HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rseymour@reed.edu (Robert Seymour)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: It is AI when...
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:34:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov11.093453.8107
Reply-To: rseymour@reed.edu
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <Stafford-101192104649@stafford.winona.msus.edu>  
Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
> Another foolish attempt -
> 
> Complete AI is when a machine produces useful, unsolicited
> solutions to unanticipated problems and we cannot discern 
> it's methods.

	So anything we can understand is necessarily not AI? Also, since  
discern methods is temporally conditional (I can later learn how something  
operates), is AI also subject to the same conditionality? If this is "Complete  
AI", what is "Partial AI"? To whom must the problems be unanticipated? The AI,  
or the "we" in whose subjective judgement the AI is conditional. If we keep an  
subject for AI in a community of small children, who don't anticipate many  
problems, would it be AI?
	Let us say that we place a computer chess game (with appropriate  
interface) in a community of savages. None of the savages either know chess or  
understand computers, so the machine produce unsolicited, and unanticipated  
solutions. Let us also say that the savages learn warfare tactics by watching  
the machine play itself. It is now useful, and the savages can't discern it's  
methods. Thus, its an AI. However, a paleontologist visits the community to  
study behavior of barbaric peoples. He sees the computer chess game and knows  
how it works, so in the instant he cognates the chess computer, it ceases to be  
AI. This doesn't sound good to me. Any thoughts?

--
Robert Seymour				rseymour@reed.edu
Departments of Physics and Philosophy
Artificial Life Project			Reed College
Reed Solar Energy Project (SolTrain)	Portland, OR
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A linguistical reformulation of the problem of consciousness
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:44:12 GMT

iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:

>Everything in the Universe is in third person (that, it, there, etc).
>Everything but a very little part, that is in the first person, I. What
>makes the difference? What makes a part of the universe become a first
>person? Explain it in terms of third persons alone.

>In other words, Why am I?

>--Ivan Ordonez

I would say that this is backwards.  Why not start out with the thought
that everything in the universe is in the first person.  How did a third
(or second) person arise out of this?

In other words, suppoose that we start with awareness, pure and
undifferentiated.  (See the essay "On Having No Head" in Dennett &
Hofstader (eds) _The Minds I_).  How is it that this awareness
differentiates out to become an awareness of self residing in a non-self
world?  And what mental forms are necessary and sufficient for us to
think accurately about this process?
bv
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: definition of consciousness
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:08:34 GMT


>>In article <tim.720580709@giaeb> tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au I wrote:

>>Consciousness is to the study of the brain what phlogiston is to the study of
>>combustion.

>The analogy breaks down, you say, because consciousness DOES exist.  Aha, I
>say, they said that about phlogiston too....

>What is consciousness ?  How do we know of it ?  I know of it because "I"
>exist.  Consciousness is, in fact, this "I".  How do I know "I" exist ?
>Descartes proved it.  Cogito ergo sum.  I think, therefore I am.  This has
>been central to all western cultures now for a long period.

>I hold it to be false.  I maintain that is is possible - indeed probable -
>that there is NO clear distinction between what is "I" and what is not "I".

>If you think this is hugely counter-intuitive, you're right.  I don't like
>admitting any more than you do that there is no clear distinction between me
>and everything else.  But if there isn't, then consciousness becomes so
>changed as a concept that it's hardly worth using the term any more.  Rather
>like phlogiston, in fact.

I would respond that the problem is with not having a clear definition of
consciousness.  In particular, I think that there needs to be a distinction
between consciousness and self-consciousness, the I in the Cogito being
the I of self-consciousness.  To develop a theory, then, one would need
to give the distinction, and provide a theory of how it is that
self-consciousness arises.
For example, a definition I've used: consciousness is that which is beyond
all possible distinction (a la the "what is" of Parmenides)  Distinctions
occur within consciousness and out of these distinctions and their
interactions certain structures appear which eventually organize into
a self-structure which becomes an object of intentional identification,
resulting in a self-consciousness which thinks of itself as a distinct I.
On this basis I would say that there is:
a) A clear difference between me and you (experiences, etc.);
b) A similarity between us in terms of the structures and processes which
gave rise to and support our self structures;
c) an identity of our consciousness (since it is beyond distinctions)
All the rest of the exposition is a matter of filling in the theoretical
detail, an exercise left to the student...
bv
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: Rick.Horowitz@launchpad.unc.edu (Rick Horowitz)
Subject: talk.philosophy.language?
Summary: Could we form a new unmoderated group?
Keywords: new newsgroup, talk.philosophy.language, unmoderated
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:54:28 GMT

