuk@troll.physics.ubc.ca
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 21:01:12 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