perm filename E86.IN[LET,JMC] blob
sn#825534 filedate 1986-10-01 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00541 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00058 00002 ∂01-Jul-86 1157 CLT Search for Qlisp programmer
C00065 00003 ∂01-Jul-86 1352 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C00067 00004 ∂01-Jul-86 1446 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>: Re: thesis prop.]
C00070 00005 ∂01-Jul-86 1437 LES re: Search for Qlisp programmer
C00071 00006 ∂01-Jul-86 1452 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Mailing list
C00072 00007 ∂01-Jul-86 1640 CLT lisp30
C00073 00008 ∂02-Jul-86 0408 HST new topic
C00074 00009 ∂02-Jul-86 0841 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA URI
C00078 00010 ∂03-Jul-86 0926 RLG status
C00079 00011 ∂03-Jul-86 1218 TALEEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA
C00081 00012 ∂03-Jul-86 1252 LES Pucci visit
C00083 00013 ∂03-Jul-86 1510 CLT
C00084 00014 ∂03-Jul-86 1727 GLB
C00085 00015 ∂03-Jul-86 2224 SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Freiling will come
C00086 00016 ∂04-Jul-86 1032 SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA re: Freiling will come
C00087 00017 ∂04-Jul-86 1146 SJM glorious fourth
C00088 00018 ∂04-Jul-86 1345 LES Wake for the D.C. Power Lab, 1966-1986
C00094 00019 ∂04-Jul-86 1629 SJM going home
C00095 00020 ∂05-Jul-86 0100 JMC
C00096 00021 ∂05-Jul-86 1542 RLG domain shrinking circ
C00099 00022 ∂05-Jul-86 1559 ME IBMRTPC1 connection problems
C00100 00023 ∂05-Jul-86 1726 CLT Carolyn flight schedule
C00101 00024 ∂05-Jul-86 1859 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM re: Lifschitz for editorial board
C00102 00025 ∂06-Jul-86 1000 JMC
C00103 00026 ∂07-Jul-86 0827 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA BITNET mail follows
C00108 00027 ∂07-Jul-86 1146 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C00109 00028 ∂07-Jul-86 1408 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: workshop on AI foundations
C00110 00029 ∂07-Jul-86 1238 G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU EBOS meeting proposed
C00111 00030 ∂07-Jul-86 1309 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM
C00113 00031 ∂07-Jul-86 1310 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Visit
C00114 00032 ∂07-Jul-86 1336 LES IBM support
C00116 00033 ∂07-Jul-86 1703 TALEEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA mail
C00117 00034 ∂07-Jul-86 2024 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: workshop on AI foundations
C00118 00035 ∂07-Jul-86 2359 JMC
C00119 00036 ∂08-Jul-86 1355 CONTRERAS@SU-SCORE.ARPA re: message
C00120 00037 ∂08-Jul-86 1419 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU re: Visit
C00121 00038 ∂08-Jul-86 1456 LES Jack Test visit
C00123 00039 ∂08-Jul-86 2255 BURY@su-sushi.arpa CS 306 grading from Fall 1985.
C00125 00040 ∂08-Jul-86 2338 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA re: Visa photos
C00126 00041 ∂09-Jul-86 0721 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM in case your mazda lacks a radio
C00128 00042 ∂09-Jul-86 0925 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: workshop on AI foundations
C00130 00043 ∂09-Jul-86 0958 king@portia.stanford.edu use of Portia by Computers and Mathematics Conference
C00131 00044 ∂09-Jul-86 1307 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU reminder Feigenbaum, Nilson
C00133 00045 ∂09-Jul-86 1312 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU [kirsh: AI Workshop]
C00134 00046 ∂09-Jul-86 1422 LES Calo call
C00135 00047 ∂09-Jul-86 1458 alliant!jat@EDDIE.MIT.EDU visit
C00137 00048 ∂09-Jul-86 1531 LES re: Calo call
C00138 00049 ∂09-Jul-86 1532 GRP meeting tomorrow?
C00139 00050 ∂09-Jul-86 1641 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA CSD/Faculty/WICS contract
C00146 00051 ∂10-Jul-86 1018 G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU Ebos meeting
C00147 00052 ∂10-Jul-86 1019 G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU Re: Ebos meeting
C00148 00053 ∂10-Jul-86 1039 GRP Meeting time
C00149 00054 ∂10-Jul-86 1235 COLLEEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Qlisp
C00150 00055 ∂10-Jul-86 1331 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA WICS
C00152 00056 ∂11-Jul-86 0950 CLT wics
C00153 00057 ∂11-Jul-86 1024 king@portia.stanford.edu use of Portia for demos at Computers and Mathematics Conference
C00155 00058 ∂11-Jul-86 1048 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Followup on Second Discussion Topic
C00162 00059 ∂11-Jul-86 1627 CLT collaboration
C00164 00060 ∂11-Jul-86 1633 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
C00165 00061 ∂11-Jul-86 1645 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA re: VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
C00166 00062 ∂11-Jul-86 1640 CLT
C00167 00063 ∂11-Jul-86 1811 LES re: CSD-CF Change
C00168 00064 ∂11-Jul-86 2027 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C00170 00065 ∂12-Jul-86 0931 CLT new DARPA proposal
C00171 00066 ∂12-Jul-86 1607 SJM where are you?
C00172 00067 ∂13-Jul-86 1657 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu An indirect approach to the common-sense reasoning problem
C00175 00068 ∂14-Jul-86 1100 INGRID@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
C00177 00069 ∂14-Jul-86 1741 lantz@gregorio.stanford.edu conflicting regulations
C00180 00070 ∂15-Jul-86 1036 MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA book?
C00181 00071 ∂15-Jul-86 1729 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Re: conflicting regulations
C00183 00072 ∂16-Jul-86 0034 ME juggling convention and juggling shows, in San Jose
C00187 00073 ∂16-Jul-86 1318 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU What arrangements?
C00188 00074 ∂17-Jul-86 1109 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Third Discussion Topic
C00192 00075 ∂17-Jul-86 1530 INGRID@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
C00193 00076 ∂17-Jul-86 1631 BURY@sushi.STANFORD.EDU Re: CS 306 grading from Fall 1985.
C00195 00077 ∂18-Jul-86 1739 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Book/News/Breakfast
C00199 00078 ∂21-Jul-86 1413 JJW Takeuchi function
C00200 00079 ∂21-Jul-86 1425 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA knowledge acquisition workshop
C00202 00080 ∂22-Jul-86 1006 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Clarification of Third Discussion Topic
C00205 00081 ∂22-Jul-86 1020 CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA another opinion
C00208 00082 ∂22-Jul-86 2230 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C00210 00083 ∂22-Jul-86 2230 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C00211 00084 ∂23-Jul-86 0000 JMC Expired plan
C00212 00085 ∂23-Jul-86 1118 TAL call
C00213 00086 ∂23-Jul-86 1206 GRP CMU common lisp for RT
C00214 00087 ∂23-Jul-86 1656 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Publication Committee Meeting
C00216 00088 ∂24-Jul-86 0020 jgilmore@lll-crg.ARPA
C00217 00089 ∂24-Jul-86 0939 hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA The McDermott paper ...
C00220 00090 ∂24-Jul-86 1021 TAL nagle
C00221 00091 ∂24-Jul-86 1206 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Programming in Prolog
C00223 00092 ∂24-Jul-86 1526 GRP Meeting in room 301
C00224 00093 ∂24-Jul-86 1559 LES RMS meeting
C00225 00094 ∂24-Jul-86 1804 G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU Re: RMS
C00227 00095 ∂24-Jul-86 2015 RHAYES-ROTH@SRI-KL.ARPA Re: First discussion topic
C00232 00096 ∂25-Jul-86 0011 jgilmore@lll-crg.ARPA
C00233 00097 ∂25-Jul-86 0830 JMC
C00234 00098 ∂25-Jul-86 1026 CHEADLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
C00244 00099 ∂25-Jul-86 1147 TAL Lucy called
C00245 00100 ∂25-Jul-86 1333 CLT
C00246 00101 ∂25-Jul-86 1452 TAL phone call
C00247 00102 ∂25-Jul-86 1621 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU 10 page guideline
C00249 00103 ∂25-Jul-86 1656 TAL message
C00251 00104 ∂26-Jul-86 0931 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Fourth Discussion Topic
C00254 00105 ∂26-Jul-86 2303 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
C00256 00106 ∂27-Jul-86 0829 jsl@ROCKEFELLER re: Fourth Discussion Topic : federal role
C00261 00107 ∂27-Jul-86 1204 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
C00263 00108 ∂27-Jul-86 1211 RPG Lisp Conference Speech
C00264 00109 ∂27-Jul-86 1507 IAM is this ok?
C00266 00110 ∂27-Jul-86 1829 CLT
C00267 00111 ∂27-Jul-86 2000 JMC
C00268 00112 ∂27-Jul-86 2234 CLT
C00270 00113 ∂28-Jul-86 0715 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Change in Location & Time of Informal Exec Council Mtg
C00272 00114 ∂28-Jul-86 0745 ATP.CHOU@R20.UTEXAS.EDU The Possible visit of Professor Wu
C00278 00115 ∂28-Jul-86 0851 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Old Journals
C00280 00116 ∂28-Jul-86 1005 RA Gebauer
C00281 00117 ∂28-Jul-86 1029 RPG Speech
C00282 00118 ∂28-Jul-86 1034 RPG
C00286 00119 ∂28-Jul-86 1100 JMC
C00287 00120 ∂28-Jul-86 1135 AN02@A.CS.CMU.EDU Re: Fourth Discussion Topic
C00291 00121 ∂28-Jul-86 1151 RA lunch
C00292 00122 ∂28-Jul-86 1603 RA Prof. Patrick Winston
C00294 00123 ∂28-Jul-86 1657 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Possible appointment of Tony Chan
C00296 00124 ∂28-Jul-86 1720 RA Tomorrow
C00297 00125 ∂28-Jul-86 1838 GRP Editing structured objects
C00298 00126 ∂28-Jul-86 2254 LES Cost Center Rates
C00302 00127 ∂29-Jul-86 0001 LES Outside use of CSD Computers
C00306 00128 ∂29-Jul-86 1206 RA Louis Lerman
C00307 00129 ∂29-Jul-86 1218 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Tomorrow
C00308 00130 ∂29-Jul-86 1331 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Outside use of CSD Computers
C00310 00131 ∂29-Jul-86 1436 RWW computer usage
C00311 00132 ∂29-Jul-86 1520 STAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA connection machine
C00316 00133 ∂29-Jul-86 1520 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: connection machine
C00317 00134 ∂29-Jul-86 1521 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: connection machine
C00319 00135 ∂29-Jul-86 1626 RA Jack Cate
C00320 00136 ∂29-Jul-86 1647 RA David Chudnovsky
C00321 00137 ∂29-Jul-86 1659 RA leaving
C00322 00138 ∂29-Jul-86 1753 JOHN@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU directorship of csli
C00327 00139 ∂29-Jul-86 1809 RWW computer usage
C00328 00140 ∂29-Jul-86 1838 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: CS143/CS243?
C00330 00141 ∂29-Jul-86 1841 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA NAXOS VMS needed for demonstration.
C00332 00142 ∂29-Jul-86 2056 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [Thierry Barsalou <BARSALOU@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>: Re: NAXOS VMS needed for demonstration.]
C00334 00143 ∂29-Jul-86 2224 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA NAXOS
C00335 00144 ∂29-Jul-86 2248 WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Naxos help needed.
C00337 00145 ∂30-Jul-86 0915 CLT HAGIYA@RUSSELL,Nakahara@RUSSELL,
C00339 00146 ∂30-Jul-86 1144 ARUN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: NAXOS
C00341 00147 ∂30-Jul-86 1223 RA check from Delfin
C00342 00148 ∂30-Jul-86 1301 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: NAXOS
C00343 00149 ∂30-Jul-86 1313 aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Fourth Discussion Topic (Social implications)
C00348 00150 ∂30-Jul-86 1632 rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg
C00359 00151 ∂30-Jul-86 1634 RA Paul Rovner
C00360 00152 ∂30-Jul-86 1642 RA Delfin
C00361 00153 ∂30-Jul-86 1653 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg
C00372 00154 ∂30-Jul-86 1808 cayley@portia.stanford.edu we now have a vms machine
C00373 00155 ∂30-Jul-86 2016 A.JIML@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU Re: CS143/CS243?
C00374 00156 ∂31-Jul-86 0723 TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: NAXOS
C00375 00157 ∂31-Jul-86 0820 CLT today
C00376 00158 ∂31-Jul-86 0837 BERG@SU-SCORE.ARPA rutie will be late
C00377 00159 ∂31-Jul-86 1008 rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM Re: Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg (Fadeyev's address)
C00379 00160 ∂31-Jul-86 1008 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM Re: Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg (Fadeyev's address)
C00381 00161 ∂31-Jul-86 1018 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Salary Research Offset
C00382 00162 ∂31-Jul-86 1154 RA Yoav Shoham
C00383 00163 ∂31-Jul-86 1441 RA Flight to Boston
C00384 00164 ∂31-Jul-86 1525 RA Re: Flight to Boston
C00385 00165 ∂31-Jul-86 1542 RA Nina Greenberg
C00386 00166 ∂01-Aug-86 0823 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA draft
C00414 00167 ∂01-Aug-86 1024 RPG Banquet
C00415 00168 ∂01-Aug-86 1119 RA Interview at MIT
C00416 00169 ∂01-Aug-86 1420 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Conference
C00424 00170 ∂01-Aug-86 1611 RA Reservations for Philadelphia trip
C00425 00171 ∂01-Aug-86 1637 RA Re: Reservations for Philadelphia trip
C00426 00172 ∂01-Aug-86 1923 RPG !!!!!
C00427 00173 ∂01-Aug-86 2209 RPG Feeling Better
C00428 00174 ∂02-Aug-86 1245 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA Aristotle, "Knowledge Processor"
C00434 00175 ∂02-Aug-86 1724 CLT shopping list
C00435 00176 ∂02-Aug-86 1837 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C00437 00177 ∂03-Aug-86 0038 cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu Re: Outside use of CSD Computers
C00440 00178 ∂03-Aug-86 1519 LES re: Outside use of CSD Computers
C00442 00179 ∂03-Aug-86 1549 LES Diablo Disposition
C00443 00180 ∂03-Aug-86 1632 binford@su-whitney.arpa Diablo Disposition
C00444 00181 ∂03-Aug-86 1640 sato@russell.stanford.edu
C00447 00182 ∂03-Aug-86 1729 sato@russell.stanford.edu reply to message
C00448 00183 ∂03-Aug-86 1803 cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu re: Outside use of CSD Computers
C00450 00184 ∂03-Aug-86 1805 cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu Re: Diablo Disposition
C00452 00185 ∂03-Aug-86 1809 LES re: Outside use of CSD Computers
C00453 00186 ∂03-Aug-86 2038 RPG phone numbers
C00454 00187 ∂04-Aug-86 0841 roseh@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU Possible Visit to Austin
C00457 00188 ∂04-Aug-86 0922 TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Diablo Disposition
C00460 00189 ∂04-Aug-86 1239 SJM jmc
C00461 00190 ∂04-Aug-86 1440 RA NSF Us-Japan grant extension
C00462 00191 ∂04-Aug-86 1527 RA tomorrow
C00463 00192 ∂04-Aug-86 1547 RA Tim Moriarty, Delfin
C00464 00193 ∂04-Aug-86 2328 MILTON@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA Database Research Seminar 8/8
C00467 00194 ∂05-Aug-86 0800 JMC
C00468 00195 ∂05-Aug-86 0805 KAHN@A.ISI.EDU meeting plans
C00471 00196 ∂05-Aug-86 0904 JMC
C00472 00197 ∂05-Aug-86 0939 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU [FEIGENBAUM: AI Workshop]
C00481 00198 ∂05-Aug-86 1139 RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
C00482 00199 ∂05-Aug-86 1139 RA regular day
C00483 00200 ∂05-Aug-86 1213 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: check for $2500
C00485 00201 ∂05-Aug-86 1451 RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Nils
C00487 00202 ∂05-Aug-86 1550 RA Shankar
C00488 00203 ∂05-Aug-86 1635 SJG planning
C00489 00204 ∂05-Aug-86 1748 RA Shankar
C00490 00205 ∂05-Aug-86 2030 SJM
C00491 00206 ∂06-Aug-86 1022 VAL re: Shoham's chapter 3 draft
C00492 00207 ∂06-Aug-86 1210 VAL Bob Givan
C00493 00208 ∂06-Aug-86 1248 SJM what?
C00494 00209 ∂06-Aug-86 1320 RA car which was broken int
C00495 00210 ∂06-Aug-86 1344 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Fredkin check
C00497 00211 ∂06-Aug-86 1402 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA [PUCCI@A.ISI.EDU: Possible visit]
C00500 00212 ∂06-Aug-86 1527 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Pucci visit
C00502 00213 ∂06-Aug-86 1837 LES Qlisp funds
C00503 00214 ∂07-Aug-86 0853 RA Meeting with Pucci
C00504 00215 ∂07-Aug-86 0854 DLIU@Sierra.Stanford.EDU Re: Mosher case.
C00508 00216 ∂07-Aug-86 0905 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: copyright
C00513 00217 ∂07-Aug-86 1002 gangolli@diablo.stanford.edu re: Mosher case
C00515 00218 ∂07-Aug-86 1035 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Aristotle
C00516 00219 ∂07-Aug-86 1036 VAL reply to message
C00519 00220 ∂07-Aug-86 1041 VAL Correction
C00520 00221 ∂07-Aug-86 1055 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Mosher case.
C00523 00222 ∂07-Aug-86 1113 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Mosher case
C00526 00223 ∂07-Aug-86 1151 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Mosher case.
C00527 00224 ∂07-Aug-86 1210 gangolli@diablo.stanford.edu re: mosher case
C00531 00225 ∂07-Aug-86 1225 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: mosher case
C00533 00226 ∂07-Aug-86 1253 RA Fall quarter support
C00534 00227 ∂07-Aug-86 1404 RA leaving
C00535 00228 ∂07-Aug-86 1435 vardi@diablo.stanford.edu Knowledge Conference 88
C00537 00229 ∂07-Aug-86 1639 vardi@diablo.stanford.edu re: Knowledge Conference 88
C00538 00230 ∂07-Aug-86 2125 chuq@Sun.COM Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
C00547 00231 ∂08-Aug-86 0830 kathy@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU e-mail message from J.C. Browne
C00550 00232 ∂08-Aug-86 1007 CLT glb/ekl
C00551 00233 ∂08-Aug-86 1012 RA be back
C00552 00234 ∂08-Aug-86 1147 udi%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA Re: banquet speech
C00555 00235 ∂08-Aug-86 1202 BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Mosher case.
C00557 00236 ∂08-Aug-86 1219 RLG Fred problem
C00558 00237 ∂08-Aug-86 1334 RA leaving
C00559 00238 ∂08-Aug-86 1414 SJM stat abstract
C00560 00239 ∂08-Aug-86 1433 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
C00564 00240 ∂08-Aug-86 1450 chuq@Sun.COM argh.