I've not seen enough stuff in the philosophy groups which focuses on
philosophy of language topics.  I'm wondering about the possibility of 
getting a group going which would discuss topics in philosophy of
language, philosophy of linguistics, theories of meaning and truth, 
including cognitive theories, behaviourist theories, intensional
theories, issues in pragmatics, speech act theory, reference, naming, 
...and the works of philosophers like Putnam, Dummett, Davidson,
Searle, Donnellan, Evans, etc., etc., etc.

Is there interest to justify such a group?  How does one start such a 
group?  

I know the reason I favor starting one is that I haven't seen enough of
these kinds of discussions on the other philosophy groups, and I'm
hoping that the existence of a group with a name like
"talk.philosophy.language" would inspire more discussion. 

Please feel free to e-mail me at my "home" address:  

rhorowit@mondrian.csufresno.edu    OR
rick@csufres.csufresno.edu         OR
gavagai@aol.com  (use as last ditch effort only)

Rick Horowitz     CSUF, Philosophy     rhorowit@mondrian.csufresno.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  It's a little known fact that the etymology of the word "politics"
    is traced through the words "poly" meaning "many" and "ticks"
        meaning "blood-sucking creatures."  -- Source Unknown

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: gh@cs.toronto.edu (Graeme Hirst)
Subject: Faculty position in computational linguistics
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:42:18 GMT

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

The Department invites applications for a tenure-track position in any
area of Computer Science.  Priority will be given to applicants with
expertise in computational linguistics or software engineering.

Salary and rank will be determined according to the successful
applicant's experience and qualifications.

The appointment is to commence July 1st, 1993.  Duties will consist of
research, graduate student supervision, and teaching at the
undergraduate and graduate levels.  Apply in writing to:

  Professor Allan B. Borodin, Acting Chairman
  Department of Computer Science    
  University of Toronto  
  Toronto, Ontario
  Canada  M5S 1A4

together with curriculum vitae, and the names of at least three
references.  Deadline for application is January 31st, 1993.

In accordance with Canadian immigration regulations, priority will be
given to Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada.  The
University of Toronto encourages both women and men to apply for
positions.
From: pat@cs.strath.ac.uk (Pat Prosser)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: efficient calculation of path distances in temporal databases.
Keywords: Temporal reasoning, path distance, backtracking
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:36:52 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.

Suggest you might start by looking at:

  R. Dechter, I. Meiri and J. Pearl
  Temporal Constraint Networks
  Artificial Intelligence, volume 49, Numbers 1-3, May 1991, pages 61-96

Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: bilgic@phoenix.rose.utoronto.ca (Taner Bilgic)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.ai.fuzzy
Organization: University of Toronto, Department of Industrial Engineering
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:40:43 GMT

What is being discussed now? I haven't been following the newsgroups for
a while. Is the name comp.ai.fuzzy finalized?

Cheers,
--
Taner Bilgic                      bilgic@phoenix.rose.utoronto.ca
Dept. of Industrial Engineering   bilgic@spring.rose.toronto.edu
University of Toronto             Tel:(416) 978-1280
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4 Canada   Fax:(416) 978-1279
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: kka@tko.vtt.fi (Kansala Klaus)
Subject: ops5c for msdos, where ?
Organization: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Oulu
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:44:35 GMT

Hello,

does anybody if and where I could get an ops5c compiler.
I know such one exists for Amiga, but does it exist for MSDOS/PC-Machine
as well ?

Any hints are highly appreciated.

