Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!smu!leff
From: leff@smu.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: The AI Challenge - (nf)
Message-ID: <4118@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Nov-83 05:00:32 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4118
Posted: Thu Nov 24 05:00:32 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 07:04:18 EST
Lines: 49

#R:sri-arpa:-1384100:smu:10900001:000:2566
smu!leff    Nov 23 08:44:00 1983

There was a recent discussion of an AI project that was done at
ONR on determining the cause of a chemical spill in a large chemical
plant with various ducts and pipes and manholes, etc.  I argued that
the thing was just an application of graph algorithms and searching
techniques.  

(That project was what could be done in three days by an AI team as
part of a challenge from ONR and quite possibly is not representative.)

Theorem proving using resolution is something that someone with just
a normal algorithms background would not simply come up with 'as an
application of normal algorithms.'  Using IF then rules perhaps might
be a search of the type you might see an algorithms book.  Although, I
don't expect the average CS person with a background in algorithms to
come up with that application although once it was pointed out it would
be quite intuitive.

One interesting note is that although most of the AI stuff is done in
LISP, a big theorem proving program discussed by Wos at a recent IEEE
meeting here was written in PASCAL.  It did some very interesting things.
One point that was made is that they submitted a paper to a logic journal.
Although the journal agreed the results were worth publishing, the "computer
stuff" had to go.

Continuing on this rambling aside, some people submitted results in
mechanical engineering using a symbolic manipulator referenceing the use
of the program in a footnote.  The poor referree (sp?) conscientiously
tried to duplicate the derivations manually.  Finally he noticed the
reference and sent a letter back saying that they must put symbolic
manipulation by computer in the covering.

Getting back to the original subject, I had a discussion with someone 
doing research in daemons.  After he explained to me what daemons were,
I came to the conclusion they were a fancy name for what you described
as a hack.  A straightforward application of theorem proving or if then
rule techniques would be inefficient or otherwise infeasable so one
puts an exception in to handle a certain kind of a case.  What is the
difference between that an error handler for zero divides rather than
putting a statement everywhere one does a division?

Along the subject of hacking, a DATAMATION article on 'Real Programmers
Don't Use PASCAL.' in which he complained about the demise of the person
who would modify a program on the fly using the switch register, etc.
He remarkeed at the end that some of the debugging techniques in
LISP AI environments were starting to look like the old style techniques
of assembler hackers.