C00566 00241 ∂08-Aug-86 1450 chuq@Sun.COM Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
C00573 00242 ∂08-Aug-86 1532 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
C00577 00243 ∂08-Aug-86 1644 SJM mosher statement
C00578 00244 ∂08-Aug-86 1739 RA Mahabala
C00579 00245 ∂08-Aug-86 2041 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:MRC@PANDA American Atheists
C00581 00246 ∂09-Aug-86 1003 CLT supper
C00582 00247 ∂09-Aug-86 1510 squires@vax.darpa.mil Re: puzzled
C00585 00248 ∂09-Aug-86 1735 JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Secret charges against Mosher
C00587 00249 ∂11-Aug-86 0215 CERF@A.ISI.EDU Re: reporter
C00589 00250 ∂11-Aug-86 0533 spa%hara.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM
C00593 00251 ∂11-Aug-86 1230 HERSHBERGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Mosher opinion piece
C00594 00252 ∂11-Aug-86 1425 GRP talk on Andrew
C00596 00253 ∂11-Aug-86 1503 RA [Reply to message recvd: 09 Aug 86 19:31 Pacific Time]
C00597 00254 ∂11-Aug-86 1530 RA TEX course
C00598 00255 ∂12-Aug-86 1120 JMC
C00599 00256 ∂12-Aug-86 1215 Arnon.pa@Xerox.COM Visit of Prof. Wu Wen-Tsun (re: Theorem Proving)
C00603 00257 ∂12-Aug-86 1225 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Visit of Prof. Wu Wen-Tsun (re: Theorem Proving)
C00605 00258 ∂12-Aug-86 1334 Arnon.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Theorem Proving)
C00607 00259 ∂12-Aug-86 1449 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Re: job offer
C00609 00260 ∂12-Aug-86 1557 SJM
C00610 00261 ∂12-Aug-86 1558 SJM where
C00611 00262 ∂13-Aug-86 0900 JMC
C00612 00263 ∂13-Aug-86 0947 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Fifth Discussion Topic
C00625 00264 ∂13-Aug-86 1411 ullman@diablo.stanford.edu Shankar appointment
C00626 00265 ∂13-Aug-86 1417 GC.TLX@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu telephone service
C00628 00266 ∂13-Aug-86 1411 CLT HAGIYA@RUSSELL,Nakahara@RUSSELL,
C00629 00267 ∂13-Aug-86 1515 GC.AMC@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu TELEPHONE ANSWER
C00631 00268 ∂13-Aug-86 1655 GRP meeting
C00632 00269 ∂13-Aug-86 1738 RWW rww
C00633 00270 ∂13-Aug-86 1746 JJW Re: alliant rev-2 release
C00635 00271 ∂13-Aug-86 1810 alliant!jat@EDDIE.MIT.EDU alliant rev-2 release
C00637 00272 ∂14-Aug-86 0953 SJM various
C00638 00273 ∂14-Aug-86 1018 SJM michaelsons
C00639 00274 ∂14-Aug-86 1116 SJM buick
C00640 00275 ∂14-Aug-86 1153 LES re: Computer Science Account Blockage
C00643 00276 ∂14-Aug-86 1722 CLT dinner
C00645 00277 ∂14-Aug-86 1735 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA re: The Realities of a Socialist Workers' Paradise
C00648 00278 ∂14-Aug-86 2031 LES "Free" DEC 2060
C00650 00279 ∂15-Aug-86 0809 WATSON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU L5
C00651 00280 ∂15-Aug-86 1227 GRP User interface manager
C00652 00281 ∂15-Aug-86 1343 CLT dinner
C00654 00282 ∂15-Aug-86 1346 CLT oops
C00655 00283 ∂15-Aug-86 1629 RLG Fred's unenlightened suicide
C00657 00284 ∂15-Aug-86 1629 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu default problem
C00663 00285 ∂16-Aug-86 1156 RPG Lisp Conference
C00664 00286 ∂16-Aug-86 1546 RA TEX course
C00665 00287 ∂16-Aug-86 1607 RPG Qlisp
C00666 00288 ∂16-Aug-86 1621 CLT
C00667 00289 ∂16-Aug-86 1638 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu Re: default problem
C00669 00290 ∂16-Aug-86 2027 LES Qlisp
C00670 00291 ∂17-Aug-86 1007 RPG
C00671 00292 ∂17-Aug-86 1109 shoham@YALE.ARPA Re: default problem
C00678 00293 ∂17-Aug-86 1457 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu Re: default problem
C00682 00294 ∂17-Aug-86 1742 shoham@YALE.ARPA chap. 3
C00684 00295 ∂17-Aug-86 2354 LES Bill Pitts
C00685 00296 ∂18-Aug-86 0859 shoham@YALE.ARPA Re: default problem
C00689 00297 ∂18-Aug-86 0900 JMC
C00690 00298 ∂18-Aug-86 0922 RPG Qlisp meeting
C00691 00299 ∂18-Aug-86 1126 RPG Potential Grad Student
C00692 00300 ∂18-Aug-86 1203 binford@su-whitney.arpa Potential Grad Student
C00693 00301 ∂18-Aug-86 1532 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu Re: default problem
C00701 00302 ∂18-Aug-86 1538 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu AAAI gossip
C00709 00303 ∂18-Aug-86 1612 LES Qlisp meeting
C00710 00304 ∂18-Aug-86 1745 shoham@YALE.ARPA Re: default problem
C00715 00305 ∂18-Aug-86 1749 shoham@YALE.ARPA oops
C00717 00306 ∂19-Aug-86 0900 JMC
C00718 00307 ∂19-Aug-86 0903 RPG Today
C00719 00308 ∂19-Aug-86 1039 JJW Alliant
C00720 00309 ∂19-Aug-86 1155 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu Re: default problem
C00725 00310 ∂19-Aug-86 1339 squires@vax.darpa.mil Re: qlisp implementation
C00728 00311 ∂19-Aug-86 1358 CLT car
C00729 00312 ∂19-Aug-86 1730 LES Charge authorization
C00730 00313 ∂20-Aug-86 0457 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C00731 00314 ∂20-Aug-86 1120 MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA CS306
C00732 00315 ∂20-Aug-86 1838 CLT kcl
C00733 00316 ∂21-Aug-86 0913 RPG Files
C00734 00317 ∂21-Aug-86 0914 RPG Files (again)
C00735 00318 ∂21-Aug-86 1119 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA ai and logic
C00762 00319 ∂21-Aug-86 1450 CONTRERAS@SU-SCORE.ARPA message
C00763 00320 ∂21-Aug-86 1654 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Afghan Journalists
C00767 00321 ∂22-Aug-86 0900 JMC
C00768 00322 ∂22-Aug-86 1045 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA [Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>: proposed seminar outline]
C00775 00323 ∂22-Aug-86 1139 POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Afghanistan
C00785 00324 ∂22-Aug-86 1300 JMC
C00786 00325 ∂22-Aug-86 1345 SJG Time for another New Paltz conference?
C00789 00326 ∂23-Aug-86 0924 SJG re: Time for another New Paltz conference?
C00790 00327 ∂23-Aug-86 1354 RA dinner at Fiesta
C00791 00328 ∂23-Aug-86 1448 LES IVA BELL HOT SPRINGS - 1986
C00796 00329 ∂23-Aug-86 1721 CLT shopping list
C00798 00330 ∂24-Aug-86 1303 MCGRATH@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Re: Afghanistan
C00803 00331 ∂25-Aug-86 0159 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C00804 00332 ∂25-Aug-86 0800 JMC
C00805 00333 ∂25-Aug-86 0800 JMC
C00806 00334 ∂25-Aug-86 0804 RA Re: Freiling
C00807 00335 ∂25-Aug-86 1021 CLT calendar item correction
C00808 00336 ∂25-Aug-86 1025 RPG Student
C00809 00337 ∂25-Aug-86 1230 JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
C00811 00338 ∂25-Aug-86 1240 Mailer failed mail returned
C00813 00339 ∂25-Aug-86 1319 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU reply to message
C00815 00340 ∂25-Aug-86 1324 VAL
C00816 00341 ∂25-Aug-86 1405 JJW REPLY macro
C00817 00342 ∂25-Aug-86 1426 ME bboard/event messages
C00819 00343 ∂25-Aug-86 1536 RA Your trip to NY 8/27-28
C00820 00344 ∂25-Aug-86 1648 RA CS 520
C00821 00345 ∂25-Aug-86 1704 JMC Re: Towers, 1 For loop.
C00823 00346 ∂25-Aug-86 1439 VAL Chernobyl
C00824 00347 ∂25-Aug-86 1455 VAL meeting with Ginsberg
C00825 00348 ∂25-Aug-86 2032 MAYR@SU-SCORE.ARPA TVOntario
C00827 00349 ∂25-Aug-86 2137 YOUNG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU CS326 for credit
C00829 00350 ∂25-Aug-86 2145 YOUNG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: CS326 for credit
C00832 00351 ∂26-Aug-86 0622 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:SHORTLIFFE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: TVOntario
C00834 00352 ∂26-Aug-86 0945 CLT possible visit to texas
C00839 00353 ∂26-Aug-86 1313 RA meeting
C00840 00354 ∂26-Aug-86 1429 GENESERETH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
C00841 00355 ∂26-Aug-86 1505 VAL re: meeting with Ginsberg
C00842 00356 ∂26-Aug-86 1524 RA Al Shanmugam
C00846 00357 ∂26-Aug-86 1949 G.MDP@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: An idea for gun registration
C00851 00358 ∂26-Aug-86 2213 CRAMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: And idea for gun registration
C00853 00359 ∂26-Aug-86 2256 CRAMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: multiple messages
C00855 00360 ∂27-Aug-86 0244 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Fifth Topic -- Special Request
C00858 00361 ∂27-Aug-86 0800 JMC
C00859 00362 ∂27-Aug-86 0900 JMC
C00860 00363 ∂27-Aug-86 1026 JJW Alliant users meeting
C00861 00364 ∂28-Aug-86 1015 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [Elliott Levinthal <LEVINTHAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>: optical storage]
C00864 00365 ∂28-Aug-86 1022 hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA McDermott status
C00869 00366 ∂28-Aug-86 1030 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA 2nd Knowledge Acquisition Workshop
C00870 00367 ∂28-Aug-86 1108 @MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Yuri←Gurevich@UMich-MTS.Mailnet
C00871 00368 ∂28-Aug-86 1109 VAL Gaifman and Gurevich on the Moscow meeting
C00875 00369 ∂28-Aug-86 1742 shoham@YALE.ARPA your comments
C00878 00370 ∂28-Aug-86 2056 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA puzzle
C00880 00371 ∂29-Aug-86 1053 JK
C00881 00372 ∂29-Aug-86 1127 SARASWAT@C.CS.CMU.EDU Logic Programming and map-coloring.
C00889 00373 ∂29-Aug-86 1253 andy@shasta.stanford.edu automatic text entry
C00892 00374 ∂29-Aug-86 1619 MRC China
C00893 00375 ∂30-Aug-86 1634 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU AI DISC: Update and Searle's Reply
C00938 00376 ∂31-Aug-86 1054 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU re: AI DISC: Update and Searle's Reply
C00940 00377 ∂01-Sep-86 1057 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C00942 00378 ∂01-Sep-86 1900 JMC
C00943 00379 ∂01-Sep-86 2000 JMC
C00944 00380 ∂02-Sep-86 0947 RA Meeting with Pucci
C00945 00381 ∂02-Sep-86 1035 JJW Registration hold
C00946 00382 ∂02-Sep-86 1200 CLT terminals
C00947 00383 ∂02-Sep-86 1305 minker@mimsy.umd.edu International Logic Meeting
C00950 00384 ∂02-Sep-86 1613 @SRI-IU.ARPA,@sri-candide.ARPA:pereira@sri-candide Re: tinlap3
C00952 00385 ∂02-Sep-86 1752 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Luis Pereira and Stanford in Portugal
C00954 00386 ∂03-Sep-86 0800 JMC
C00955 00387 ∂03-Sep-86 0819 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA cs-306 reserves
C00956 00388 ∂03-Sep-86 0822 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA cs-306 (cont.)
C00957 00389 ∂03-Sep-86 1016 VAL meeting with Matt
C00958 00390 ∂03-Sep-86 1146 RA spelling
C00959 00391 ∂03-Sep-86 1301 VAL Attending conferences in the USSR
C00960 00392 ∂03-Sep-86 1318 RA William Aspray
C00961 00393 ∂03-Sep-86 1702 RA tomorrow
C00962 00394 ∂03-Sep-86 2001 JMC
C00963 00395 ∂03-Sep-86 2001 JMC
C00964 00396 ∂03-Sep-86 2357 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:MRC@PANDA Re: video recorders
C00968 00397 ∂04-Sep-86 0143 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:MRC@PANDA re: video recorders
C00975 00398 ∂04-Sep-86 0608 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C00976 00399 ∂04-Sep-86 0734 SIMPSON@A.ISI.EDU Re: proposal
C00978 00400 ∂04-Sep-86 0812 MA
C00979 00401 ∂04-Sep-86 0900 JMC
C00980 00402 ∂04-Sep-86 0954 SJG question
C00981 00403 ∂04-Sep-86 1021 RA [Reply to message sent: Thu, 4 Sep 86 09:10:27 EDT]
C00982 00404 ∂04-Sep-86 1126 RA Zohar
C00983 00405 ∂04-Sep-86 1346 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Models of the world for common-sense reasoning purposes
C00985 00406 ∂04-Sep-86 1411 RA leaving
C00986 00407 ∂04-Sep-86 1515 VAL Correction needed in the Applications of Circ'n paper
C00987 00408 ∂04-Sep-86 1535 @SRI-IU.ARPA,@sri-kepler.ARPA:pcohen@sri-kepler Workshop
C00990 00409 ∂04-Sep-86 1606 MRC hb2u
C00991 00410 ∂05-Sep-86 0800 JMC
C00992 00411 ∂05-Sep-86 0800 JMC
C00993 00412 ∂05-Sep-86 1045 JMC
C00994 00413 ∂05-Sep-86 1241 RA Quals for Marianne Baudinet
C00995 00414 ∂05-Sep-86 1636 RA leaving
C00996 00415 ∂08-Sep-86 0900 JMC
C00997 00416 ∂08-Sep-86 0920 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Comp reading list
C00998 00417 ∂08-Sep-86 1045 RA Your meeting with Pucci
C00999 00418 ∂08-Sep-86 1103 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Japanese LISP machines
C01002 00419 ∂08-Sep-86 1422 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA re: Japanese LISP machines
C01003 00420 ∂08-Sep-86 1434 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Comp reading list
C01005 00421 ∂08-Sep-86 1502 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Current state of comp syllabus
C01014 00422 ∂08-Sep-86 1546 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Request for information from the faculty - DRAFT
C01021 00423 ∂08-Sep-86 1614 KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU ai & law
C01023 00424 ∂08-Sep-86 1727 lantz@gregorio.stanford.edu Re: Current state of comp syllabus
C01025 00425 ∂08-Sep-86 2309 coraki!pratt@Sun.COM Comp syllabus
C01029 00426 ∂09-Sep-86 0236 george@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK [S.Michaelson: Gregorian chant.]
C01031 00427 ∂09-Sep-86 0417 BONNIE@cis.upenn.edu Workshop proposal
C01033 00428 ∂09-Sep-86 0800 JMC
C01034 00429 ∂09-Sep-86 0901 VAL Kheifets
C01038 00430 ∂09-Sep-86 0938 RA SE2
C01039 00431 ∂09-Sep-86 0945 mc%zen.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM Your paper
C01041 00432 ∂09-Sep-86 1215 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
C01042 00433 ∂09-Sep-86 1318 VAL MCC
C01043 00434 ∂09-Sep-86 1504 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA 306 TA
C01044 00435 ∂09-Sep-86 1513 1F1BROWN%UKANVAX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU From Kansas.
C01045 00436 ∂09-Sep-86 1609 LES re: letter to Shankar
C01046 00437 ∂09-Sep-86 1641 SJG multi-valued logics
C01047 00438 ∂09-Sep-86 1635 RA Transcribing machine
C01048 00439 ∂09-Sep-86 1703 pratt%aster@Sun.COM conflict
C01054 00440 ∂10-Sep-86 0800 JMC
C01055 00441 ∂10-Sep-86 0823 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM next visit
C01056 00442 ∂10-Sep-86 0923 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM next visit
C01058 00443 ∂10-Sep-86 0930 RPG Qlisp
C01059 00444 ∂10-Sep-86 0940 rwsh%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK The ELEPHANT Language
C01061 00445 ∂10-Sep-86 1038 CLT rivin visit
C01062 00446 ∂10-Sep-86 1304 RA Chernobyl
C01063 00447 ∂10-Sep-86 1324 SJG nsf proposal
C01064 00448 ∂10-Sep-86 1352 CLT EBOS suggestion
C01067 00449 ∂10-Sep-86 1425 AIR meeting
C01068 00450 ∂10-Sep-86 1428 langley@CIP.UCI.EDU machine learning workshop
C01069 00451 ∂10-Sep-86 1428 AIR meeting
C01070 00452 ∂10-Sep-86 1852 langley@CIP.UCI.EDU Re: machine learning workshop
C01073 00453 ∂11-Sep-86 0900 JMC
C01074 00454 ∂11-Sep-86 0904 RA your american express card
C01075 00455 ∂11-Sep-86 0922 VAL vacation
C01076 00456 ∂11-Sep-86 1000 JMC
C01077 00457 ∂11-Sep-86 1128 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Metacritique
C01078 00458 ∂11-Sep-86 1258 RA my schedule
C01079 00459 ∂11-Sep-86 1315 JMC
C01080 00460 ∂11-Sep-86 1413 RA is 586 0499.
C01081 00461 ∂11-Sep-86 1459 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA brown workshop
C01082 00462 ∂11-Sep-86 2037 JK meeting
C01083 00463 ∂11-Sep-86 2200 JMC
C01084 00464 ∂12-Sep-86 0752 PETTY@RED.RUTGERS.EDU technical-report Sept. '86 mailing
C01088 00465 ∂12-Sep-86 0856 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA fredkin check
C01090 00466 ∂12-Sep-86 0957 SJG
C01091 00467 ∂12-Sep-86 1514 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C01092 00468 ∂12-Sep-86 1535 RA [Reply to message sent: Fri, 12 Sep 86 18:02:50 EDT]
C01093 00469 ∂12-Sep-86 1651 RA [Reply to message recvd: 12 Sep 86 16:11 Pacific Time]
C01094 00470 ∂12-Sep-86 1748 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Sixth (Final) Topic
C01098 00471 ∂14-Sep-86 1437 SJG re: nsf proposal
C01100 00472 ∂15-Sep-86 0825 CLT rivin
C01101 00473 ∂15-Sep-86 0900 JMC
C01102 00474 ∂15-Sep-86 0950 RPG Qlisp paper
C01103 00475 ∂15-Sep-86 1006 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Emigre
C01105 00476 ∂15-Sep-86 1421 1F1BROWN%UKANVAX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Re. Frame Workshop
C01106 00477 ∂15-Sep-86 1514 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA logical solutions to the frame problem workshop
C01108 00478 ∂15-Sep-86 1707 MAYR@SU-SCORE.ARPA Comp syllabus
C01110 00479 ∂15-Sep-86 2057 langley@CIP.UCI.EDU Re: machine learning workshop
C01112 00480 ∂16-Sep-86 1135 CLT DARPA proposal
C01115 00481 ∂16-Sep-86 1254 CLT DARPA proposal
C01116 00482 ∂16-Sep-86 1255 RA sticker
C01117 00483 ∂16-Sep-86 1628 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Contact
C01119 00484 ∂16-Sep-86 1701 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu Contact
C01121 00485 ∂17-Sep-86 1039 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:MRC@PANDA infant mortality rate in China
C01123 00486 ∂17-Sep-86 1103 MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA Winter books
C01124 00487 ∂17-Sep-86 1236 RA going our for lunch
C01125 00488 ∂17-Sep-86 1237 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM directions
C01127 00489 ∂18-Sep-86 0951 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Formalities
C01128 00490 ∂18-Sep-86 1008 G.BEESON@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU monkey and bananas
C01129 00491 ∂18-Sep-86 1011 G.BEESON@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU monkey and bananas
C01131 00492 ∂18-Sep-86 1435 RA Matt, Union Bank
C01132 00493 ∂18-Sep-86 1513 CLT TAO machine
C01133 00494 ∂19-Sep-86 1137 AI.JMC@MCC.COM job
C01134 00495 ∂19-Sep-86 1148 RA [Reply to message recvd: 19 Sep 86 11:44 Pacific Time]
C01135 00496 ∂19-Sep-86 1156 JUTTA@SU-SCORE.ARPA MSCS Committee meeting
C01137 00497 ∂19-Sep-86 1403 LES Shankar position
C01140 00498 ∂19-Sep-86 1511 RA Inference BOD
C01141 00499 ∂20-Sep-86 0917 HST move to konstanz
C01142 00500 ∂20-Sep-86 1139 JJW Alliant conference
C01143 00501 ∂21-Sep-86 1618 CLT shopping list
C01144 00502 ∂22-Sep-86 1058 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU AI DISC: Douglas Hofstadter Responds to John Searle
C01162 00503 ∂22-Sep-86 1053 AIR ebos
C01183 00504 ∂22-Sep-86 1303 CLT boyles visit
C01185 00505 ∂22-Sep-86 1440 VAL top[e86,jmc]
C01187 00506 ∂22-Sep-86 1541 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Workshop on Foundations
C01194 00507 ∂22-Sep-86 1957 langley@CIP.UCI.EDU Re: machine learning workshop
C01196 00508 ∂23-Sep-86 0429 BONNIE@cis.upenn.edu re: Workshop proposal
C01197 00509 ∂23-Sep-86 0719 MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU peace week
C01198 00510 ∂23-Sep-86 0816 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Emigres
C01200 00511 ∂23-Sep-86 0900 JMC
C01201 00512 ∂23-Sep-86 0934 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Follow-up Queries
C01205 00513 ∂23-Sep-86 1021 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU [Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>: [Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>: Contribution to panel discussion]]
C01278 00514 ∂23-Sep-86 1136 RA TEX-ing
C01279 00515 ∂23-Sep-86 1358 VAL DARPA proposal
C01298 00516 ∂23-Sep-86 1830 LES re: Laser printer info for Chudnovskys
C01299 00517 ∂24-Sep-86 0042 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
C01301 00518 ∂24-Sep-86 0835 RA [Reply to message sent: Wed, 24 Sep 86 03:45:44 EDT]
C01302 00519 ∂24-Sep-86 1007 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [walker@mouton.bellcore.com (Don Walker): Re: More prizes]
C01308 00520 ∂24-Sep-86 1039 RA [Reply to message recvd: 24 Sep 86 10:27 Pacific Time]
C01309 00521 ∂24-Sep-86 1047 chapman@russell.stanford.edu Reply to Professor McCarthy
C01323 00522 ∂24-Sep-86 1102 AIR John Nafeh
C01324 00523 ∂24-Sep-86 1117 RA leaving
C01325 00524 ∂24-Sep-86 1449 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA 306 TAs
C01326 00525 ∂25-Sep-86 1152 CLT
C01327 00526 ∂25-Sep-86 1309 RLG advice requested
C01328 00527 ∂25-Sep-86 1608 RA leaving early
C01329 00528 ∂25-Sep-86 1609 RA Thelma Inference
C01330 00529 ∂25-Sep-86 2000 JMC
C01331 00530 ∂25-Sep-86 2220 KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: California Supreme Court
C01333 00531 ∂25-Sep-86 2339 POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Re: California Supreme Court
C01338 00532 ∂25-Sep-86 2345 KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: California Supreme Court
C01341 00533 ∂26-Sep-86 0857 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: California Supreme Court
C01345 00534 ∂26-Sep-86 0900 JMC
C01346 00535 ∂26-Sep-86 0937 md@alv.umd.edu Reply to Chapman's letter
C01349 00536 ∂26-Sep-86 0958 RA new tutor for CS306
C01350 00537 ∂26-Sep-86 1042 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Vladimir
C01351 00538 ∂26-Sep-86 1252 ROACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA
C01353 00539 ∂26-Sep-86 1420 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu Lunch next week
C01355 00540 ∂26-Sep-86 1422 LES Proposal part
C01361 00541 ∂26-Sep-86 1526 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu TEST
C01363 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂01-Jul-86 1157 CLT Search for Qlisp programmer
To: JMC, LES, RPG
Since I told Rabinov that I couldn't make a decision about his
application to work on the Qlisp project until I had investigated
other possible applicants I thought I should do some looking.