Please reply to: jmh@tko.vtt.fi

With kind regards

Klaus
From: bienk@triceratops.erg.sri.com (Marie Bienkowski)
Subject: Disaster Management request
Reply-To: bienk@triceratops.erg.sri.com (Marie Bienkowski)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 23:15:44 GMT

Could whoever posted the summary on training for disaster mgmt 
please repost or e-mail it to me?  
I didn't save the article before it expired from
our newsreader

Thanks,
MarieB		
bienk@erg.sri.com
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Reply to Ginsberg, Blenko, Whedon RE Loebner Test
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:30:25 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Nov6.202339.19045@cs.ucla.edu> colby@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Kenneth Colby) writes:
>No program could pass a completely unrestricted Turing test anymore than a    
>human could.  No single human has all the knowledge of all the domains
>of all the humans in the world.

Now wait a minute!  The idea of the TT is "can it be distinguished
from a human?".  Humans therefore ought to be able to pass it.  
Moreover, since humans do not have all the world's knowledge at
their command, machines whose performance was indistinguishable
from a human's wouldn't have to either.

(By "indistinguishable" I mean only that, based only on what comes
over the teletype, our best efforts to reliably pick (think Star Trek)
out the real humans fail.)

-- jd
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: whedon@netcom.com (Bill Whedon)
Subject: Re: Loebner Turing test for Human like conversation
Keywords: Loebner, turing, natural language
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:26:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.231937.29963@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.212849.7986@cs.ucla.edu> colby@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
>(Kenneth Colby) writes:
>
>>Does anyone have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions about the article 
>>or the [Loebner] competition.
>
>In my (humble?) opinion, the Loebner test is a joke.  The whole
>*point* of the Turing test, and the reason it is interesting, is that
>the domain of interaction between the human and the machine is not
>restricted.  By adding an artificial restriction, Loebner (or whoever
>else is responsible) misses the point entirely.
>
>I see no reason to believe that success at the Loebner test is in any
>way related to making progress on AI's real goals.  So here we are,
>continuing AI's established tradition of generating a tremendous
>amount of publicity while making no real progress.  No wonder the
>funding agencies are sick of us.
>
>						Matt Ginsberg

I agree entirely.  Loebner completely subverts the intent of the Turing test,
and should be disregarded, save as a subset of same.  Perhaps it would be more
accurate to call it the "Loebner Restricted-Domain Conversation Test".  This
is in no way meant to imply that it has no usefulness, simply that its uses
would more likely be in the circumscribed arenas of specific applications.
Bill Whedon   whedon@netcom.com
 
-- 
-- "Illegitimatida non Carborundum es" --
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Automatic Mathematician
From: Tony_Garnockjones@kcbbs.gen.nz (Tony Garnockjones)
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:42:20 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

Does anybody have any references on material about the program Automatic 
Mathematician by Dr. Lenat from the '70s? It was written in LISP... 
sorry, that's all I know about it, but I am really interested in it 
and also it's successor, EURISKO and any other more recent works.

Thankyou in advance,
Tony Garnock-Jones
Tony_Garnockjones@kcbbs.gen.nz
From: Stefan Kirn
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: ISAI working groups
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:53:38 GMT
Organization: Uni Muenster



-------------   Please Distribute This File Further   -------------


                        ISAI WORKING GROUPS
                        ===================

Some days ago the International Society of Applied Intelligence 
(ISAI) October 1992 regular posting has been distributed. Among 
others this posting included an announcement of working groups in 
the areas of BUILDING ARCHITECTURE, PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, and 
FINANCE.
According to the preliminary announcements that have been made at 
the 1992 IEA&AIE conference at Paderborn the following people have 
taken the initiative and, in case of interest, shall be contacted 
personally:

ISAI working group "AI in BUILDING ARCHITECTURE":

   Michael Lenart
   Florida International University
   School of Design, Miami, FL. 33199
   email: lenartm@servax.bitnet

   or:

   Gesamthochschule Kassel
   FB 12
   Henschelstr. 2
   D-3500 Kassel
   Germany
   email: lenart@urz.uni-kassel.dbp.de

 
ISAI working group "AI in PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT":

