Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj From: hsgj@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Mr. Barbecue) Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: Notes on AAAI '86 Message-ID: <963@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Date: Thu, 28-Aug-86 21:58:30 EDT Article-I.D.: batcompu.963 Posted: Thu Aug 28 21:58:30 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 29-Aug-86 05:47:40 EDT References: <959@hounx.UUCP> Reply-To: hsgj@batcomputer.UUCP (Mr. Barbecue) Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 72 Keywords: The state of AI (not really a followup article, more of a commentary) I find it very interesting that there is so much excitement generated over parallel processing computer systems by the AI community. Interesting in that the problems of AI (the intractability of: language, vision, and general cognition to name a few) are not anywhere near limited by computational power but by our lack of understanding. If somebody managed to create a truely intelligent system, I think we would have heard about it by now, even if the program took a month to run. Fact of the matter is that our knowledge of such problems is minimal. Attempts to solve them leads to researchers banging their heads against a very hard wall, indeed. So what is happening? The field that was once A.I. is very quickly headed back to it's origins in computer science and is producing "Expert Systems" by the droves. The problem isn't that they aren't useful, but rather that they are being touted as the A.I., and true insights into actual human thinking are still rare (if not non-existant). Has everybody given up? I doubt it. However, it seems that economic reality has set in. People are forced to show practical systems with everyday appli- cations. Financers can't understand why we would be overjoyed if we could develop a system that learns like a baby, and so all the money is being siphoned away and into robotics, Expert Systems, and even spelling checkers! (no, I don't think that welding cars together requires a great deal of true intelligence, though technically it may be great) So what is one to do? Go into cog-psych? At least psychologists are working on the fundamental problems that AI started, but many seem to be grasping at straws, trying to find a simple solution (i.e., familly resemblance, primary attribute analysis, etc.) What seems to be lacking is a cogent combination of theories. Some attempts have been made, but these authors basically punt on the issue, stating like "none of the above theories adequately explain the observed phenomena, perhaps the solution is a combination of current hypothesis". Very good, now lets do that research and see if this is true! My opinion? Well, some current work has dealt with computer nervous systems, (Science --sometime this summer). This is similar in form to the hypercube systems but the theory seems different. Really the work is towards computer neurons. Distributed systems in which each element contributes a little to the final result. Signals are not binary, but graded. They combine with other signals from various sources and form an output. Again, this could be done with a linear machine that hold partial results. But, I'm not suggesting that this alone is a solution, it's just interesting. My real opinion is that without "bringing baby up" so to speak, we won't get much accomplished. The ultimate system will have to be able to reach out, grasp (whether visually or physically, or whatever) and sense it's world around it in a rich manner. It will have to be malleable, but still have certain guidelines built in. It must truely learn, forming a myriad of connections with past experiences and thoughts. In sum, it will have to be a living animal (though made of sand..) Yes, I do think that you need the full range of systems to create a truely intelligent system. Hellen Keller still had touch. She could feel vibrations, and she could use this information to create a world that was probably perceptually much different than ours. But, she had true intelligence. (I realize that the semantics of all these words and phrases are highly debated, you know what I'm talking, so don't try to be difficult!) :) Well, that's enough for a day. Ted Inoue. Cornell -- ARPA: hsgj%vax2.ccs.cornell.edu@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu UUCP: ihnp4!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj BITNET: hsgj@cornella