Below is a draft of an announcement for the Qlisp programming position
Possible places to send it
(1) su-bboards
(2) PARSYM mailing list
(3) Symbolic Math mailing list
Mailing list covering symbolic math algorithms, applications and problems
relating to the various symbolic math languages. It is primarily the
USENET newsgroup net.math.symbolic.
Comments or complaints?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research position -- programming symbolic algebra in Qlisp
Where: Stanford Computer Science Department
Qlisp project - Principal Investigator John McCarthy
Starting date - Fall 1986 (approximately)
Title and salary -- to be negotiated (ranging from
graduate student level to full time research associate)
Qlisp is a parallel extension of Common Lisp. It is described in
Gabriel,R.P. and McCarthy,J., ``Queue Based Multi-processing Lisp,''
Proc. ACM Symposium on Lisp and functional programming, August 1984.
The main features of the Qlisp model of computation are
(1) queue based:
Newly created processes are put on a process queue
when a processor becomes free it gets work from the queue.
(2) shared memory:
There is a common global memory uniformly accessible by all processors.
(3) programmer controlled creation of processes:
The degree of parallelism, granularity and number of processes created in
carrying out a computation are controlled by the programmer using Qlisp
primitives such as QLET. (QLET <test> ((x1 <e1>) ... (xn <en>) <body>) is
evaluated as follows. First evaluate <test>. If NIL then QLET is just
like LET. If non NIL then processes are created to evaluate each of the
<ei>. The value of <ei> will be bound to <xi>. If the value of <test> is
EAGER then evaluation of <body> is begun immediately. If the value of any
xi is needed, evaluation of <body> will be suspended until that value is
available. If the value of <test> is non NIL and not EAGER then
evaluation of <body> is not begun until the processes evaluating the <ei>
have all returned values.
The symbolic algebraic system MACSYMA will be used to test the ideas and
implementation of Qlisp. This will involve design of data structures
for suited to parallel computation and implementation in Qlisp of parallel
versions of MACSYMA programs such as those for manipulation of polynomials
(GCD, factoring, ...). Comparisons of the sequential and parallel
versions will be made on substantial problems.
If you are interested in research as described above, contact
Carolyn Talcott CLT@SU-AI (415-723-0936).
∂01-Jul-86 1352 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 July 1986
Previous Balance 6.60
Monthly Interest at 1.5% 0.10
Current Charges 6.00 (bicycle lockers)
0.90 (vending machine)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 13.60
Please deliver payments to Debbie Woodward, room 040, Jacks Hall.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your Pony account name on your check.
Note: Payment recordation takes up to three weeks after delivery of a payment
(but not beyond the next billing date).
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.5% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
Your last Pony payment was recorded on 5/13/86.
Accounts with balances remaining unpaid for more than 55 days are
considered delinquent and are subject to reduction of credit limit.
Please pay your bill and keep your account current.
∂01-Jul-86 1446 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>: Re: thesis prop.]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Jul 86 14:45:46 PDT
Date: Tue 1 Jul 86 14:43:28-PDT
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: [Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>: Re: thesis prop.]
To: phdcom@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12219293416.54.KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Here is a student who interpreted our wording just as I argued
many people would.
If we WANT the 10 page figure to be fuzzy, we should SAY this clearly
and not expect people to infer it. There are theory students and
professors who are sure to assume that if we said 10 pages we meant it.
I think we should say that 10 pages will usually be a good upper limit
on the length of the proposal, but that some committees - theory
committees in particular - may be satisfied with a siginificantly
smaller length.
Peter
---------------
Return-Path: <avg@su-aimvax.arpa>
Received: from su-aimvax.arpa by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Sat 28 Jun 86 17:20:00-PDT
Received: by su-aimvax.arpa with Sendmail; Sat, 28 Jun 86 17:17:57 pdt
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 86 17:17:57 pdt
From: Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>
Subject: Re: thesis prop.
To: KARP@Sumex-Aim
I guess I'm not being very clear. "10 pages" sounds like it means
"at least 10 pages" or maybe "8-12 pages". I doubt that many students
will have the courage to interpret as "5 to 10 pages",
let alone "2 to 10 pages." And I'm willing to bet that certain faculty
members will feel free to reject a 5 page proposal without reading it,
as being an insult. (Remember the flap about Ashok's programming project
when Brian Reid used size as a reason for failing it?)
If the committee means "10 pages" as an imprecise guideline, then MAKE it
imprecise.
-------
∂01-Jul-86 1437 LES re: Search for Qlisp programmer
To: CLT
CC: JMC
[In reply to message rcvd 01-Jul-86 11:57-PT.]
The job description looks reasonable as do the target lists, though I am
not sure that they all welcome job postings. You might also put it on
the JOBS bboard at SAIL.
If you wait about a week, a new SU-JOBS bboard will be created as part of
the bboard segmentation project.
∂01-Jul-86 1452 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Mailing list
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Jul 86 14:46:34 PDT
Date: Tue 1 Jul 86 14:44:08-PDT
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Mailing list
To: phdcom@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12219293539.54.KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
The mailing list is still not sending to me properly so please CC
me explicitly on any correspondence. Thanks,
PEter
-------
∂01-Jul-86 1640 CLT lisp30
To: HST
CC: JMC
I think the idea of a "30 years lisp conference" is a good one
and your proposed plan as to date, place, subject seems good.
An important topic that you haven't included is
Proving properties of lisp programs / Formal manipulation of lisp programs
People who come immediately to mind are
Boyer/Moore for the former and work on program transformations
such as Scherlis for the latter.
∂02-Jul-86 0408 HST new topic
To: lisp30@SU-AI.ARPA
carolyn talcott proposed a new topic: proving properties of lisp programs.
i think this is really missing and we should include it.
possible spaekers are Boyer/Moore.
herbert
∂02-Jul-86 0841 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA URI
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Jul 86 08:41:09 PDT
Date: Wed 2 Jul 86 08:23:14-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: URI
To: stan@SRI-AI.ARPA, rperrault@SRI-AI.ARPA, pcohen@SRI-AI.ARPA,
john@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, gibbons@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, buckley@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, bscott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12219486342.26.NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
I just talked with Alan Meyrowitz of ONR and found out that we did not
get a URI grant. A formal announcement was made a couple of days ago
at a DoD press conference. In AI, grants are being given to
CMU and to UMASS. At CMU, work was proposed by Newell, Simon, Carbonell
and some others in Learning, Discovery, Intelligent Tutoring, Connectionism.
At UMASS, work was proposed by Vic Lesser and others in Distributed
Systems and problem solving. Others that were site-visited (besides us)
were UC San Diego (Rumelhart, Norman) and Univ. of Maryland (Minker,
Nau).
Meyrowitz said that the panel decided that our proposal was technically
very strong but was judged not to have "Navy interaction elements" that
were as strong as those of the others.
Meyrowitz said that ONR remains very interested in what we proposed but
there budget would not permit funding the whole proposal. He suggested
we talk before next November about how to decide what part of it they
might fund. We agreed that it should be coordinated with the ongoing
work at SRI on DAI. That is, our goal should be to set up something at
Stanford that would complement the SRI DAI work.
Thank you all for your hard work put in on this. It's disappointing not
to be in the winner's circle, but I think we have an excellent proposal
that is certainly fundable. I'm convinced that we have ientified some
of the most important and potentially most useful research in AI and
that it will eventually get funded. I'll be away for a few days, but we
should meet soon to work out a strategy on where we go from here. -Nils
-------
∂03-Jul-86 0926 RLG status
hello, i have written a 2 page summary of my activities available in
the file prog1.txt[1,RLG]
i could benefit from some discussion
at some point when it is convenient.
Bob Givan
∂03-Jul-86 1218 TALEEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Jul 86 12:18:25 PDT
Date: Thu 3 Jul 86 12:17:37-PDT
From: Taleen Marashian <TALEEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12219791154.35.TALEEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Hello. I think I sent a message to JMC but I didn't specify @sail. If this
is redundant, forgive me. I will take a lunch break today from 12:30 to
1:30. Thank you. See you when I return. Taleen
-------
∂03-Jul-86 1252 LES Pucci visit
John Pucci called yesterday, said that he plans to be in this area the
week of July 14 and asked if he could visit with you on July 15 or 17. I
said that I thought you would be gone then, but would check your calendar
and send him a message. I subsequently did so, noting that you plan to be
in Europe July 14-25. I suggested that he pick a date outside that
period. I expect he will respond but have not heard from him yet.
On another front, the computer facilities group is in some financial
trouble at the moment, mostly of their own doing, but it occurs to me that
Labrea should become a cost center, though with substantially lower
storage rates than other systems. It does require both hardware and
software maintenance, which are currently being subsidized by other
systems. Do you have any moral objections to this idea?
∂03-Jul-86 1510 CLT
please send sol a msg about the state of the freiling visit
∂03-Jul-86 1727 GLB
∂03-Jul-86 1351 JMC Freiling will come
To: sf@SU-CSLI.ARPA
CC: GLB@SU-AI.ARPA, VAL@SU-AI.ARPA
I've been out of town, but I finally co-ordinated with Freiling. He
will come for the logic lunch on Monday as proposed. I can still
call him off if it has become very inconvenient.
___
It is not inconvenient, not at all.
∂03-Jul-86 2224 SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Freiling will come
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Jul 86 22:24:12 PDT
Date: Thu 3 Jul 86 22:17:46-PDT
From: Sol Feferman <SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Freiling will come
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Thu 3 Jul 86 13:51:00-PDT
No, that's fine. Did he give you a title?
-------
∂04-Jul-86 1032 SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA re: Freiling will come
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Jul 86 10:32:47 PDT
Date: Fri 4 Jul 86 10:26:13-PDT
From: Sol Feferman <SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: re: Freiling will come
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Thu 3 Jul 86 22:25:00-PDT
yes, at noon. I'll tell everyone.
-------
∂04-Jul-86 1146 SJM glorious fourth
Will you be coming in?
---Susie
∂04-Jul-86 1345 LES Wake for the D.C. Power Lab, 1966-1986
To: Pat@CCRMA-F4, ME@SU-AI.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA,
g.gorin@LOTS-A
[Here is a draft wake announcement; I solicit additional ideas.
I am writing a Eulogy that might be distributed in written form;
it will be too long for a verbal presentation. I'll send it around
as soon as I complete a draft.
The venue I have in mind is the volleyball court. Hope the weeds have
been cut. I am not too familiar with wake protocol but am willing to
organize the refreshments. I guess that we should have champagne and soft
drinks, maybe something munchable. Irish ale perhaps? We might have a
couple of linen-covered tables for serving. It would be a nice touch to
have tuxedo-clad servers if we can find volunteers.
Patte: Would you like to get the musical program specified to the extent
of including a listing in the announcement or would you rather do that
later? -- Les]
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | | |
| | C E L E B R A T I O N | |
| | | |
| | Friends and acquaintences of Stanford University's Donald C. Power | |
| | Laboratory Building are invited to a wake celebrating its life and | |
| | mourning its imminent destruction. This incomplete monument to | |
| | energy inefficiency and university neglect has served for over | |
| | 20 years as a haven for research groups that overflowed or escaped | |
| | from the main campus. | |
| | | |
| | Time: Friday, July 25, 1986, 7:00 PM till sunset. | |
| | | |
| | Place: McCarthy Memorial Volleyball Court | |
| | Donald C. Power Laboratory Building | |
| | 1600 Arastradero Road | |
| | Palo Alto, California | |
| | | |
| | Dress: subdued elegance preferred but whatever suits you is fine; | |
| | complete nudity discouraged. | |
| | | |
| | Refreshments courtesy of Prancing Pony Express, | |
| | Department of Computer Science. | |
| | | |
| | Music courtesy of Center for Computer Research in Music and | |
| | Acoustics, Department of Music. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, | |
| | in sure and certain hope of the reconstruction. | |
| | | |
| +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
∂04-Jul-86 1629 SJM going home
I have gone home.
---Susie
∂05-Jul-86 0100 JMC
miller
∂05-Jul-86 1542 RLG domain shrinking circ
here is the formulation of circumscription that generalizes both domain
and formula circumscription.
circumscribing P in A with Z allowed to vary, and the domain allowed
to shrink gives:
∀P' ∀Z' ∀domain
domain
[A ∧ Ax(domain) ∧ ∃x domain x ∧ P' ≤ P]
implies
P = P'
domain
where A and Ax(domain) are as in domain circumscription
this is intended to say: "there is no P' smaller than P such that
A holds, even if Z varies and even if the domain is allowed to
shrink to any subset (domain x) of the current domain"
notes:
1) adding ∀x.all x to the theory and circumscribing "all" will
do domain circumscription.
2) instantiating domain to TRUE gives formula circumscription
3) it is important to relate this formula to my ideas about
expanding the domain, but they are a bit involved to explain
an a few lines here.
4) relativizing a theory to a domain may be useful for many
purposes--e.g. dealing with contexts, as we were discussing
Friday.
5) the ideas about expanding domains & contexts are very young in
my mind and so i won't say any more till i get time to think more
about them.....
Bob Givan
p.s. you can now reach me best at RLG @ sail
p.s.s. i believe the home phone number i mailed you was incorrect, please
correct to 853-9677, if you wish. Sorry for the error.
∂05-Jul-86 1559 ME IBMRTPC1 connection problems
To: RWW
CC: JMC, CLT
∂05-Jul-86 1522 RWW network to IBMPCRT1
I have noticed that telnet to the IBMPCRT doesnt work
at the moment. I see you are working on the network code. Are these
related? I had hoped to use the RT this weekend. Any advice?
Richard
ME - The problem is at the RT. For instance, it is possible to connect
to its mail server without any problem right now, but Telnet connections
get closed by the RT immediately after being opened.
∂05-Jul-86 1726 CLT Carolyn flight schedule
sun 6 july leave sf 12:45pm arr Boston 9pm united 94
wed 9 july leave boston 5:25pm arr sf 8:33pm united 91
In Boston I will be at Harvard (in dorm called Quincy House).
Harvard host of workshop is Tom Cheatham
∂05-Jul-86 1859 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM re: Lifschitz for editorial board
Received: from XEROX.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Jul 86 18:59:38 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 05 JUL 86 18:59:18 PDT
Date: 5 Jul 86 18:58 PDT
Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: re: Lifschitz for editorial board
In-reply-to: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>'s message of 02 Jul 86 20:36
PDT
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
From: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM (Danny Bobrow)
Message-ID: <860705-185918-2759@Xerox>
Thanks,
Aletter is on the way to him.
-- danny
∂06-Jul-86 1000 JMC
miller
∂07-Jul-86 0827 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA BITNET mail follows
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jul 86 08:27:10 PDT
Return-Path: <LELLOUCH%CERNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
Received: from WISCVM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 7 Jul 86 00:38:12-PDT
Received: from (LELLOUCH)CERNVM.BITNET by WISCVM.ARPA on 07/07/86 at
02:39:06 CDT
Date: 7 July 86 09:38-GVA
From: LELLOUCH%CERNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: NA@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Subject: BITNET mail follows
ReSent-Date: Mon 7 Jul 86 08:25:04-PDT
ReSent-From: Gene H. Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
ReSent-To: dahlquist@SU-SCORE.ARPA, mccarthy@SU-SCORE.ARPA
ReSent-Message-ID: <12220797394.35.GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Paris, July 6th 1986.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Conseil National Francais pour la Protection des Droits des |
| Juifs d'URSS. Comite Scientifique |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Andre Lwoff - Laurent Schwartz - Claude Cohen Tanoudji
Francois Jacob - Pierre Gilles de Gennes
Dear Colleague,
On August 8th, 1985, the Scientific Commitee of the French National
Council for the protection of the rights of Soviet Jews launched its
first collection of signatures by computer networks in favour of Roald
Zelichonok, Doctor of Sciences, computer specialist, author of numerous
publications and patents.
Zelichonok, who had been asking to emigrate to Israel since 1978 and
teaching Hebrew to friends, was sentenced to three years in labour camp
on August 9th, 1985. Until recently he was in camp in central Siberia.
Since May 29th he has been undergoing a transfer to an other camp,
probably in Khazakstan. No news has been received from him since June
4th.
Roald Zelichonok is in poor health; he suffers from serious kidney
troubles and we know that the transfers of prisonners are made under
particularly trying conditions. We hope you will join us in signing
the following telegram:
======================================================================
OUR COLLEAGUE ROALD ZELICHONOK WHOSE HEALTH IS DEFICIENT LEFT CAMP ON
MAY 29TH FOR TRANSFER. WHERE IS HE? IN WHAT STATE OF HEALTH? PLEASE
GIVE NEWS WITHOUT DELAY.
======================================================================
This telegram will be sent to Mr Vlasov, Minister of Internal Affairs,
M.V.D., and Alexander Rekunkov, General Procurator of the USSR.
We wish to thank you in advance for your help
On behalf of the Commitee, Pr Yves Quere.
Please send back your 'signature' (name and position, for identification
purpose only) to : Dr Daniel Lellouch <LELLOUCH@CERNVM on bitnet>
===============
Please make EVERY possible effort to send out at least 4 copies of this
appeal to Colleagues whom you think might join our campaign.
∂07-Jul-86 1146 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jul 86 11:46:43 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Mon, 7 Jul 86 14:48:28 EDT
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 86 14:48:28 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8607071848.AA00107@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 07 Jul 86 1128 PDT
My phone number is (617) 253-8830.
Happy hacking.
∂07-Jul-86 1408 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: workshop on AI foundations
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jul 86 14:08:28 PDT
Date: Mon 7 Jul 86 14:08:24-PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: workshop on AI foundations
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Mon 7 Jul 86 10:21:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12220859896.70.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John, let me think about that. Is the answer still timely if you get it
one week from today?......Ed
-------
∂07-Jul-86 1238 G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU EBOS meeting proposed
Received: from LOTS-A by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jul 86 12:38:05 PDT
Date: Mon 7 Jul 86 12:32:15-PDT
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: EBOS meeting proposed
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, les@SU-AI.ARPA, grp@SU-AI.ARPA, g.gorin@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12220842393.105.G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
On Thursday, I could meet at 11 or 1:30 or 4. Ralph
-------
∂07-Jul-86 1309 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM
Received: from MCC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jul 86 13:09:31 PDT
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1986 14:33 CDT
Message-ID: <AI.BOYER.12220842653.BABYL@MCC.COM>
From: AI.BOYER@MCC.COM
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
In-reply-to: Msg of 7 Jul 1986 13:26-CDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI.ARPA>
He seems to have logged on as rms@mit-ai in the last couple
of days, thought I think I have used rms@mit-mc mostly in
the past.