   Joerg Schneider
   University of Hagen
   Dept. of Production Management
   P.O.B. 940
   D-5800 Hagen 1
   Germany
 
ISAI working group "AI in FINANCE":

 
   Stefan Kirn
   Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster
   Institut fuer Wirtschaftsinformatik
   Grevener Str. 91
   D-4400 Muenster
   ---------------

   Germany
   
   phone:   +49 251 92 75 59
   fax:     +49 251 83 97 54
   email:   kirns@uni-muenster.de
   


Kindly yours



Stefan Kirn
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: u8123033@cc.nctu.edu.tw ()
Subject: Handwriting OCR of Newton
Organization: National Chiao Tung University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:26:13 GMT

Hello all,
    I'm interested in the handwriting recognization technology
used on Newton of Apple. Does anyone out there have experience
about it, or where can I find information?
    It's said that the technology is from Russia, is that true?

             is81033@weber.cis.nctu.edu.tw
From: simmons@quark2.aero.org (CHARLES SIMMONS)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Distributed Expert Systems
Date: 5 Nov 1992 10:58 -0800
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: simmons@arecibo.aero.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: quark2.aero.org
Keywords: expert systems, distributed, protocol, communication
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I'm looking for information on communication protocols for distributed
expert systems. Are there any de facto standards emerging in this area?
Can anyone recommend any articles or books related to this? Thanks!

-Charles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Charles Simmons				
The Aerospace Corp.				(310) 336-3151
2350 East El Segundo Blvd			simmons@arecibo.aero.org
El Sequndo, CA 90245			"I can't think of a clever line today"
Mail Station M8-108			 
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: erik@til.til.com (Erik Horstkotte)
Subject: Re: RFD -- where to put "fuzzy"?
Organization: Togai InfraLogic, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:17:21 GMT

In article <ELIAS.92Nov12170212@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU>, elias@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU (Doug Elias) writes:

|> i'd prefer:
|>   "sci.fuzzy_set_theory"
|> or
|>   "sci.math.fuzzy_set_theory"

Both are too long.  No element of a newsgroup names should be longer
than 14 characters, and non-alphanumerics aren't a real good idea.
fuzzy_set_theory is 16 chars and has underscores.

|> or
|>   "sci.logic.fuzzy"

This is my favorite also.  Should we go ahead and take a straw poll
on the name?

|> ...but, having said that, i gotta admit that i don't really care where
|> it ends up, i'll participate regardless...

As will I.
-- 
Erik Horstkotte, Togai InfraLogic, Inc.
The World's Source for Fuzzy Logic Solutions (The company, not me!)
erik@til.com, gordius!til!erik - (714) 975-8522
info@til.com for info, fuzzy-server@til.com for fuzzy mail-server
From: marie@paris.erg.sri.com (Marie desJardins)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: TOP? Graduate Programs in AI
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:34:50 GMT
Reply-To: marie@paris.erg.sri.com (Marie desJardins)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA


In article <1992Nov7.235144.12677@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
|> CMU		100
|> Toronto		 85
|> U Oregon	 75
|> UCLA		 75
|> MIT		 75
|> U Washington	 65
|> Stanford	 60
|> 
|> After that is a fairly large group (U Maryland, Penn, Pitt, Rochester,
|> Yale come to mind) that is probably around 45.  Then another large group
|> (U Texas Austin, Irvine, Waterloo and surely others) that is in the high
|> 30's.

I'd rank Rutgers and Berkeley at least as high as UCLA (although
I'd probably rank Stanford higher than Matt has put it, and Toronto
lower, and...)

The real problem is that different schools are good in different
areas of AI.  A school that has a great machine learning group is
not necessarily going to be doing interesting research in
computational linguistics or knowledge representation or
intelligent tutoring systems.  And then there's the fact that
even at a top-notch university, you're only talking about a few
faculty members in your area of interest, and if you don't happen
to hit it off with them you're not going to be very happy.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist, just to point out that all of these
lists (including Matt's, as he himself pointed out) should be taken
with a big grain of salt.  They can be useful tools for starting the
process of investigating grad schools, but you need to follow up:
write to faculty members at the schools you're interested in, look
in recent conference proceedings and journals, and talk to other graduate
students.  You're going to be spending 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or ...
a lot of years in grad school; it's worth putting a fair amount of
effort into finding out which place is best for you.

Marie desJardins
marie@erg.sri.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: colby@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Kenneth Colby)
Subject: Re: Loebner Turing test for Human like conversation
Keywords: Loebner, turing, natural language
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:57:53 GMT


Kehler at Harvard mistakenly thinks from second-hand information
that all the programs in the Loebner competition were ELIZA-like
"or worse".

Much depends on the level of description being used for likeness
comparison.  All computer programs can be said to be ELIZA-like
in the sense that at the register transfer level they all involve
machine language instructions operating on bit vectors.  But at
the top semantic-interpretive level they are quite different in the
way they function.

Our Loebner prize conversational program translates the input into
a semantic database of conceptual primitives, constructs sets of
interpretations, selects one for response by various criteria, and
produces a response that does not use the surface words of the input
as part of the output.  Any one who thinks this is the way ELIZA
functions is unfamiliar with ELIZA's code as well as with the new
ideas in conversational language processing - AI/CLP.




Raja at Microsoft says conversational programs are for non-mainstream
AI programmers.  Who decides who is "mainstream" and by what metric?
Head-counting? 

If mainstream means majority of heads, than remember that mainstream
physics and chemistry refused to accept the existence of atoms for
100 years, mainstream medicine refused to accept the germ theory of
disease for half a century, and mainstream surgery for 100 years
until 1980 believed that radical mastectomy was the best treatment for
breast cancer.  Swimming along with the mainstream maybe comforting but it
may not always be the best place to be if one wants to contribute
new knowledge.

Maybe "mainstream" AI programmers do not construct conversational 
programs because they do not know how to do it (yet).


Ken and Pete Colby
Malibu Artifactual Intelligence Works
From: cmp0118@sys.uea.ac.uk (S. Green)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Prade and Dubois
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:26:49 GMT
Organization: UEA School of Information Systems, Norwich, UK.

If anyone could send me any references to the work of Didier Dubois
or Henri Prade on uncertainty, I would be grateful. I am currently
conducting a literature survey on uncertainty, and require some refernces to 
their work.

    Thanks,
        Steven Green
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: mgv@cs.scarolina.edu (Marco Valtorta)
Subject: Re: Learning Heuristics
Keywords: search, heuristics, automated reasoning.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Nov 92 02:32:15 GMT

fawcett@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Tom Fawcett) writes:

>gemenis@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Theodor Gemenis) writes:

>>I would like to know something more about Search, Heuristics and especially
>>automated lerning of heuristics. My state of the art is that of the special
>>issue on search and heuristics of the Artificial Intelligece Journal, Vo. 21,
>>March 1983.  Could someone inform me about new work on the field.
>>
>>My purpose is to learn heuristics for reasoning systems (theorem proovers). 


>Armand Prieditis did a PhD thesis at Rutgers University on the automatic
>construction of admissible heuristics for A* search.  His system is called
>ABSOLVER and he's published several papers on it; I think the latest was in
>IJCAI-91 (Sydney).  I don't know how applicable his work is to theorem
>proving, but it's a good place to start.

>-Tom

Yes, Armand had a paper on Absolver at IJCAI-91.  He also had a paper
on Absolver at IJCAI-89 (Detroit), which was coauthored with
Jack Mostow, his thesis adviser.  You may also want to read ``A New
Result on the Complexity of Heurstics for the A* Algorithm,''
by Othar Hansson, Andy Mayer, and Marco Valtorta, in _Artificial Intelligence_,
55, 1 (May 1992), 129-143.


Marco Valtorta, Assistant Professor	usenet: ...!ncrcae!usceast!mgv
Department of Computer Science	internet: mgv@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu
University of South Carolina	tel.: (1)(803)777-4641
Columbia, SC 29208		tlx: 805038 USC
U.S.A.				fax: (1)(803)777-3767
usenet from Europe: ...!mcvax!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!usceast!mgv