His official address, of course, is something called the
Free Software Foundation. He resigned from MIT so
that MIT couldn't have restrictive claims to GNU.
If you're interested in that mailing address, I can
dig it out.
You really want to ask him for Gnu-emacs on the RT! I think
it's the greatest system since EMACS! He has ported
Gnu-emacs to many, many machines. I suspect that an RT port
is just a matter of his having access to one running BSD
4.2.
∂07-Jul-86 1310 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Visit
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jul 86 13:10:01 PDT
Date: Mon 7 Jul 86 15:09:29-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Visit
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12220849171.8.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
I am ready to visit Stanford at any time over the next couple of weeks
that is convenient for you. I can arrange the flight plans myself, and
can stay with friends while I am there.
Regards,
Shankar
-------
∂07-Jul-86 1336 LES IBM support
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SU-AI.ARPA
I spoke with Seraphim Calo a few minutes ago about the state of their
review of our proposal. He said that he has not heard from everyone yet
but was quite certain that they would like to proceed, based on input from
Abe Peled. The proposed funding arrangement is $25k in September and
another $75k around January 1 (beginning of their fiscal year).
He said he will poke the reviewers tomorrow and will get back to me
Wednesday afternoon (our time). Assuming that no snags develop, then, we
should put the proposal through our bureaucracy starting Thursday.
I also asked if he could help us in finding out what kind of display
support will be offered with the commercial version of the high-res RT
displays. He said that he would look into that too and tell me what he
can find out on Wednesday.
∂07-Jul-86 1703 TALEEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA mail
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jul 86 17:03:52 PDT
Date: Mon 7 Jul 86 17:02:56-PDT
From: Taleen Marashian <TALEEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: mail
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: taleen@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12220891670.18.TALEEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
I have picked up your mail (it arrived late today). If you wish to see it,
it is on Rutie's desk. If not, then I will place it in your in box tomorrow
morning. I didn't want to disturb your meeting.
Have a good evening,
Taleen
-------
∂07-Jul-86 2024 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: workshop on AI foundations
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jul 86 20:24:39 PDT
Date: Mon 7 Jul 86 20:23:52-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: workshop on AI foundations
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Mon 7 Jul 86 10:20:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12220928248.10.NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Yes. More later; i am on a trip and am answering on an awkwark
terminal. -Nils
-------
∂07-Jul-86 2359 JMC
miller
∂08-Jul-86 1355 CONTRERAS@SU-SCORE.ARPA re: message
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Jul 86 13:52:31 PDT
Date: Tue 8 Jul 86 13:51:37-PDT
From: Tina Contreras <CONTRERAS@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: re: message
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Tue 8 Jul 86 13:49:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12221118987.55.CONTRERAS@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Im not sure but that was the number I was given.
-------
∂08-Jul-86 1419 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU re: Visit
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Jul 86 14:19:27 PDT
Date: Tue 8 Jul 86 16:19:20-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: re: Visit
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Tue 8 Jul 86 13:57:00-CDT
Message-ID: <12221124031.9.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
That sounds fine. I'll go ahead and make the travel arrangements.
Regards,
Shankar
-------
Replying-To: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Reply-Subject: re: Visit
Reply-Text:
[In reply to message sent Tue 8 Jul 86 16:19:20-CDT.]
∂08-Jul-86 1456 LES Jack Test visit
To: JMC, CLT
Jack Test called to say that he will be here next week and wants to know
if anyone would like to see him on either Wednesday (7/23) or Friday.
He will be spending some of the time negotiating a contract with Lucid.
I told him that JMC, JJW, and I will be gone (I'm heading for the hills
Wednesday through Friday), but that I am not sure about CLT's schedule.
He also said that he can come a couple of weeks later if we like.
I said that we would let him know about next week via email.
Carolyn: could you either respond to him with a copy to me or let me
know if you wish to see him and also tell me his email address?
∂08-Jul-86 2255 BURY@su-sushi.arpa CS 306 grading from Fall 1985.
Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Jul 86 22:55:14 PDT
Date: Tue 8 Jul 86 22:54:13-PDT
From: Robert Bury <BURY@su-sushi.arpa>
Subject: CS 306 grading from Fall 1985.
To: givan@su-sushi.arpa
cc: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Message-ID: <12221217762.8.BURY@su-sushi.arpa>
It is now summer quarter and with it comes the promise of your grading my
CS 306 work from last fall quarter, and finally giving me a grade in that
course, authorized by Professor McCarthy.
Has any progress been made in grading my work from last fall? When will this
be done so that we can all finally put this course behind us?
Robert Bury Hewlett Packard, Fort Collins, Colorado,
CS 306 Remote from Fall 1985.
-------
∂08-Jul-86 2338 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA re: Visa photos
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Jul 86 23:37:57 PDT
Date: Tue 8 Jul 86 23:37:12-PDT
From: Gene H. Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: re: Visa photos
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Tue 8 Jul 86 18:46:00-PDT
Phone: 415/723-3124
Message-ID: <12221225589.11.GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Thanks, John.
GENE
-------
∂09-Jul-86 0721 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM in case your mazda lacks a radio
Received: from [192.10.41.41] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jul 86 07:21:16 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 37711; Wed 9-Jul-86 02:03:32 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 197247; Tue 8-Jul-86 23:00:50-PDT
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 23:00 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: in case your mazda lacks a radio
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <860708230044.2.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Symphony # 2, Rachmaninoff, 1907.
∂09-Jul-86 0925 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: workshop on AI foundations
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jul 86 09:25:35 PDT
Date: Wed 9 Jul 86 09:24:23-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: workshop on AI foundations
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Mon 7 Jul 86 10:20:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12221332480.42.NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
About the workshop on AI foundations: There will probably be some
things I need to do in June (like commencement, end-quarter wrap up,
etc.), so as soon as you know the dates pls let me know. I'm writing
a section for John Hopcroft's report called "the logic approach to
AI," so I ought to be reasonably prepared. -Nils
-------
∂09-Jul-86 0958 king@portia.stanford.edu use of Portia by Computers and Mathematics Conference
Received: from PORTIA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jul 86 09:58:10 PDT
Received: by portia.stanford.edu; Wed, 9 Jul 86 09:43:25 PDT
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 86 09:43:25 PDT
From: Peter King <king@portia.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@su-ai.arpa
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 08 Jul 86 1738 PDT
Subject: use of Portia by Computers and Mathematics Conference
Yes. Portia is reacheable from any system on the SUNet, including
LOTS terminals.
Peter
∂09-Jul-86 1307 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU reminder Feigenbaum, Nilson
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jul 86 13:07:14 PDT
Date: 9 Jul 1986 16:04 EDT (Wed)
Message-ID: <KIRSH.12221372623.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Kirsh <KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: reminder Feigenbaum, Nilson
John,
I promised to remind you to ask Nils Nilson if he would give the
main talk on the logic session -- Is logic plus extensions all we
need. The conference will take place the end of June. You also were
going to ask Ed Feigenbaum who he thought should be the main speaker
on the topic of `The adequacy of current technlogy'. Bruce Buchanan
was another possibility.
-- David
∂09-Jul-86 1312 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU [kirsh: AI Workshop]
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jul 86 13:12:37 PDT
Date: 9 Jul 1986 16:07 EDT (Wed)
Message-ID: <KIRSH.12221373080.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Kirsh <KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc: KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: [kirsh: AI Workshop]
In-reply-to: Msg of 7 Jul 1986 19:13-EDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI.ARPA>
Sorry, about the previous message. It was buried in my crashing mail
reader.
-- David
∂09-Jul-86 1422 LES Calo call
To: JMC
CC: CLT, GRP
Dr. Calo called from IBM saying that they would like to proceed and that
we should send them a proposal for a research contract. He mentioned that
they want explicit agreement to have a presentation of the results at
their place.
∂09-Jul-86 1458 alliant!jat@EDDIE.MIT.EDU visit
Received: from MIT-EDDIE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jul 86 14:57:37 PDT
Received: by EDDIE (5.31/4.7) id AA11391; Wed, 9 Jul 86 17:54:51 EDT
Received: by alliant.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA06035; Wed, 9 Jul 86 16:58:36 edt
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 86 16:58:36 edt
From: alliant!jat@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Jack Test)
Message-Id: <8607092058.AA06035@alliant.ARPA>
To: mit-eddie!clt@su-ai.ARPA
Subject: visit
Cc: mit-eddie!jmc@su-ai.ARPA, mit-eddie!les@su-ai.ARPA
I plan on visiting the Bay Area the end of next week and was wondering
if I can also come by Stanford and meet with you then (maybe Friday
afternoon?). If next week isn't good for you, I can arrange to come
again at a later date.
-Jack
∂09-Jul-86 1531 LES re: Calo call
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Jul-86 14:49-PT.]
Yes, I again pointed out that we could deliver more for the money with
a no-strings grant, but he said they wish to have a contract.
I will push through the same text and budget that we sent them informally
unless I hear otherwise.
∂09-Jul-86 1532 GRP meeting tomorrow?
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Are we meeting tomorrow? If so, what time?
∂09-Jul-86 1641 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA CSD/Faculty/WICS contract
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jul 86 16:38:24 PDT
Date: Wed 9 Jul 86 16:36:09-PDT
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: CSD/Faculty/WICS contract
To: Ullman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, CLT@SU-AI.ARPA, JLH@SU-SONOMA.ARPA
cc: Nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, LES@SU-AI.ARPA, BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12221411081.53.TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Joleen Barnhill has been waiting for us to clarify the internal
plan before sending contracts to the CS/WICS faculty. The following
is "hot off the press". Jeff and John wrote it, and Betty and Les have
given their blessings.
We want you to know that if you prefer to receive your payment from
the department into your unrestricted account, that is your choice.
It presents no problem to us, just let me know pronto so Joleen can
prepare your contract accordingly. (You probably won't even need
a contract for that.)
Carolyn
******************************
Date: 2 Jul 1986 1024-PDT (Wednesday)
From: John Hennessy <jlh@sonoma.stanford.edu>
To: tajnai@score.stanford.edu
Cc: jlh@sonoma.stanford.edu
Subject: revised
WICS Payments to Stanford Faculty.
The total renumeration for teaching a WICS course is determined by
other guidelines. University rules govern how Stanford faculty may be
paid for teaching WICS courses. Stanford faculty must be paid at their
standard salary for the time actually spent in classroom instruction.
Thus, for each day in the classroom, you will receive 0.5% of your
academic year salary paid from the university. The rest of your
payment from WICS can be taken as either university salary or as
consulting fees paid from WICS. If you choose to have it paid as
university salary, you may not exceed the limitation on extra salary
paid for teaching that is imposed by the university (5% of your
academic year salary or $4,000, whichever is smaller). If you choose
to be paid by the university, then you must reduce your salary being
paid from research sources to the extent that your WICS income exceeds
the university limit. If you choose to be paid as a consultant for your
preparation time, you must deduct the time spent from your allowable
consulting time. If you exceed the 13 day per quarter limit, you cannot
remain on university salary for 100% time. Note that how you are paid
does NOT affect the total amount you receive for teaching a WICS
course. Individual faculty must ensure that they do not violate any
university regulations on extra salary limitations or consulting
limitations.
......................................
Date: 09 Jul 86 1612 PDT
From: Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: re: [John Hennessy <jlh@sonoma.stanford.edu>: revised]
To: TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CC: BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 8 Jul 86 11:35:07-PDT.]
Looks reasonable. It occurs to me that an alternative option for handling
the "extra" money would be for WICS to hand it over to the University,
which would place it in an unrestricted account under control of the
individual who earned it. As you know, it is quite convenient to have
such funds for various "educational" purposes and such funds would not add
to the individual's income tax burden.
Perhaps we should consider offering that next year.
...........................
Date: Wed 9 Jul 86 16:14:59-PDT
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: re: [John Hennessy <jlh@sonoma.stanford.edu>: revised]
To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA
It has always been an option and I believe that one of our
faculty took some of his that way. The money would be distributed
from 1DMA601. Most of them want the CASH.
Thanks for the suggestion though. I'll make sure they all know that
it is an option.
Carolyn
-------
-------
∂10-Jul-86 1018 G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU Ebos meeting
Received: from LOTS-A by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jul 86 10:17:54 PDT
Date: Thu 10 Jul 86 10:11:43-PDT
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Ebos meeting
To: grp@SU-AI.ARPA, les@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, clt@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: g.gorin@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12221603243.105.G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
I propose either 11AM or 1:30 PM for the meeting. Please let me
know which. Ralph
-------
∂10-Jul-86 1019 G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU Re: Ebos meeting
Received: from LOTS-A by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jul 86 10:18:44 PDT
Date: Thu 10 Jul 86 10:12:43-PDT
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ebos meeting
To: grp@SU-AI.ARPA, les@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, clt@SU-AI.ARPA,
G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12221603243.105.G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-ID: <12221603423.105.G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
(Of course, I mean on Friday 7/11, at 11 or 1:30)
Ralph
-------
∂10-Jul-86 1039 GRP Meeting time
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Meeting is tomorrow at 11.
∂10-Jul-86 1235 COLLEEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Qlisp
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jul 86 12:35:13 PDT
Date: Thu 10 Jul 86 12:34:24-PDT
From: Colleen Crangle <COLLEEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Qlisp
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Just wanted to get back to you about our interest in Qlisp.
We are not yet clear about the kind of concurrent LISP programming we will
need for our robot. We found it useful to study your proposal though and hope
to be clearer towards the end of summer. Thank you for your help in giving us
the proposal.
Colleen
-------
∂10-Jul-86 1331 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA WICS
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jul 86 13:30:49 PDT
Date: Thu 10 Jul 86 13:29:51-PDT
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: WICS
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, CLT@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA, LES@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12221639310.21.TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Betty Scott just called it to my attention that Carolyn cannot be
paid the same way as the faculty for the WICS course. She recommends
that all the money be paid to John and the two of you can work it out.
Next choice is for Carolyn's share to be paid entirely as consulting from
WICS. However, we have had many problems from Rosse and Gibbons
over the WICS program that we might run into problems with Carolyn
being paid from WICS.
CS has contracted with WICS to operate the program.
John, another matter -- I noticed in the conference schedule that you
are sponsoring another class the same week as the Proving Properties.
I thought it was a mistake and called the Conference Office and they
said that you and Dick Janks of IBM are giving it and expecting 600
students. Is this correct information?
Carolyn
-------
∂11-Jul-86 0950 CLT wics
To: JMC, IAM
don't forget to give me any materials for copying
for the wics course by monday 9am
∂11-Jul-86 1024 king@portia.stanford.edu use of Portia for demos at Computers and Mathematics Conference
Received: from PORTIA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Jul 86 10:24:28 PDT
Received: by portia.stanford.edu; Fri, 11 Jul 86 10:23:39 PDT
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 10:23:39 PDT
From: Peter King <king@portia.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@su-ai.arpa
Cc: p.pierre@lots-a.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 08 Jul 86 1812 PDT
Subject: use of Portia for demos at Computers and Mathematics Conference
I talked with Mohamed Mobarak with the Computers and Mathematics
Conference and arranged the use of Portia. However, he said that the
group would need three terminals with modems so that they can do demos
in bizarre places on campus. It is not clear that LOTS can provide
there. Are your people able to help him on this matter, or should I
inquire further on this end?
Peter
∂11-Jul-86 1048 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Followup on Second Discussion Topic
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Jul 86 10:44:53 PDT
Date: 11 Jul 1986 12:33:47 EDT
Subject: Followup on Second Discussion Topic
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: davis@HT.AI.MIT.EDU, tk@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, allen.newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, schank@YALE.ARPA, rhayes-roth@SRI-KL.ARPA,
ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, winograd@SU-CSLI.ARPA, waltz@GODOT.THINK.COM,
brown.pa@XEROX.COM, kay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, raj.reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, lenat@MCC.ARPA,
hollister%ti-csl@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, herb.simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, lehnert%umass@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, wilensky@DALI.BERKELEY.EDU,
jlk%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, feldman@ROCHESTER.ARPA,
norman@NPRDC.ARPA, collins@BBNA.ARPA, lederberg@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
lederberg@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA, weldon@NOSC-COD.ARPA, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU,
sebrecht%weslyn.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU,
hthompson%uk.ac.ed.eusip@CS.UCL.AC.UK,
aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, chapman@SU-RUSSELL.ARPA,
dts%cstvax.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK
cc: OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU, ota@A.ISI.EDU
We're received some helpful responses on the second discussion topic,
although not quite as many as expected, given the importance of the topic.
I'm assuming that a lot of people have been on vacation and the like, and
so we're going to hold off on presenting the third discussion topic for a
few more days. If the topic, on the other hand, was ill-phrased or not
answerable for other reasons, please let us know.
In order to focus discussion on the second topic a bit further, I'd like
to ask for comment on a response we received from one participant, a
relatively junior researcher:
"My impression as a graduate student in a DARPA-funded lab was that DARPA
funded large basic research projects in AI. As the only faculty member in AI
at a relatively small and isolated institution,
until recently I could not go after DARPA money, since it has been
targeted towards bigger efforts than what we have been able to sustain here
(although with DARPA money, we might be able to sustain a bigger effort).
In the past year, that situation has changed. We have additional faculty and
money. The answers we have gotten are: (1) Maybe we can fit you into the
battlefield management program. You can continue to do the research you
want, but you have to do it in the domain we choose. (2) DARPA is
interested in the relationship between data bases and knowledge bases. Why
don't you see if you can get in there."
"I have also heard: (3) Yes, we are interested in learning and want to start
a new initiative in that direction. But, our money for basic research is
getting cut, and we won't be able to do it. In fact, we're cutting some
other people from projects we are already committed to because we lost so
much funding."
"While I know the funding agent I was talking to was absolutely sincere in
trying to help me, what I encountered was not the DARPA I imagined as a
graduate student. The message I am getting now is: Well, we'd like to fund
more basic research, but it has to be part of a more applied project (e.g.,
strategic computing). So, aim it the way we want it to go. And several
months later: We don't even have money for that."
Based on the experience of other conference participants, does this sound
like a fairly typical interaction with DARPA? We're interested in examples
of other experiences with DARPA (and other funding agencies), that might
either support or contrast with this example. [As we stated earlier, we
will honor requests to not distribute a comment if you request, and will
give you the opportunity to check quotes if they appear in the ultimate
report to Congress.]
Thank you,
Jim Dray, Earl Dowdy
-------
∂11-Jul-86 1627 CLT collaboration
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, sf@SU-CSLI.ARPA, RWW@SU-AI.ARPA, JK@SU-AI.ARPA,
CG@SU-AI.ARPA, CLT@SU-AI.ARPA
We will have a mini-seminar series like last year.
How mini depends on how many people want to talk
or how many requests we have for people to talk.
To get started Masami Hagiya from Kyoto University
will talk on Higher order type theory (some practical aspects).
I propose Friday July 18 at noon for the first talk
with the idea that we will meet weekly at this time.
(Sato arrives Tuesday and Thursday is out for me.)
We can spend a little time after the talk on further
organizational details.
If this conflicts with anyones schedule please let me know
and suggest alternate times.
I will send a formal announcement next week.
∂11-Jul-86 1633 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Jul 86 16:32:52 PDT
Date: Fri 11 Jul 86 16:31:35-PDT
From: Ingrid Deiwiks <INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Fri 11 Jul 86 15:29:00-PDT
John's away on vacation till Friday of next week. Can I do anything?
Ingrid
-------
∂11-Jul-86 1645 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA re: VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Jul 86 16:45:18 PDT
Date: Fri 11 Jul 86 16:44:01-PDT
From: Ingrid Deiwiks <INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: re: VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Fri 11 Jul 86 16:41:00-PDT
okay, will do.
Ingrid
-------
∂11-Jul-86 1640 CLT
∂11-Jul-86 1638 JMC
There is no mention of Freiling in my entire jmc-lists file.
--
You must have gotten lost in one of the mailing list
shuffles. I have added jmc-lists to the logmtc mailing list.
∂11-Jul-86 1811 LES re: CSD-CF Change
[In reply to message rcvd 11-Jul-86 16:35-PT.]
I don't think that we want Len to stay around. There is more here than
meets the eye.
∂11-Jul-86 2027 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Jul 86 20:27:33 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Fri, 11 Jul 86 23:28:55 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 23:28:55 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8607120328.AA00446@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
There is a Korean I want to see who can see me here either Aug 1 or
Aug 8, and there's an event I'm interested in seeing in CA around Aug
10. If I go by July 24, I would have to return Aug 6 or so to see the
Korean.
In consequence, I'd rather see the Korean on Aug 1 and visit you
immediately afterward. But if you say it's July 24 or nothing, I'll
agree to July 24.
∂12-Jul-86 0931 CLT new DARPA proposal
To: JMC, LES, VAL
When was the last proposal submitted?
It would be useful to have pointers to the
source text files. I presume they are in
some JMC area -- maybe for the relevant quarter.
∂12-Jul-86 1607 SJM where are you?
We are here, at your house, waiting!
Susie
∂13-Jul-86 1657 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu An indirect approach to the common-sense reasoning problem
Received: from SU-GLACIER.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Jul 86 16:57:28 PDT
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Sun, 13 Jul 86 16:51:13 pdt
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 86 16:51:13 pdt
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@glacier.stanford.edu>
Subject: An indirect approach to the common-sense reasoning problem
To: JMC@SAIL
You may remember me as a former MSCS student; I am also the person
who headed the group that developed the Ford Aerospace proof-of-correctness
system. I have since developed CAD/camera, which converts raster images
to vector images and is used to convert images of engineering drawings to
CAD databases. This last is a commercial product, and is doing well
enough to allow me to work on projects of my own choosing.
This unusual background seems to be leading me to a very strange approach
to artificial intelligence.
I have been doing some very preliminary design of a system intended to
solve certain types of three-dimensional reasoning problems. I am beginning
to suspect that it may be possible to make a dent in the common-sense
reasoning problem by approaching the problem from the point of view of
solid geometric modelling, rather than predicate calculus.
Since you have been working on this problem for some years, I would
like to talk with you. I can be reached at 856-0767; mail to this
account is only read weekly.
John Nagle
∂14-Jul-86 1100 INGRID@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Jul 86 10:27:38 PDT
Date: Mon 14 Jul 86 10:25:27-PDT
From: Ingrid Deiwiks <INGRID@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
To: CLT@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: Ingrid@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Carolyn,
I have spoken to Rich Cower, the director of our computing facilities,
and he'll be glad to set up the VAX accounts for the three Japanese
gentlemen. Could you confirm that they know how to use Unix? We are
currently very short-staffed, so I'm afraid we won't be able to show
them around Unix.
Thanks
Ingrid
-------
∂14-Jul-86 1741 lantz@gregorio.stanford.edu conflicting regulations
Received: from SU-GREGORIO.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Jul 86 17:39:39 PDT
Received: by gregorio.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Mon, 14 Jul 86 17:38:03 pdt
Date: 14 Jul 1986 1738-PDT (Monday)
From: Keith Lantz <lantz@gregorio.stanford.edu>
To: phdcom@sail, sysphd@gregorio.stanford.edu
Cc: nilsson@score, jlh@sonoma
Subject: conflicting regulations
As I haven't seen the final, all-but-approved draft of the CSD
proposals (not approved only due to lack of quorum), I don't know if
the document resolves the following point: In those cases where
general CS regulations conflict with "area" regulations (e.g. those
passed by CSL), the "area" regulations must take precedence. Two
examples of conflicts at hand are:
1. The grandfather clause for the CS proposals specifically exempts
all current students from abiding by the proposed thesis proposal. The
grandfather clause for the Systems proposal exempts only those students
who have not yet filed for candidacy (form G34).
2. The CS proposals require that a student file his/her G81 within one
year of passing the area exam. The Systems proposal gives any student
until the end of his/her 10th quarter, period.
I previously requested that my proposed precedence rule be incorporated
into the CS proposals. I'd like to know what happened -- and,
otherwise, to solicit any counter-opinions from Nils or John on the
subject.
Keith
∂15-Jul-86 1036 MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA book?
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jul 86 10:36:24 PDT
Date: Tue 15 Jul 86 10:35:07-PDT
From: Gina Modica <MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: book?
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12222918221.37.MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Are you going to need a book ordered for CS306 in Fall?
Last year Steele's COMMON LISP was used.
Please let me know which book(s) you'd like ordered, and
whether they should be listed as required or optional.
Thanks.
-Gina
-------
∂15-Jul-86 1729 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Re: conflicting regulations
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jul 86 17:27:34 PDT
Date: Tue 15 Jul 86 17:25:57-PDT
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: conflicting regulations
To: lantz@GREGORIO.STANFORD.EDU
cc: phdcom@SU-AI.ARPA, sysphd@GREGORIO.STANFORD.EDU, jlh@SONOMA.STANFORD.EDU,
WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
I agree with Keith that there should be some general statement that
indicvidual faculty or groups can impose extra requirements on students
who work with them (this has always been the policy, and I believe that
some faculty, such as Knuth, take it seriously). The case of the
systems committee is a little borderline since it covers so much of the
department, but it can be treated as just one case of this more general
clause. --t
-------
∂16-Jul-86 0034 ME juggling convention and juggling shows, in San Jose
To: "@JUGGLE.DIS[1,ME]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Next week the International Jugglers Association is having its annual U.S.
convention, this year in San Jose. Some 600 jugglers are expected to
gather all week at San Jose State University for lots and lots of
juggling. I'll be one of them, but that's not the point.
The point is that there will be a couple of interesting shows that you
might be interested in seeing. In addition, this is a rare opportunity to
see hundreds of people juggling at one place, not far away.
The main public show is called Juggling and Other Delights and will be at
8pm, Saturday, 26 July, at the San Jose Center for the Performing Arts.
This ought to be a really good show, with some of the best professional
jugglers from all over the U.S. (with rumor that a great Russian juggler
might be there). Tickets are $10, available from the Peninsula Box
Office.
Another show that might be of interest to some of you is the Team and
Individual Juggling Championships, at 8pm, Friday, 25 July. This is a
judged event, so you can expect 6- or 7-minute acts separated by breaks
for score totalling. There will be about 10 teams and then 10 individuals
competing. My partner (Laura Novick) and I will comprise one of the
teams. Tickets are $7, are NOT available from the box office, and are
likely to sell out in advance. The show is in Morris Dailey Auditorium at
SJSU. See below for ticket info.
There is also a parade and street performers competition on Wednesday at
1pm, starting at SJSU (it's free).
You can call 408-247-3123 to get more information or to order tickets by
credit card (from the IJA -- you may have to call during the evenings).
If you want to go to either the Friday or the Saturday show, I advise
getting your tickets in advance, since they may be sold out by showtime.
For those of you who are jugglers, you might want to attend the entire
convention, with juggling at the SJSU gym all week long. Call the above
number for more information, or stop by Memorial Court at the front
entrance to the quad weekdays at noon (but not during the convention)
to meet the Stanford Memorial Jugglers.
∂16-Jul-86 1318 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU What arrangements?
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Jul 86 13:18:27 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Wed, 16 Jul 86 16:20:12 EDT
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 86 16:20:12 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8607162020.AA01372@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Subject: What arrangements?
I'm really anxious to arrange the dates for the trip
since other decisions are waiting on that.
Did you get my response to your message of last Friday?
∂17-Jul-86 1109 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Third Discussion Topic
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Jul 86 11:08:56 PDT
Date: 17 Jul 1986 13:30:35 EDT
Subject: Third Discussion Topic
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: davis@HT.AI.MIT.EDU, tk@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, allen.newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, schank@YALE.ARPA, rhayes-roth@SRI-KL.ARPA,
ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, winograd@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, waltz@GODOT.THINK.COM,
brown.pa@XEROX.COM, kay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, raj.reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, lenat@MCC.COM,
hollister%ti-csl@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, herb.simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, lehnert%umass@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, wilensky@DALI.BERKELEY.EDU,
jlk%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, feldman@ROCHESTER.ARPA,
norman@NPRDC.ARPA, collins@BBNA.ARPA, lederberg@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
lederberg@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA, weldon@NOSC-COD.ARPA, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU,
sebrecht%weslyn.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU,
hthompson%uk.ac.ed.eusip@CS.UCL.AC.UK,
aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
dts%cstvax.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, litp!jp.uucp@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
cc: ota@A.ISI.EDU, OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU
We're still interested in any comments on the second discussion topic,
and we will be returning to the general issue of the Federal Government's
role in AI later in the discussion. For the third topic, though, we'd
like to focus on international issues. In particular, we are trying to
do a cross-national comparison of the general health of AI R&D,
subdivided into three areas -- natural language, expert systems, and pattern
recognition. Please comment on your impressions of U.S. versus other
nations' strengths in these areas. More specifically, in your field,
how do foreign research efforts compare to those in the U.S. in:
-- nature of the research programs or their sponsorship;
-- balance of basic versus applied work;
-- size of the research efforts?
Also, how much do you or other scientists know about foreign research efforts?
That is, is there a reasonable amount of information flowing between different
nations' research work?
Thank you,
Jim Dray and Earl Dowdy, OTA
-------
∂17-Jul-86 1530 INGRID@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Jul 86 15:28:08 PDT
Date: Thu 17 Jul 86 15:26:07-PDT
From: Ingrid Deiwiks <INGRID@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: VAX accounts for Japanese collaborators
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Just to let you know that the VAX accounts for the three Japanese
gentlemen were set up earlier in the week.
Ingrid
-------
∂17-Jul-86 1631 BURY@sushi.STANFORD.EDU Re: CS 306 grading from Fall 1985.
Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Jul 86 16:31:06 PDT
Date: Thu 17 Jul 86 16:29:20-PDT
From: Robert Bury <BURY@sushi.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: CS 306 grading from Fall 1985.
To: GIVAN@sushi.STANFORD.EDU
cc: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12223447494.29.GIVAN@sushi.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-ID: <12223506993.11.BURY@sushi.STANFORD.EDU>
I talked to the registrar and recorder's office today concerning my CS 306
grade from Fall 1985. They have not received any grade reports for me for
that course. The recorder also checked those grade reports that they have
recently received but not yet processed, and my CS 306 grade was not to be
found there, either.
Also, according to the log at the TV network, they have not received back
the graded final or remaining homework assignments. So as far as I can tell,
nothing has yet left JMC's office.
Since it seems that no grade report has been turned in yet, if JMC could now
submit one, we should be done.
Thanks for your help.
Robert Bury HP Fort Collins, Colorado
-------
∂18-Jul-86 1739 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Book/News/Breakfast
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Jul 86 17:39:51 PDT
Date: Fri 18 Jul 86 17:31:52-PDT
From: Ellie Engelmore <EEngELmore@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Book/News/Breakfast
To: Breakfast: ;
cc: feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, EEngELmore@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415)723-4878
Message-ID: <12223780520.72.EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
[THE FOLLOWING IS A MESSAGE FROM ED FEIGENBAUM - please respond
to this message or to FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX]
This is a short newsletter and an invitation from Penny and me to
come to a breakfast gathering (it's awkward to call it a "party" at
breakfast time!) at AAAI-86 to honor all of you whose signatures
appear on the celebratory signature quilt and whose papers will appear
in the anthology.
Briefly, the news:
The quilt is finished (it is really beautiful). It was photographed
two weeks ago for use as the centerfold of the book and for a large
celebratory poster. The poster is being printed and distributed by
Addison Wesley. Penny will bring the "real thing" to the breakfast.
The title of the quilt is "Building Blocks 1956-86"
All the papers have been selected. Now I have to write the
interstitial material. I hope to have everything to A-W by Sept. 1.
There are 46 papers (1150 pages estimated). Those plus interstitial
material, index, etc. will make an anthology of about 1250 pages, which
implies two volumes (at least). The book will be titled
"Building Blocks of Artificial Intelligence 1956-86"
The breakfast party!
August 14 (Thursday), 7:45AM-9:00AM (other meetings that some of you
must attend interfered with holding it on Tuesday or Wednesday mornings;
and the evenings were really cluttered with other events)
Sheraton University City Hotel (near the conference site)
36th and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia
Room - Georgian II
Please let me know (before August 1) whether or not you will be there
because the hotel needs a reasonably accurate count.
Best wishes,
Ed Feigenbaum
-------
∂21-Jul-86 1413 JJW Takeuchi function
To: JMC, CLT
In TAKEUC.TEX[F78,JMC] it is conjectured that the running time
of the Takeuchi function is exponential in the argument values
when call-by-value is used. My own experiments indicate even
worse, i.e. it seems to involve some sort of factorial or
binomial coefficient expression. Do you know if anyone has done
an analysis of the running time?
∂21-Jul-86 1425 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA knowledge acquisition workshop
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Jul 86 14:24:57 PDT
Date: Mon 21 Jul 86 14:18:36-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: knowledge acquisition workshop
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: aaai-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12224531769.71.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John,
Have you read the letter proposal from John Boose for the second
Knowledge Acquisition workshop? He called wanting to know your
decision.
Claudia
-------
∂22-Jul-86 1006 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Clarification of Third Discussion Topic
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jul 86 10:06:48 PDT
Date: 22 Jul 1986 12:27:45 EDT
Subject: Clarification of Third Discussion Topic
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: davis@HT.AI.MIT.EDU, tk@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, allen.newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, schank@YALE.ARPA, rhayes-roth@SRI-KL.ARPA,
ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, winograd@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, waltz@GODOT.THINK.COM,
brown.pa@XEROX.COM, kay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, raj.reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, lenat@MCC.COM,
hollister%ti-csl@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, herb.simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, lehnert%umass@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, wilensky@DALI.BERKELEY.EDU,
jlk%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, feldman@ROCHESTER.ARPA,
norman@NPRDC.ARPA, collins@BBNA.ARPA, lederberg@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
lederberg@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA, weldon@NOSC-COD.ARPA, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU,
sebrecht%weslyn.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU,
hthompson%uk.ac.ed.eusip@CS.UCL.AC.UK,
aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
dts%cstvax.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, litp!jp.uucp@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
cc: ota@A.ISI.EDU, OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU
There seems to have been some confusion about the use of the term
"pattern recognition" in the third discussion topic. By that we meant
to refer to work in interpreting and understanding images and speech.
Also, if you feel that we have chosen the wrong three fields as examples for
our international comparison (expert systems, natural language, and
speech/image understanding), of course please tell us so and suggest
alternatives.
Thanks, Jim
-------
∂22-Jul-86 1020 CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA another opinion
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jul 86 10:20:26 PDT
Date: Tue 22 Jul 86 10:14:06-PDT
From: William J. Clancey <CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: another opinion
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12224749403.40.CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Return-Path: <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Mon 21 Jul 86 14:58:23-PDT
Date: Mon 21 Jul 86 15:00:21-PDT
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Review
To: clancey@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
Bill,
I just wanted to let you know that I am now in the process of responding
to the reviews, and was both impressed and delighted by yours. It will
essentially answer the others by itself, as you really get to the
important issues.
After all this settles down, I would like to get together to talk about
possibilities for doing more, particularly relating all this to more
specific questions about expert systems, systematic domains, etc. One
iof the things our response will say is that your concern abou this
is veryu real and needs to be addressed, and from what I see you
are one of the best people to address it with.
We are hoping to have our respnse written in the next few weeks, and
will send a copy.
--t
-------
-------
∂22-Jul-86 2230 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jul 86 22:30:15 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Wed, 23 Jul 86 01:32:27 EDT
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 01:32:27 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8607230532.AA01729@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Cco: clt@su-ai.arpa
My flight arrives at SFO at 8:33pm tomorrow (Wednesday), on United.
I think I have people to stay that night with in San Francisco, but
I can't be certain as the phone there is disconnected. If that
does not work out, is there any place I can stay in Palo Alto?
How can I get there from SFO?
What days should I expect to spend in Palo Alto to work?
∂22-Jul-86 2230 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jul 86 22:30:49 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Wed, 23 Jul 86 01:33:11 EDT
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 01:33:11 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8607230533.AA01732@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Cco: clt@su-ai.arpa
It would be useful for me to know your phone number.
I cannot log in here from San Francisco, only if I
go to Berkeley.
∂23-Jul-86 0000 JMC Expired plan
Your plan has just expired. You might want to make a new one.
Here is the text of the old plan:
I will be in London for the Logic Programming Conference and then
in Edinburgh and Dublin returning July 22 in the evening.
∂23-Jul-86 1118 TAL call
To: JMC
CC: TAL
Professor McCarthy,
There was a call for you this morning from the NSF office re. NSF award.
∂23-Jul-86 1206 GRP CMU common lisp for RT
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I ran into Al Spector from CMU and asked him about the Common Lisp they're
working on. He says he expects it to be running at CMU on the RT on
September 1, and it should be available for export shortly thereafter.
The release will include full sources. It runs under Mach, which is very
similar to 4.2/4.3bsd, but has provisions for tag bits for Lisp.
∂23-Jul-86 1656 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Publication Committee Meeting
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Jul 86 16:56:05 PDT
Date: Wed 23 Jul 86 16:49:40-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Publication Committee Meeting
To: Lerman@SRI-KL.ARPA, nilsson@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
price@A.ISI.EDU, ai.woody@MCC.COM, bobrow@XEROX.COM, aimag@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU, mck%mit-oz@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
cc: aaAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12225083559.42.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
We're planning to hold our meeting on Tuesday morning, August 12, 7:30 am
in Salon 10 of the Franklin Plaza Hotel. We're planning to discuss
the magazine's financial status, new magazine competitors and its
impact on revenues, new projects and anything else you might want to
bring up.
If you could please RSVP about your attendance at the meeting,\
I would appreciate it.
Cheers,
Claudia
-------
∂24-Jul-86 0020 jgilmore@lll-crg.ARPA
Received: from LLL-CRG.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Jul 86 00:19:57 PDT
Received: Thu, 24 Jul 86 00:18:31 pdt by lll-crg.ARPA (4.12/)
id AA02406; Thu, 24 Jul 86 00:18:31 pdt
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 86 00:18:31 pdt
From: John Gilmore <jgilmore@lll-crg.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8607240718.AA02406@lll-crg.ARPA>
Apparently-To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
This is rms. You can phone me at 931-4667 or send mail to
hoptoad!rms@lll-crg.arpa. I asked information for your number
but they gave me someone else's.
∂24-Jul-86 0939 hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA The McDermott paper ...
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Jul 86 09:38:47 PDT
Received: from toronto by csnet-relay.csnet id ad12747; 24 Jul 86 12:29 EDT
Received: by utai.uucp id AA07560; Mon, 21 Jul 86 16:37:02 edt
Message-Id: <8607212037.AA07560@utai.uucp>
Date: 21 Jul 86 16:36:58 EDT (Mon)
From: Hector Levesque <hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
To: james@ROCHESTER.ARPA, bobrow@XEROX.COM, kabowen%syr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
rjb%allegra%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
ec%brown.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, dekleer.pa@XEROX.COM,
jon.doyle%c.cs.cmu.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, forbus@A.CS.UIUC.EDU,
genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, phayes@SRI-KL.ARPA, hewitt@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,
hinton@A.CS.CMU.EDU, hobbs%sri-warbucks%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
israel@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA, lenat@MCC.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
minsky%mit-oz@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, bmoore@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA,
nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, pentland@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA,
watdaisy!dlpoole%watmath.UUCP%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
reiter%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, stan@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA,
alberta!lksc%ubc-vision.UUCP%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
briansmith@XEROX.COM, stickel@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA, tw@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Subject: The McDermott paper ...
... was mailed to you last Monday (the 14th of July). Please let me know if
you haven't received a copy of it by this Friday (the 25th).
Hector
ARPA: hector%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY
CSNET: hector@toronto
UUCP: ...{utai,utcsri}!hector
REGULAR: Dept. of Computer Science
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A4
CANADA.
PHONE: (416) 978-3618
∂24-Jul-86 1021 TAL nagle
To: JMC
CC: TAL
John Nagle (Nagel?) called this morning. He would like you to return his
call at 856 - 0767. Taleen
∂24-Jul-86 1206 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Programming in Prolog
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Jul 86 11:57:21 PDT
Date: Thu 24 Jul 86 11:55:27-PDT
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Programming in Prolog
To: ullman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, genesereth@SU-SCORE.ARPA, mccarthy@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 030C, 723-9798
Message-ID: <12225292143.45.REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
When the department obtained a teaching lab of 10 TI Explorers, I assumed they
would be used to support courses requiring significant Prolog programming
projects. We haven't ordered Prolog for the TI's, and Tom Rindfleisch tells
me that the KSL has no interest in obtaining it for research purposes. Thus,
the department would have to pay the whole cost to obtain it ($19K up front and
$4K/year afterwards).
My question is, do we want to get Prolog on the TI's? The alternative is to
continue to do all Prolog programming for courses on LOTS. I don't think I'm
in a position to judge whether LOTS will be adequate for our future needs in
this area, so I don't know whether the cost is justified.
-------
∂24-Jul-86 1526 GRP Meeting in room 301
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
We have MJH 301 reserved for the meeting with Richard Stallman tomorrow
at 11.
∂24-Jul-86 1559 LES RMS meeting
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Yup.
∂24-Jul-86 1804 G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU Re: RMS
Received: from LOTS-A by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Jul 86 18:04:21 PDT
Mail-From: G.GORIN created at 24-Jul-86 17:04:05
Date: Thu 24 Jul 86 17:04:04-PDT
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: RMS
To: GRP@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: CLT@SU-AI.ARPA, LES@SU-AI.ARPA, G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "GRP@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU" of Thu 24 Jul 86 14:55:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12225348325.109.G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
ReSent-Date: Thu 24 Jul 86 17:05:13-PDT
ReSent-From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
ReSent-To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
ReSent-Message-ID: <12225348535.109.G.GORIN@LOTS-A.STANFORD.EDU>
I'm jammed up until 2 on Friday. I suggest that you wind him up,
start him talking, take him to lunch and plan to join you at
about 2.
Ralph
-------
∂24-Jul-86 2015 RHAYES-ROTH@SRI-KL.ARPA Re: First discussion topic
Received: from SRI-KL.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Jul 86 20:14:52 PDT
Date: Thu 24 Jul 86 20:11:55-PDT
From: Rick Hayes-Roth <RHAYES-ROTH@SRI-KL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: First discussion topic
To: OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU
cc: davis@HT.AI.MIT.EDU, tk@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, allen.newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, schank@YALE.ARPA, ohlander@B.ISI.EDU,
winograd@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, waltz@GODOT.THINK.COM, brown.pa@XEROX.COM,
kay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, phw%mit-oz@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, raj.reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, lenat@MCC.COM,
hollister%ti-csl@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, herb.simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, lehnert%umass@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, wilensky@DALI.BERKELEY.EDU,
kolodner.Gatech@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, feldman@ROCHESTER.ARPA,
norman@NPRDC.ARPA, collins@BBNA.ARPA, jsl@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA, ota@A.ISI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@USC-ISI.ARPA>" of Sat 21 Jun 86 21:18:00-PDT
At the heart of the first question is a premise that I don't accept,
namely that commercialization interests will have a negative impact
on research productivity in AI. Undoubtedly, the commercialization
pulls researchers in different directions than they might pursue in
the absence of the need to address material problems and produce
economic value. However, I think we can see plainly by analogy to
many other fields that science and technology develop in parallel,
with mutual reinforcement.
I think there is an insufficient number of well educated, experienced
and well funded individuals pushing the frontiers of AI. That applies
both in research and development-oriented settings. I think the
domain of investigation is huge by comparison. There is no effective
heuristic for deciding which areas to investigate and which to pursue.
The academic researchers in AI are motivated by what they see as
basic, fundamental problems. With luck, they will open up whole new
areas and unleash unexpected powers. The commercial R&D people are
motivated by finding ways that AI can add value to in-place systems,
from computer systems to organizational ones. With luck, they will
find out how computerization of human knowledge will enter into
society and improve it.
At any point in time, the best science explores the frontiers of what
is doable and already understood. However, reduction to practice has
proven to be an essential ingredient in most constructive areas (eg,
design, computer programming, engineering). Basic research in these
areas without applied R&D is like architecture without building:
unguided, untested, and unreliable.
Rick
-------
∂25-Jul-86 0011 jgilmore@lll-crg.ARPA
Received: from LLL-CRG.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Jul 86 00:11:42 PDT
Received: Fri, 25 Jul 86 00:10:12 pdt by lll-crg.ARPA (4.12/)
id AA28134; Fri, 25 Jul 86 00:10:12 pdt
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 86 00:10:12 pdt
From: John Gilmore <jgilmore@lll-crg.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8607250710.AA28134@lll-crg.ARPA>
Apparently-To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Can you phone me at 931-4667 at 8:45 am tomorrow?
There is no alarm clock available here. Please
phone now if you see this message.
∂25-Jul-86 0830 JMC
phone Stallman.
∂25-Jul-86 1026 CHEADLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Jul 86 10:19:32 PDT
Date: Fri 25 Jul 86 10:14:28-PDT
From: Victoria Cheadle <CHEADLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
To: Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Floyd@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
Golub@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Guibas@DECWRL.DEC.COM, Knuth@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
Lantz@SU-GREGORIO.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, papa@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
pratt@SU-NAVAJO.ARPA, Ullman@SU-AIMVAX.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 258, 723-1519
Message-ID: <12225535902.25.CHEADLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
At the June 27 faculty meeting, a vote was taken on the new
Ph.D. Requirements. As you were not at the meeting, I need
to have your vote. You probably remember that the requirements
were adopted at a former faculty meeting, with some details
to be worked out. The details involved four areas. Listed below
are the areas and the proposed changes.
1. Comp structure
We propose keeping the current structure with the following
changes:
a. Revise the current 6 areas to 3:
i. Theory (combines current MTC, AA, some elements from AI)
ii. Systems (combines current Software and Hardware)
iii. Applications and specialized techniques, possibly including
(but not limited to) numerical [NA], heuristic and deductive
[AI], geometric [Graphics], storage and retrieval [Databases].
The areas within it will not necessarily be given equal weight.
b. The exam will not be given on a single day, but will be a series
of three exams given within a week on separate days. Each exam
will be 3 hours. The comprehensive exam committee will (with the
consent of the faculty) determine the details of the exam (for example,
open vs. closed book).
c. There will be separate passing requirements for each area, rather than
a global accumulated score. This means that if a student passes an
area any one time, it need not be taken again. Therefore, low
performance in one area cannot be compensated for by brilliance in
another. The combined area (iii above) is an exception to this.
That is, it will be scored as a single exam and must be passed
altogether. As with the current comp, it will require minimum
competence in all areas and an overall score above some threshold.
d. The syllabus will be made available ahead of time as it is now.
We will continue to base the exams on the syllabus, not on any
particular course or combination of courses. It can be revised
by faculty vote, and the Comprehensive committee will be responsible
for proposing revisions.
2. Qual Areas
We propose keeping the current qual structure while making the
set of qualifying areas more flexible. In order to provide a
a qualifying exam, it will be necessary for any three academic
council members with appointments in CS or EE-CSL to:
a. Create and have approved by the faculty a syllabus, such that
students can learn from the material in the syllabus what they
need to know for the exam. This needs to be available by June
for an exam to be given in the Fall quarter, by the beginning
of November for Winter quarter and by the end of fall term for
Spring quarter.
b. Set dates for exams (either oral or written) each year. The dates
need to be set at the beginning of the academic year. If possible
each area should offer the qual twice during the academic year.
If not, the requirement that the quals be passed in the third
year may leave some students only a single chance in the area,
and we do not want to relax that requirement. By getting things
scheduled early we hope to avoid clashes so as to make it easy
for a student to take more than one exam in a given period.
c. Give the exam to any students who wish to take it (who must sign
up at least a month ahead of time) and report the results. The
faculty who proposed the area are responsible for seeing that
the exam is adequately conducted, and can delegate appropriate
parts of the work to other qualified people, faculty and non-faculty.
We expect that due to the large amount of work in preparing an adequate
syllabus and an exam, there will not be a large proliferation of new
qualifying exams. However, this does make it possible to create exams in
areas that cut across the current divisions.
3. Teaching
There is no change to the basic TA requirement. We are adding a
new specialization "with Distinction in Teaching" that a student
can choose to earn with the degree, to certify significant experience
in teaching.
For the designation "with Distinction in Teaching" a student must do
the equivalent of 10 units of TA/TF (a unit is one quarter, 10 hours
per week), with the following restrictions:
a. The units must include at least one quarter as a TF with
primary reponsibility for organizing and teaching a course
(not just tutored video).
b. The units must include at least one course at each of the
100, 200 and 300+ levels.
4. Grandfather clause
We propose that students who entered the Ph.D. program before these
program modifications were approved will not be required to submit
and present a dissertation proposal. However, we encourage individual
advisors to recommend this to students who are at an early stage in
their research and will benefit from doing the paper and/or presentation.
Students are free to satisfy the requirements for either the old or the
new program, but must fully complete all of one or the other.
-------
∂25-Jul-86 1147 TAL Lucy called
To: JMC
CC: TAL
Please call Lucy at (415) 940-2324. Personal call, so she left no other msg.
If not in, leave message on answering machine re. when you can be reached.
Taleen
∂25-Jul-86 1333 CLT
call david c @ 212-866-1884 until 2:30 our time
∂25-Jul-86 1452 TAL phone call
To: JMC
CC: TAL
Gary Gray would like to speak with you. He is in the area of economics and
petroleum, and got your name from Hoover. Since it will be hard to reach
him during the day, he would appreciate it if you could call him after 7:30
p.m. If not, then he will try again Monday (around 1:00 p.m.).
Gray's number: (619) 265-7636
Taleen
∂25-Jul-86 1621 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU 10 page guideline
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Jul 86 16:20:44 PDT
Date: Fri 25 Jul 86 16:20:19-PDT
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: 10 page guideline
To: cheadle@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: phdcom@SU-AI.ARPA, WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
How abou this?
As a broad guideline, the proposal should be about 10 pages in length.
The reading committee members can interpret this as appropriate for the
particular topic. The proposal must be submitted to the committee at
least two weeks prior to the oral presentation.
--t
-------
∂25-Jul-86 1656 TAL message
To: JMC
CC: TAL
I tried to send you a message while I was on score. Since it:s been acting
weird, I am not sure if you got the message. Just in case, here it is:
David wants you to call him. His number is (212) 866-1884
Well, that's it. My time is up. Starting Monday, you'll have Rutie again.
I hope that I have been of SOME help to you these past few weeks. I'm glad
that I did it.
Have a good weekend.
Taleen
P.S. If you have any questions whatsoever about anything I've filed or msgs I've
taken (or anything else), please let me know. I will still be working in pub-
lications.
∂26-Jul-86 0931 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Fourth Discussion Topic
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Jul 86 09:30:51 PDT
Date: 26 Jul 1986 12:24:03 EDT
Subject: Fourth Discussion Topic
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: davis@HT.AI.MIT.EDU, tk@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, allen.newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, schank@YALE.ARPA, rhayes-roth@SRI-KL.ARPA,
ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, winograd@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, waltz@GODOT.THINK.COM,
brown.pa@XEROX.COM, kay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, raj.reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, lenat@MCC.COM,
hollister%ti-csl@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, herb.simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, lehnert%umass@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, wilensky@DALI.BERKELEY.EDU,
jlk%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, feldman@ROCHESTER.ARPA,
norman@NPRDC.ARPA, collins@BBNA.ARPA, lederberg@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
lederberg@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA, weldon@NOSC-COD.ARPA, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU,
sebrecht%weslyn.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU,
hthompson%uk.ac.ed.eusip@CS.UCL.AC.UK,
aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
dts%cstvax.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, litp!jp.uucp@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
cc: ota@A.ISI.EDU, OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU
The fourth topic is, we hope, an interesting change of pace before we
return to more immediate issues regarding AI and the Federal role.
FOURTH TOPIC:
What do you think should be the Federal role in anticipating the social
implications of AI? What social implications do you think are the most
critical to anticipate?
Shortly, we'll be sending you a synopsis of the discussion so far. Hope
your summer is going well.
Earl Dowdy and Jim Dray, OTA
-------
∂26-Jul-86 2303 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Jul 86 23:03:15 PDT
Date: Sat 26 Jul 86 22:48:27-PDT
From: Gene H. Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
To: CHEADLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
Floyd@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Guibas@DECWRL.DEC.COM, Knuth@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
Lantz@SU-GREGORIO.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, papa@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
pratt@SU-NAVAJO.ARPA, Ullman@SU-AIMVAX.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <12225535902.25.CHEADLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Phone: 415/723-3124
Message-ID: <12225935306.2.GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
I would prefer to vote after hearing a complete discussion of the issues.
When we we schedule a meeting for those who missed the June 27 meeting?
GENE
-------
-------
∂27-Jul-86 0829 jsl@ROCKEFELLER re: Fourth Discussion Topic : federal role
Received: from ROCKEFELLER.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Jul 86 08:29:12 PDT
Received: from rocky3 (rocky3.ARPA) by rockefeller.ARPA (4.12/) id AA12106; Sun, 27 Jul 86 11:29:12 edt
Received: by rocky3 (4.12/) id AA05881; Sun, 27 Jul 86 11:28:17 edt
Message-Id: <8607271528.AA05881@rocky3>
To: ota-cit@isi
Cc: jmc@su-ai
Subject: re: Fourth Discussion Topic : federal role
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 86 11:28:12 -0500
From: jsl@ROCKEFELLER
John is properly concerned about government leaping in to regulate
new technology.
On the other hand, an enormous amount of economic and
infra-structural planning is contingent on a sensitive understanding
of where new technology is going: precisely what the OTA is all about.
The debate should be by no means confined to government organs, but
OTA does have a special place in that process.
It is inconsistent to demand a total "hands-off" by government, and at
the same time be asking for government investment in R&D in the same
field; that investment is predicated on SOME model of (presumably
beneficial) social impact.
---
As to the most important impacts, I have no novel wisdom. For the
next decade or two, I think the knowledge-based system paradigm will
remain in the lead: AI will be A way of coordinating and refining
human expertise to sustain its authenticity, and make it available to
the multitude. In due course some machines will be closely enough
coupled to the autonomous acquisition of real-world data, and to
problem-solving, that they will make an increasingly larger
contribution from what they have learned and processed (in the
tradition of the AI-expectations of the '50s.)
This will enhance technological efficiency, and will widen the gap
between skilled and unskilled professionals and workers. The machines
will become friendlier, in large measure by the use of AI technology;
but there will still be an ever-increasing premium on the ability to
cut through the pre-engineered interface (e.g. to understand how the
knowledge base is structured, and be able to debug it). So there is
a heavy demand on educational preparation.
That information-system-dominated world will also enhance competition
between states (as well as individuals) for economic preeminence, as
production becomes more and more dependent on computer-based systems.
Military competition is a subset of this.
These remarks about AI hardly differ from what one would say about
computer technology more broadly; and this is the right way to think
about both. AI is embedded in a broad front of technological advance
moving with astonishing speed.
------
Who but government can mediate the life-long educational investments
needed to ameliorate the stresses on people trying to keep up with
that change? If it does not, the Luddites will reemerge. Government
also plays an unavoidable role in the structure of our communications
and informational systems, and in institutionalizing the proper bounds
of safeguards for privacy, security, data-integrity, etc.
∂27-Jul-86 1204 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Jul 86 12:03:15 PDT
Date: Sun 27 Jul 86 11:56:34-PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Your vote on the new Ph.D. requirements
To: GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA, CHEADLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
Floyd@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Guibas@DECWRL.DEC.COM, Knuth@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
Lantz@GREGORIO.STANFORD.EDU, zm@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
papa@SU-SCORE.ARPA, pratt@NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU, Ullman@DIABLO.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12225935306.2.GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Message-ID: <12226078777.16.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Although I indicated I am inclined to vote "yes", I agree with Gene
Golub that I really would like to hear all the issues. I missed the
June 27 meeting.
Ed
-------
∂27-Jul-86 1211 RPG Lisp Conference Speech
John, is 30 - 45 minutes anough time for your Lisp Conference
Speech? Do you need slides, a board, overheads?
-rpg-
∂27-Jul-86 1507 IAM is this ok?
ABSTRACT
In this part of the course we investigate various
equivalence relations between expressions
in destructive LISP. This fragment of LISP
includes the destructive operations rplaca
and rplacd. To define the semantics we introduce
the notion of a memory structure. The equivalence
relations are then defined within this model theoretic
framework.
A distinction is made
between
intensional relations and extensional relations.
The principle intensional relation studied is
strong isomorphism, its properties
allow for elegant verification proofs
in a style similar to that of pure Lisp.
The approach will be somewhat informal, concentrating
on examples of program verification in the theory.
∂27-Jul-86 1829 CLT
vladimir b returned your call
∂27-Jul-86 2000 JMC
Lucy Habib
∂27-Jul-86 2234 CLT
WICS
My part of the course will treat programs that use function and control
abstractions. Pure Lisp will be extended to include constructs for
returning functions as values (function abstraction) and for noting the
current continuation (what remains of the computation -- control
abstraction).
We will begin by carrying out example computations. The examples will
include programs that use functions to represent computation context
(continuation passing style) and to represent streams. They will also
include programs that use continuations to describe escape and co-routine
mechanisms. We will then study the equations satisfied by such programs
and use these results to prove the example programs have correct
functional behavior.
Finally we will study properties of the computations described by programs
(intensional properties of programs). These properties include
traditional measures of the cost of execution such as the number of conses
or multiplications. They also include more exotic properties such as the
trace of a computation. We will see how to represent intensional
properties of programs as properties of the function computed by related
programs called derived programs.
∂28-Jul-86 0715 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Change in Location & Time of Informal Exec Council Mtg
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Jul 86 07:15:42 PDT
Date: Mon 28 Jul 86 07:14:11-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Change in Location & Time of Informal Exec Council Mtg
To: MCK%mit-oz@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU, ai.woody@MCC.COM,
fikes@USC-ECL.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, KRD@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,
Shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: aaai-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12226289515.15.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
We're changing the time and location of the informal meeting to
6:00 pm in Salon 8 in the Franklin Plaza Hotel.
A proposed agenda for the meeting follows:
* By-law amendments
* Proper Use of AAAI funds
* Competition from other publishers and organizations
* Science/Engineering Track Division
If you have any problems with the new time, pls alert me asap.
Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.
Claudia
-------
∂28-Jul-86 0745 ATP.CHOU@R20.UTEXAS.EDU The Possible visit of Professor Wu
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Jul 86 07:45:27 PDT
Date: Mon 28 Jul 86 09:45:45-CDT
From: Shang-Ching Chou <ATP.CHOU@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: The Possible visit of Professor Wu
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12226295262.48.ATP.CHOU@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Dear Professor McCarthy:
I was a former student of Boyer and Moore, working on geometry theorem
proving method introduced by a leading Chinese mathematician Wu
Wen-Tsun.
This message is to inform you that Professor Wu Wen-Tsun is in the US,
being invited a 45 minute talk at ICM-86, and that he is interested in
visiting Stanford, especially in visiting you.
He will be free on 20-24 August. I would appreciate it if you can give
me a response regarding his possible visit.
Thanks.
Shang-ching Chou
Institute of Compting Science
University of Texas at Austin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Wu Wen-Tsun
Academia Sinica
Institute of System Science
Beijing 100080, China
Professor Wu Wen-tsun has been known as one of the two top
mathematicians in the People's Republic of China. (Another one
is late Professor Hua Lo-Keng.) Professor Wu has been the
president of Chinese Mathematical Society since 1982, and is the
vice chairman of the committee of the members of Academy of
Sciences in physics and mathematics. Professor Wu received the
state Doctor Degree in France, and was in Bourbaki group during
early 50s.
In the first National Science and Technology Awards (NSTA)
of China in 1956, Professor Wu was one of the only three people
who were awarded the first prizes for their important contribu-
tions to science and technology. The second NSTA took place only
recently (1982). In 1979 he had a three month study tour to the
States at the invitation of the Princeton Institute for Advanced
Studies. Being invited by Max-Planck-Institut fur Mathematik at
Bonn and IHES at Paris, he visited those Institutes from Septem-
ber 1982 to Feburary 1983. Professor Wu has been also recently
invited to deliver an open speech at the International Congress
of Mathematics, to be held at Berkeley, on the subject of the
history of Chinese mathematics.
Professor S.S. Chern, Berkeley, said:
"Wu has made several important contributions in algebraic topo-
logy, including the following: characteristic classes, insotopy
invariants of imbedding, I*-measures etc. His work on character-
istic classes was pioneering, opening the way for later works on
classifying spaces of fiber bundles. In imbedding problems he
studied invariants which are not invariants under homotopy. His
work on I*-measures is a continuation of the work of De Rham,
Whitney and Sullivan, in which he succeeded to include the ring
structure in cohomology theory right at the start; it is very
elegant. In recent years he is studying proofs of results in
geometry and differential geometry by machines.
Wu Wen-tsun is an original and broad mathematician. In spite of
the adverse conditions in China through a long period, he remains
active to this day."
(Prepared by Shang-ching Chou and Hai-Ping Ko, 1986)
-------
∂28-Jul-86 0851 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Old Journals
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Jul 86 08:50:59 PDT
Date: Mon 28 Jul 86 08:49:19-PDT
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Old Journals
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12226306835.36.LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
If they are strictly journals and are the more popular ones, I think
the best thing to do is to place them on a free table in the department.
That really seems to work best. If you have any old conferences or
proceedings mixed in, we can always use additional copies of those.
Also, some of the SIG groups we have missing issues.
Harry
-------
∂28-Jul-86 1005 RA Gebauer
Gebauer called re the accounts for computers and matematics. He wanted to know
the name of the person whom he can contact. Please let me know and I will call
him. His tel. 855 3130 at IBM.
∂28-Jul-86 1029 RPG Speech
It turns out that we will either not be able to show slides - because
the seating space is not a long hall, but several adjacent ones - or
we'll need 3 sets of them so that 2 can be slaved. Apparently all
will hear you, but not all can see the slides. Could you make 3 sets
or we can make three if you bring the original material. Thanks.
-rpg-
∂28-Jul-86 1034 RPG
John, here is a note from Bert Halstead regarding the room in which
you'll speak. It is the Museum of Science:
Regarding McCarthy's talk, I have a suggestion for a
possible solution to the visibility problem for his slides.
I haven't been in the hall, but would it be possible to
station MULTIPLE projectors and screens, so that from any
given seat at least one screen would be visible?
Picture a large rectangular area, about in the proportions of a golden
rectangle (roughly 1 : 1.5). Then picture a rectangular cut taken out
of each of the two or three floors above, the same size as the
rectangular area on the ground floor. Around each of these rectangular
cuts is a wide walkway where tables can be set up. Also, the
rectangular area on the ground floor can be populated with tables,
except for the part that is set aside for buffet lines and that kind of
"overhead." The mike and podium for McCarthy's talk are scheduled to be
on the ground floor (though as I write this I'm wondering whether it
might not be better to have him speak, as it were, from the first
"balcony" -- it would be less like being at the bottom of a pit!). One
could potentially set up some more projectors so that people who are
gathered around the four sides of the balcony could always have one
screen in sight. But I think there will be some places where the
viewing angles will be pretty poor unless there is an unreasonably large
number of projectors (like four!). Two projectors on the highest level
would probably take care of most viewing angles, but the people on the
ground floor might really have to crane their necks. Also, though I
know where we could put the screens, we might have to hang the
projectors in mid-air to make it work! On the whole, it would probably
go over better if it were possible for McCarthy to talk without using
visuals. -b.
∂28-Jul-86 1100 JMC
Have Rutie copy notes.
∂28-Jul-86 1135 AN02@A.CS.CMU.EDU Re: Fourth Discussion Topic
Received: from A.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Jul 86 11:34:56 PDT
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 86 14:31 EDT
From: Allen.Newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU
To: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fourth Discussion Topic
CC: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: "Jim Dray's message of 26 Jul 86 11:24-EST"
Message-Id: <28Jul86.143105.AN02@A.CS.CMU.EDU>
Jim: In answer to the fourth topic on the federal role in anticpating
social consquences:
In the main, AI is to be seen as part of computer science, vis a vis
its societal and economic consequences (and lots of other ways too).
There is little doubt as to the revolutionary character of
information processing technology and indeed it is well underway. It
is extremely broad so that, except rhetorically, one does not treat
of the "social consequences of the computer". In fact, I don't keep
in my head any articulated list of the social consequences of AI.
I tend to agree with John McCarthy that the government does not deal
well with anticipations of broad, ill-defined things. I am a little
sorry he felt so strongly the need to impress his views on us all
before we even got around to answering the question. Perhaps he
didn't trust us to have reliable reactions.
There is one way in which governments do behave anticipatorily with
great effect, which is to support research. It would help if our
current federal government would see research into the social
sciences as a somewhat more pressing matter -- which is where concern
for the social consequences of technology primarily resides. We
could indeed us a lot of research on the technology and society.
To give just one tiny example, I got briefly involved the other day
with the issue of the patentability of algorithms. The situation is
chaotic. The lawyers are working to create a reasonable body of
copywrite and patent law, mostly by interpretation of existing law.
But they rely on a set of concepts of what algorithms are and their
relation to other concepts such as methods, processes, mathematical
truths and mental steps, that are quite inadequate. It is not that
they are trying to update themselves. But the implications of AI for
these concepts within computer science is extremely destabilizing.
So the problem is not with the lawyers. It is with understanding the
conceptual foundations of AI and computer science. A little research
on such things could be substantial help.
AN
∂28-Jul-86 1151 RA lunch
Going out for lunch.
∂28-Jul-86 1603 RA Prof. Patrick Winston
Winston called to invite you to join the panel at the AI Assoc. conference.
He will be home tomorrow and would like you to call him. (617) 369 1695.
∂28-Jul-86 1657 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Possible appointment of Tony Chan
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Jul 86 16:57:01 PDT
Date: Mon 28 Jul 86 16:55:14-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Possible appointment of Tony Chan
To: RWF@SU-AI.ARPA, Guibas@DECWRL.DEC.COM, ZM@SU-AI.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA,
Ullman@DIABLO.STANFORD.EDU
cc: BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12226395291.53.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
The senior faculty has met twice to consider Tony Chan for a joint appointment
between CS and the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS),
an institute associated with NASA-Ames Research Center. In CS (50%) his
appointment would be as a tenured Associate Professor in the Program in
Applied/Computational Mathematics now under development.
All senior faculty, except those addressed in this message, have had an
opportunity to vote on this appointment. All votes thus far are positive.
I have Chan's file and recommendation letters in my office. You are urged
to look at the file at your earliest convenience.
Message to Zohar Manna: if you want copies of the file mailed to you, please
let me know as soon as possible.
Betty
-------
∂28-Jul-86 1720 RA Tomorrow
I will come in at 10:00 tomorrow and will work till 6:00.
∂28-Jul-86 1838 GRP Editing structured objects
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Page 3 of rambl1.txt[1,grp] has some thoughts on why we should design
the editor to handle structured objects, not just character sequences.
∂28-Jul-86 2254 LES Cost Center Rates
To: facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
For the benefit of those who do not already know, the computer cost centers
administered by CSD-CF have been running at a severe deficit. In order
to balance the books, we plan to increase the rates by about 58% retroactive
to September 1, 1985. This will, of course, cause budgeting problems for
some projects and will result in uncollectable debts in other cases.
Unfortunately, CSD will have to swollow these debts.
We plan to send the attached statement shortly to budget authorities
who have used these computer facilities during the current fiscal year.
Les Earnest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been discovered that the computer cost centers run by CSD-CF have
substantially undercharged for their services over the last fiscal year.
In order to balance the charges against costs, it will be necessary to
increase all fees by about 58% retroactive to September of last year,
subject to review and approval by Stanford accounting authorities. Bills
for June, July and August of this year based on the higher rates as well
as surcharges for past bills will appear on your August Expenditure
Statements.
The deficit appears to be primarily the result of a reduction in revenues
caused by two main factors.
(1) Students have been moved increasingly to Sushi and away from Sail
and Score. This has reduced the load and improved response times
on Sail and Score but has also reduced their revenues.
(2) CPU performance on Sail and Score was increased by CPU and cache
upgrades and Navajo's original memory was replaced by faster memory,
resulting in reduced CPU time charges for any given task.
We hope to be able to reduce the fee structure from the adjusted rates
during the next fiscal year, beginning September 1, by taking the
following steps:
(a) control operating costs of the cost centers carefully and
(b) charge for certain services that have been provided at no cost in
the past, including such things as annual fees for ethernet
connections and nominal storage charges for the use of Labrea.
We regret that the undercharge was not detected and the rates raised
earlier. We are making management changes that we hope will prevent a
recurrence of this problem.
∂29-Jul-86 0001 LES Outside use of CSD Computers
To: facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
It appears that there has been some inappropriate use use of CSD computer
facilities by outside commercial organizations and other entities. One of
the reasons for this seems to be that we have no policies that define what
is "appropriate use."
Our policies should take into account both departmental objectives and the
legal obligations of the university. For example, if we permit our
computers to be used for purposes that are unrelated to the university's
purposes, any resultant income must be declared as "unrelated income" and
income taxes must be paid on it.
The university administration currently takes the position that the
department should exclude all computer uses that would lead to unrelated
income, though they are considering the possibility of permitting ITS to
generate such income. A draft policy is presented below. It has been
designed to conform with the known desires of the Provost's Office but has
not yet been approved by them. Comments are invited.
POLICY. Computers operated by the Department of Computer Science may be
used only for the following purposes:
(1) by Stanford faculty, staff and students in direct support of teaching,
research or administrative needs of the department;
(2) by other entities in support of a contract with Stanford for which
access to departmental computers is required;
(3) for the preparation of documentation reporting scholarly work performed
primarily at Stanford or which intersects strongly with the research
interests of the department and which will be of general interest to
the academic community;
(4) individuals who maintain valuable software on departmental machines
without fee may be granted free computer accounts to carry out this work;
(5) scholarly colleagues whose research interests strongly intersect
with those of the department may be granted free computer accounts for
the purpose of sending or receiving electronic mail only.
COMMENTS. Note that item (3) is designed to cover both books written by
faculty and staff members and the use of our computer facilities in such
enterprises as the production of the AAAI magazine. Items (4) and (5)
cover courtesy accounts, which were discussed in greater detail in an
earlier policy.
Les Earnest
∂29-Jul-86 1206 RA Louis Lerman
Lerman is looking for you. He is on campus. He would like to drop by this
afternoon and will call later to see whether you are in.
∂29-Jul-86 1218 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Tomorrow
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 11:39:14 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 13:39:19-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Tomorrow
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, ketonen@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12226599924.22.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
I'm flying out to California this evening and will be at
your office in Stanford at 10am tomorrow.
Regards,
Shankar
-------
∂29-Jul-86 1331 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Outside use of CSD Computers
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 12:56:31 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 12:55:27-PDT
From: T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Outside use of CSD Computers
To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA, facil@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 29 Jul 86 00:01:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12226613785.62.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Les, your policy seems to say what is needed. The only addition I would
propose is in item 2, include "collaboration" in addition to contractual
connection with Stanford. For example, it might be desirable to allow an
outside scientific collaborator to use a machine as part of their contribution
to work going on jointly.
Tom R.
-------
∂29-Jul-86 1436 RWW computer usage
John
Could I talk to you some time over the next day or two.
Thanks
Richard
z
∂29-Jul-86 1520 STAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA connection machine
Received: from SRI-STRIPE.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 10:55:19 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 10:55:09-PDT
From: Stan Rosenschein <STAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
Subject: connection machine
To: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, feigenbaum@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: stan@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA
John, Ed, and Nils:
As you know, I am trying to assess whether there is enough interest in
acquiring a connection machine to form a Stanford/SRI consortium to
request a machine from Darpa. I've seen the machine and was fairly
impressed, and there are several pieces of research in our lab that
could benefit from it but not enough at this point to justify our
trying to get one alone. I floated the idea of a Stanford/SRI
consortium with Nils and with Marvin Denicoff, who in turn has
discussed it with Squires at Darpa. Marvin assures me that if
Stanford/SRI were to put in a proposal together, our chances of being
given a machine would be excellent. If there is enough interest, I
would agree to coordinate such a proposal and talk to the appropriate
people. For the proposal to be viable, though, it would probably have
to list several strong projects (say, 3 from Stanford + 3 from SRI)
that would make use of the machine, preferably for AI-related
research. The facility could be physically at either Stanford or SRI
(though I think it makes more sense to have it at SRI) and the
proposal would cover the cost of the facility itself (machine,
maintenance, etc.) but probably not the direct cost of the research
projects carried out using the machine. I have found three or four
pretty solid SRI projects: parallel stereo algorithms (Barnard),
simulating specialized vision hardware (Fischler), parallel
knowledge-representation for robots (Rosenschein-Kaelbling), and
parallel theorem-proving (Waldinger-Stickel). Since Nils sent out his
message to faculty I've gotten 3 weak bites from Stanford (Rindfleisch
(really representing Dennis Smith at Intelligenetics), Binford (very
weak bite), and Ferziger in Mech. Eng.) My assessment at this point
is that without interest from several of you, there isn't a strong
enough Stanford component to proceed. Would any of you have enough
interest in the machine to propose a project or "endorse" a project
proposed by someone in your group? I would eventually need about a
few pages describing the project and how it would benefit from a
connection machine, but right now all I need is an indication of
interest or lack thereof. I'd like to either go ahead soon or drop
the idea altogether, so I would appreciate it if you could let me know
one way or the other as soon as possible.
Thanks.
--Stan
-------
∂29-Jul-86 1520 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: connection machine
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 10:59:03 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 10:56:47-PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: connection machine
To: STAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Stan Rosenschein <STAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>" of Tue 29 Jul 86 10:54:36-PDT
Message-ID: <12226592182.81.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Dear group and Stan,
brief answer: no interest here in my group....Ed
-------
∂29-Jul-86 1521 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: connection machine
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 11:01:43 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 10:59:17-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: connection machine
To: STAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, feigenbaum@SU-SCORE.ARPA, NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Stan Rosenschein <STAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>" of Tue 29 Jul 86 10:53:35-PDT
Message-ID: <12226592637.20.NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
I'm intrigued by what Stan/Kaelbling want to do. If I ultimately
get research support for intelligent agents I would consider
encouraging additional graduate students to work in that direction,
although I can't promise how much of my time would be spent on
that sort of thing. Does a loose affiliation with my research
group working on things similar to Stan/Kaelbling count as
"Stanford interest?" -Nils
-------
∂29-Jul-86 1626 RA Jack Cate
Cate called; he will call later.
∂29-Jul-86 1647 RA David Chudnovsky
David says that John Canon from Sidney, Australia did not succeed in using
the Unix machine and he needs a VMS machine. There is one in the Aero and Astro
Engineering Department, STAR. Canon wounders whether he can borrow some time
on the STAR or any other VMS machine. Canon is on PORTIA and his address is CAYLEY.
Please advise him what to do.
Thanks,
∂29-Jul-86 1659 RA leaving
Since I came in at 9:00 (and not at 10:00 as planned) I am leaving at 5:00.
∂29-Jul-86 1753 JOHN@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU directorship of csli
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 17:52:24 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 17:47:47-PDT
From: John Perry <JOHN@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: directorship of csli
To: barwise@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, bresnan@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
peters@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, etchemendy@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
bratman@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, kiparsky@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
poser@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, winograd@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, sag@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
pat%IMSSS@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, julius@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
clark@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, sf@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
cc: betsy@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, ingrid@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, john@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
I intend to step down as director of CSLI this fall. I shall remain
involved as a PI on the SL grant, and in some official capacity, title
to be determined, which will allow me to participate in fundraising
and long-range planning for CSLI's future.
I believe Tom Wasow should succeed me as director. Over the past
year, the director has, in addition to long-range planning and
fundraising, been responsible for i) administering the CSLI research
and faculties and staff at Stanford; ii) administering the CSLI-wide
activities (e.g., publications) that are carried out at Stanford; iii)
assuring that Stanford activities and Stanford-based activities are
coordinated with activities at other sites.
To a large extent, Tom has already taken responsibility for overseeing
i) to iii), as I have devoted myself to long-range issues. Given the
need to raise funds for the building and for research after the SL
grant, and to work out long range understandings between the
institutions participating in CSLI to assure its survival, I expect my
involvement in such long-range issues to become even more pressing.
We are lucky to have, in Tom Wasow, someone with the confidence of the
Stanford administration and CSLI researchers and staff and the
willingness to assume the position of director.
It has also become increasingly apparent that we need "site directors"
to perform functions at SRI and Xerox PARC similar to i)-iii). Brian
Smith will become the site director at Xerox PARC and David Israel the
site director at SRI. Each of the three can be referred to as "the
director of CSLI/X" for appropriate X. The director of CSLI/Stanford,
in virtue of the preponderance of activities headquartered at
Stanford, will be "first among equals"; he or she will chair meetings
of the directors and be the default referent of "the director".
Appointing Tom as director requires action of the Provost. To achieve
this, I need to be able to document your reactions as key Stanford
faculty, to his appointment. Please send them to me by net-mail, or
campus mail, or phone me at 3-1275, or see me in person, or leave word
with Betsy -- whichever suits you.
John
-------
∂29-Jul-86 1809 RWW computer usage
Its about neither
Richard
∂29-Jul-86 1838 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: CS143/CS243?
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 18:38:15 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 18:37:15-PDT
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: CS143/CS243?
To: a.Jiml@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Jim Lewinson <a.Jiml@SU-GSB-WHY.ARPA>" of Wed 18 Jun 86 03:45:59-PDT
Message-ID: <12226676007.27.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Although your plan says that you are on vacation - but coming back -
I'd like to ask you if you can help John mcCarthy set up
a demonstration on NAXOS, but it would have to be this week.
Let us know in any case.
Gio
-------
∂29-Jul-86 1841 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA NAXOS VMS needed for demonstration.
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 18:41:10 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 18:40:09-PDT
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: NAXOS VMS needed for demonstration.
To: barsalou@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, "*PS:<WIEDERHOLD>NAXOS.MSGS-2Q86.1"@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Message-ID: <12226676537.27.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Are you using NAXOS these days?
If NAXOS is ok, could you respond to Prof.McCarthy and help
him with a demonstration program by a visitor?
Let us know in any case.
Gio
-------
∂29-Jul-86 2056 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [Thierry Barsalou <BARSALOU@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>: Re: NAXOS VMS needed for demonstration.]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 20:56:36 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 20:55:42-PDT
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: [Thierry Barsalou <BARSALOU@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>: Re: NAXOS VMS needed for demonstration.]
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12226701213.19.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Mail-From: BARSALOU created at 29-Jul-86 19:16:21
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 19:16:20-PDT
From: Thierry Barsalou <BARSALOU@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: NAXOS VMS needed for demonstration.
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <12226676537.27.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Message-ID: <12226683124.16.BARSALOU@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Gio,
unfortunately, I haven't been able to use Naxos for the last few days.
Apparently, the system is down since 2 or 3 days.
Thierry.
-------
-------
∂29-Jul-86 2224 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA NAXOS
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 22:20:46 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 20:58:26-PDT
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: NAXOS
To: dienstbier@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: winslett@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12226701709.19.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
It seems NAXOS is down.
Is that still realted to the network problem.
Could you or someone try to restart it?
Gio
-------
∂29-Jul-86 2248 WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Naxos help needed.
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 86 22:47:56 PDT
Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 22:46:17-PDT
From: Marianne Winslett <WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Naxos help needed.
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: swami@SU-SCORE.ARPA, arun@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 29 Jul 86 18:28:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12226721344.2.WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Alas, rumor is wrong. I don't know VMS and have only logged onto
NAXOS once. However, Arun Swami is familiar with NAXOS and I'll
forward your request.
--Marianne
-------
∂30-Jul-86 0915 CLT HAGIYA@RUSSELL,Nakahara@RUSSELL,
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, sf@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, RWW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
JK@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, CG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
CLT@SU-AI.ARPA
mini seminar series
Due the various conferences, several of us will be away for some
time during the next two weeks. Thus I propose to have our
next a probably final seminar of the series on Tuesday August 19th.
Gian Luigi wil talk about his EKL work - with Jussi kibitzing.
Meanwhile, 252MJH is reserved for Tuesday at noon, so if some subset
of us wants to use it for informal discussion over lunch that would
be fine.
We should also try to go to dinner as a group sometime that week
before Masahiko leaves. Suggestions as to time and place are welcome.
∂30-Jul-86 1144 ARUN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: NAXOS
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Jul 86 11:43:55 PDT
Date: Wed 30 Jul 86 11:42:05-PDT
From: Arun Swami <arun@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: NAXOS
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: winslett@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, arun@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
drake@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <12226701934.19.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Message-ID: <12226862573.28.ARUN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Gio,
I tried to reset and restart Naxos. However, it won't start up. Then
when I tried to shut off the disk drives, the RA60 drive will not shut
down, but instead the FAULT indicator comes on. From this, I think that
the problem is with the RA60 drive. Right now, I have shut down the CPU
and the RA81 drive (no problems with these, I think).
Should I ask Mary to call in DEC Maintenance?
--arun
-------
∂30-Jul-86 1223 RA check from Delfin
Did you get your check from Delfin Systems?
∂30-Jul-86 1301 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: NAXOS
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Jul 86 13:01:01 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 30 Jul 86 12:59:21-PDT
Date: Wed 30 Jul 86 12:50:47-PDT
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: NAXOS
To: arun@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <12226862573.28.ARUN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Message-ID: <12226875080.68.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
yes, please call maintenace. We have a contract.
Can it run without the RA60?
Gio
-------
∂30-Jul-86 1313 aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Fourth Discussion Topic (Social implications)
Received: from CS.UCL.AC.UK by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Jul 86 13:12:40 PDT
Received: from cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk by 44d.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id a000796; 30 Jul 86 21:02 BST
From: Aaron Sloman <aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 86 20:56:11 gmt
Message-Id: <19360.8607302056@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Fourth Discussion Topic (Social implications)
Cc: OTA-CIT@a.isi.edu
Hi John,
I agree with your comments on this. I think it is interesting for people
to discuss social/economic/political/legal implications of AI, but the
issues are very complex, and the medium-to-long-term future is quite
unpredictable, so no such discussions should currently be taken
seriously as anything but academic exercises.
If social scientists were able to predict the important implications of
other aspects of government actions in any detail I might change my
mind. Right now they have no mechanisms for prediction other than
surface level extrapolation, and we all know that that is totally
unsuitable for explaining or predicting the behaviour of an
information-processing system (e.g. a society).
This means nobody can be regarded as an expert on the social
implications of AI, and no government should try to formulate policy
other than regarding AI as an interesting new branch of science and
technology that should get a fair share of funding for research and
teaching.
My personal view is that POTENTIALLY the most important social role of
AI in the next decate or two is transforming all types of education by
providing learners in all cultures with powerful new thinking tools and
mind-play environments (beyond the wildest dreams of LOGO enthusiasts).
But I also believe no government values education enough for this
potential to be realised. (At Sussex we have begun to do this on a small
scale by using POPLOG to convert 'Arts/humanities' students who had been
turned off science and mathematics in school, and showing women that
they can do as well as men.)
Aaron
∂30-Jul-86 1632 rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg
Received: from SONORA.DEC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Jul 86 16:30:10 PDT
Received: from src.DEC.COM by sonora.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA18529; Wed, 30 Jul 86 16:29:33 pdt
Received: from clark.DEC.COM (clark) by src.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA05162; Wed, 30 Jul 86 16:29:14 pdt
Received: by clark.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA15575; Wed, 30 Jul 86 16:30:08 pdt
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 86 16:30:08 pdt
From: rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM (Paul Rovner)
Message-Id: <8607302330.AA15575@clark.DEC.COM>
To: mccarthy@su-score.stanford.edu, JMC@su-ai.stanford.edu
Cc: rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM
Subject: Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg
John,
To follow up on our conversation at the (sigh) AI lab last night, here are 2
letters, one to the president of the Soviet NAS, and one to the chairman of
its committee on mathematics for you to sign and send in support of Dr.
Eliashberg's case. It would be best, of course, if you could get them
printed on CS department stationary.
These seem to be appropriate recipients; if you know of others please feel
free to send copies to them as well.
It would also be great to send a similar letter to Ludwig Fadeyev, who is
reputed to be the "czar" of mathematics in Leningrad. He will be attending
the congress. He is expected to bring Dr. Eliashberg's finished paper. I
suspect that he could do the most to help Eliashberg. I enclose a letter to
him as well; one copy should go to the congress in Berkeley (to arrive next
week), another to his office in Leningrad. I will send his address in
Leningrad when I find it.
Thanks a lot for your help in this sad matter; we will keep you posted on
how things are going.
Paul Rovner and Victor Eliashberg
--------------
Anatoly P. Aleksandrov
President
Academy of Sciences of the USSR
V-71, Leninsky Prospekt 14
Moscow 117901, GSP-1
RSFSR, USSR
Dear President Aleksandrov:
I am writing to you on behalf of our colleague, Dr. Y. Eliashberg, who has
applied for exit visas six times in the past seven years as a Jew wanting to
emigrate. He has been refused each time without receiving any explanation.
He also lost his job and was unable to find another for two years,
apparently as punishment for expressing the desire to emigrate.
Throughout his seven year ordeal, Dr. Eliashberg has continued working
independently in Geometry. He has even managed to publish his results
regularly. Clearly, this man wants passionately to work in Mathematics.
Dr. Eliashberg knows no state secrets, has never held a security clearance,
is not a dissident, has no desire to slander the USSR. His work is purely
thoeretical. He and his family simply want to leave their situation as
Soviet Jews to reunite with Dr. Eliashberg's ailing mother and the rest of
his family, who were allowed to emigrate in 1975. He is now making
preparations to apply again for exit visas.
There exist no legal grounds for keeping him in the Soviet Union against his
clearly pronounced wish to emigrate. I am extremely concerned about his
situation and I urge you to use your influence to resolve this case and to
remove in this way one of the obstacles to full scale international
collaboration between mathematicians.
Thank you for your cooperation.
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, California
----------------------------------
Academician N. N. Bogolyubov
Chairman of the Soviet National Committee of Mathematicians
Steklov Institute of Mathematics
Academy of Sciences of the USSR
ul. Vavilova 42-2
Moscow V-333
USSR
Dear Academician Bogolyubov:
I am writing to you on behalf of our colleague, Dr. Y. Eliashberg, who has
applied for exit visas six times in the past seven years as a Jew wanting to
emigrate. He has been refused each time without receiving any explanation.
He also lost his job and was unable to find another for two years,
apparently as punishment for expressing the desire to emigrate.
Throughout his seven year ordeal, Dr. Eliashberg has continued working
independently in Geometry. He has even managed to publish his results
regularly. Clearly, this man wants passionately to work in Mathematics.
Dr. Eliashberg knows no state secrets, has never held a security clearance,
is not a dissident, has no desire to slander the USSR. His work is purely
thoeretical. He and his family simply want to leave their situation as
Soviet Jews to reunite with Dr. Eliashberg's ailing mother and the rest of
his family, who were allowed to emigrate in 1975. He is now making
preparations to apply again for exit visas.
There exist no legal grounds for keeping him in the Soviet Union against his
clearly pronounced wish to emigrate. I am extremely concerned about his
situation and I urge you to use your influence to resolve this case and to
remove in this way one of the obstacles to full scale international
collaboration between mathematicians.
Thank you for your cooperation.
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, California
---------------
Academician L. Fadeyev
XXXX
Dear Academician Fadeyev:
I am writing to you on behalf of our colleague, Dr. Y. Eliashberg, who has
applied for exit visas six times in the past seven years as a Jew wanting to
emigrate. He has been refused each time without receiving any explanation.
He also lost his job and was unable to find another for two years,
apparently as punishment for expressing the desire to emigrate.
Throughout his seven year ordeal, Dr. Eliashberg has continued working
independently in Geometry. He has even managed to publish his results
regularly. Clearly, this man wants passionately to work in Mathematics.
I was pleased to hear that you were kind enough to bring Dr. Eliashberg's
invited paper to the recent ICM in spite of the fact that he himself was not
allowed to come.
Dr. Eliashberg knows no state secrets, has never held a security clearance,
is not a dissident, has no desire to slander the USSR. His work is purely
thoeretical. He and his family simply want to leave their situation as
Soviet Jews to reunite with Dr. Eliashberg's ailing mother and the rest of
his family, who were allowed to emigrate in 1975. He is now making
preparations to apply again for exit visas.
There exist no legal grounds for keeping him in the Soviet Union against his
clearly pronounced wish to emigrate. I am extremely concerned about his
situation and I urge you to use your influence to resolve this case and to
remove in this way one of the obstacles to full scale international
collaboration between mathematicians.
Thank you for your cooperation.
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, California
∂30-Jul-86 1634 RA Paul Rovner
Rovner e-mailed you the letter re Eli Ashberg. He would like you to let him know
whether or not you got the letter. If there are any problems, you can call him
853 2208 (work) or at home 494 8128. If you want he get bring you a hard
copy of the letter.
∂30-Jul-86 1642 RA Delfin
I talked to Kiremidjian and he said he would check with the accounting department
and will call me back.
∂30-Jul-86 1653 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Jul 86 16:53:39 PDT
Received: from sonora.DEC.COM by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 30 Jul 86 16:48:15-PDT
Received: from src.DEC.COM by sonora.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA18525; Wed, 30 Jul 86 16:29:24 pdt
Received: from clark.DEC.COM (clark) by src.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA05162; Wed, 30 Jul 86 16:29:14 pdt
Received: by clark.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA15575; Wed, 30 Jul 86 16:30:08 pdt
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 86 16:30:08 pdt
From: rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM (Paul Rovner)
Message-Id: <8607302330.AA15575@clark.DEC.COM>
To: mccarthy@su-score.stanford.edu, JMC@su-ai.stanford.edu
Cc: rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM
Subject: Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg
John,
To follow up on our conversation at the (sigh) AI lab last night, here are 2
letters, one to the president of the Soviet NAS, and one to the chairman of
its committee on mathematics for you to sign and send in support of Dr.
Eliashberg's case. It would be best, of course, if you could get them
printed on CS department stationary.
These seem to be appropriate recipients; if you know of others please feel
free to send copies to them as well.
It would also be great to send a similar letter to Ludwig Fadeyev, who is
reputed to be the "czar" of mathematics in Leningrad. He will be attending
the congress. He is expected to bring Dr. Eliashberg's finished paper. I
suspect that he could do the most to help Eliashberg. I enclose a letter to
him as well; one copy should go to the congress in Berkeley (to arrive next
week), another to his office in Leningrad. I will send his address in
Leningrad when I find it.
Thanks a lot for your help in this sad matter; we will keep you posted on
how things are going.
Paul Rovner and Victor Eliashberg
--------------
Anatoly P. Aleksandrov
President
Academy of Sciences of the USSR
V-71, Leninsky Prospekt 14
Moscow 117901, GSP-1
RSFSR, USSR
Dear President Aleksandrov:
I am writing to you on behalf of our colleague, Dr. Y. Eliashberg, who has
applied for exit visas six times in the past seven years as a Jew wanting to
emigrate. He has been refused each time without receiving any explanation.
He also lost his job and was unable to find another for two years,
apparently as punishment for expressing the desire to emigrate.
Throughout his seven year ordeal, Dr. Eliashberg has continued working
independently in Geometry. He has even managed to publish his results
regularly. Clearly, this man wants passionately to work in Mathematics.
Dr. Eliashberg knows no state secrets, has never held a security clearance,
is not a dissident, has no desire to slander the USSR. His work is purely
thoeretical. He and his family simply want to leave their situation as
Soviet Jews to reunite with Dr. Eliashberg's ailing mother and the rest of
his family, who were allowed to emigrate in 1975. He is now making
preparations to apply again for exit visas.
There exist no legal grounds for keeping him in the Soviet Union against his
clearly pronounced wish to emigrate. I am extremely concerned about his
situation and I urge you to use your influence to resolve this case and to
remove in this way one of the obstacles to full scale international
collaboration between mathematicians.
Thank you for your cooperation.
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, California
----------------------------------
Academician N. N. Bogolyubov
Chairman of the Soviet National Committee of Mathematicians
Steklov Institute of Mathematics
Academy of Sciences of the USSR
ul. Vavilova 42-2
Moscow V-333
USSR
Dear Academician Bogolyubov:
I am writing to you on behalf of our colleague, Dr. Y. Eliashberg, who has
applied for exit visas six times in the past seven years as a Jew wanting to
emigrate. He has been refused each time without receiving any explanation.
He also lost his job and was unable to find another for two years,
apparently as punishment for expressing the desire to emigrate.
Throughout his seven year ordeal, Dr. Eliashberg has continued working
independently in Geometry. He has even managed to publish his results
regularly. Clearly, this man wants passionately to work in Mathematics.
Dr. Eliashberg knows no state secrets, has never held a security clearance,
is not a dissident, has no desire to slander the USSR. His work is purely
thoeretical. He and his family simply want to leave their situation as
Soviet Jews to reunite with Dr. Eliashberg's ailing mother and the rest of
his family, who were allowed to emigrate in 1975. He is now making
preparations to apply again for exit visas.
There exist no legal grounds for keeping him in the Soviet Union against his
clearly pronounced wish to emigrate. I am extremely concerned about his
situation and I urge you to use your influence to resolve this case and to
remove in this way one of the obstacles to full scale international
collaboration between mathematicians.
Thank you for your cooperation.
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, California
---------------
Academician L. Fadeyev
XXXX
Dear Academician Fadeyev:
I am writing to you on behalf of our colleague, Dr. Y. Eliashberg, who has
applied for exit visas six times in the past seven years as a Jew wanting to
emigrate. He has been refused each time without receiving any explanation.
He also lost his job and was unable to find another for two years,
apparently as punishment for expressing the desire to emigrate.
Throughout his seven year ordeal, Dr. Eliashberg has continued working
independently in Geometry. He has even managed to publish his results
regularly. Clearly, this man wants passionately to work in Mathematics.
I was pleased to hear that you were kind enough to bring Dr. Eliashberg's
invited paper to the recent ICM in spite of the fact that he himself was not
allowed to come.
Dr. Eliashberg knows no state secrets, has never held a security clearance,
is not a dissident, has no desire to slander the USSR. His work is purely
thoeretical. He and his family simply want to leave their situation as
Soviet Jews to reunite with Dr. Eliashberg's ailing mother and the rest of
his family, who were allowed to emigrate in 1975. He is now making
preparations to apply again for exit visas.
There exist no legal grounds for keeping him in the Soviet Union against his
clearly pronounced wish to emigrate. I am extremely concerned about his
situation and I urge you to use your influence to resolve this case and to
remove in this way one of the obstacles to full scale international
collaboration between mathematicians.
Thank you for your cooperation.
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, California
∂30-Jul-86 1808 cayley@portia.stanford.edu we now have a vms machine
Received: from PORTIA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Jul 86 18:08:42 PDT
Received: by portia.stanford.edu; Wed, 30 Jul 86 18:07:27 PDT
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 86 18:07:27 PDT
From: Computers and Mathematics CAYLEY <cayley@portia.stanford.edu>
Subject: we now have a vms machine
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Thanks for your effort in finding a vms machine. We managed to locate
one for ourselves last night in AERO/ASTRO however. I only just got
your message or I would have replied sooner. Thanks once again,
Robyn Deed (Sydney Uni)
∂30-Jul-86 2016 A.JIML@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU Re: CS143/CS243?
Received: from GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Jul 86 20:16:34 PDT
Date: Wed 30 Jul 86 20:09:39-PDT
From: Jim Lewinson <a.Jiml@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: CS143/CS243?
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>" of Tue 29 Jul 86 18:36:25-PDT
Well - I won't be physically at Stanford for about 10 days or so,
but I might be able to help via the Net. Net hopping has been slow,
but generally works.
Does that help any?
Jim
-------
∂31-Jul-86 0723 TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: NAXOS
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Jul 86 07:23:25 PDT
Date: Thu 31 Jul 86 07:21:45-PDT
From: Thomas Dienstbier <TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: NAXOS
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: dienstbier@SU-SCORE.ARPA, winslett@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <12226701709.19.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Message-ID: <12227077326.10.TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
It seems that it won't boot.. You may want to have someone look at it..
tom
-------
∂31-Jul-86 0820 CLT today
(1) add 25 to zella's check this week - we can figure out
exactly what we owe her later -- she will be gone next week
(2) don't forget to come home early today - 4:15 would be
good, no later than 4:30
∂31-Jul-86 0837 BERG@SU-SCORE.ARPA rutie will be late
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Jul 86 08:37:03 PDT
Date: Thu 31 Jul 86 08:18:35-PDT
From: Kathy Berg <BERG@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: rutie will be late
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 723-4776
Message-ID: <12227087670.31.BERG@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
John:
Rutie just called to let you know that she will arrive
at 10:00 today, 31 july. She had forgotten to mention
it yesterday.
Kathy Berg
-------
∂31-Jul-86 1008 rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM Re: Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg (Fadeyev's address)
Received: from SONORA.DEC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Jul 86 10:07:55 PDT
Received: from src.DEC.COM by sonora.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA25120; Thu, 31 Jul 86 10:08:13 pdt
Received: from clark.DEC.COM (clark) by src.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA05021; Thu, 31 Jul 86 10:08:05 pdt
Received: by clark.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA06672; Thu, 31 Jul 86 10:09:03 pdt
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 86 10:09:03 pdt
From: rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM (Paul Rovner)
Message-Id: <8607311709.AA06672@clark.DEC.COM>
To: mccarthy@su-score.stanford.edu, JMC@su-ai.stanford.edu
Cc: rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM
Subject: Re: Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg (Fadeyev's address)
Academician Ludwig Fadeyev
LOMI
Steklov Institute of Mathematics
ul. Fontanka 27
Leningrad 191011, USSR
... and next week at the Congress:
Academician Ludwig Fadeyev
c/o ICM-86
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94720
Thanks again.
∂31-Jul-86 1008 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM Re: Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg (Fadeyev's address)
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Jul 86 10:08:08 PDT
Received: from sonora.DEC.COM by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 31 Jul 86 10:06:14-PDT
Received: from src.DEC.COM by sonora.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA25116; Thu, 31 Jul 86 10:08:06 pdt
Received: from clark.DEC.COM (clark) by src.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA05021; Thu, 31 Jul 86 10:08:05 pdt
Received: by clark.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA06672; Thu, 31 Jul 86 10:09:03 pdt
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 86 10:09:03 pdt
From: rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM (Paul Rovner)
Message-Id: <8607311709.AA06672@clark.DEC.COM>
To: mccarthy@su-score.stanford.edu, JMC@su-ai.stanford.edu
Cc: rovner@decwrl.DEC.COM
Subject: Re: Letter on behalf of Yakov Eliashberg (Fadeyev's address)
Academician Ludwig Fadeyev
LOMI
Steklov Institute of Mathematics
ul. Fontanka 27
Leningrad 191011, USSR
... and next week at the Congress:
Academician Ludwig Fadeyev
c/o ICM-86
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94720
Thanks again.
∂31-Jul-86 1018 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Salary Research Offset
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Jul 86 10:18:03 PDT
Date: Thu 31 Jul 86 10:16:19-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Salary Research Offset
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: LES@SU-AI.ARPA, RA@SU-AI.ARPA, BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12227109105.16.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Your salary research offset incentive saving for 85-86 is $8,339, including
staff benefits. This amount will be transferred to your unrestricted
account, 1-DMA154, during August or September.
Betty
-------
∂31-Jul-86 1154 RA Yoav Shoham
Have you written a letter to the immigration authorities on behalf of Yoav
Shoham. You got Nils' letter as a guide line last Friday.
∂31-Jul-86 1441 RA Flight to Boston
What would you prefer?
1. Leaving from SJ at 6:30am arr. Boston 4:30pm with a change of planes
or
2. Leaving from SF at 8:15am arr. 4:37 direct flight?
Please let me know
Thanks,
∂31-Jul-86 1525 RA Re: Flight to Boston
[Reply to message recvd: 31 Jul 86 14:44 Pacific Time]
Your flight reservation is as follows:
Aug. 4 (Monday), SF to Boston, United 96, depart 8:15am, arr. 4:37pm.
Aug 6 (Wednesday), Boston to SF, TWA 61, 6:10pm, arr. 9:12. Tickets are on
your desk. I will enter it in your cal file.
∂31-Jul-86 1542 RA Nina Greenberg
Greenberg called re her article (The Myth of a Breakthrough)
which she had sent you for review. She wanted
to know whether you have any comments or would like her to change anything.
∂01-Aug-86 0823 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA draft
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Aug 86 08:22:55 PDT
Date: Fri 1 Aug 86 08:20:30-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: draft
To: jeh@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU
cc: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12227350164.12.NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, I'm attaching to this msg a rough draft of the section
you wanted on "Logic and AI." Some comments: a) I haven't
counted the pages; it might be too long? b) It probably
needs a bit more work, but I'm leaving today for 2 1/2 weeks
and thought I'd send you what I have subject to later polishing
c) If references are appropriate I can supply the ones hinted
at herein d) I'm cc-ing John McCarthy both so he can see what
I'm writing as he puts together his piece and for any suggestions
he might have about this piece (which he can send you directly
if he wants while I'm away) e) I may have some time to
take another pass at this in late August.
Here's the draft:
The Role of Logic in Artificial Intelligence
Nils J. Nilsson
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
August 1, 1986 (DRAFT)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a broad collection of theoretical ideas,
implementational techniques and apparatus, aspirations, points of view
about computation, and points of view about computation as the substrate
of intelligence. To the extent that intelligence can be explained and
achieved in machines by the formal manipulation of symbols (the famous
{\it physical symbol system hypothesis} of Newell and Simon), it is
difficult to see how AI can be viewed as a separate subspecialty of
computer science. There seems to be no aspect of computer science that
might not be important in the explanation and implementation of
intelligence---broadly conceived.
Yet, regarding certain aspects of intelligent behavior there are
important subtopics that coalesce around a common body of concepts,
theory, and techniques. It seems likely that AI (to the extent that it
can be distinguished from the rest of computer science) will evolve to
concentrate on these subtopics. They involve the problems inherent in
gathering, representing, and using {\it declaratively} represented
knowledge. By declarative knowledge, we mean the sort of information
that is ordinarily expressed by sentences in a language. These may be
sentences in a natural language (such as English) or in a formal
language (such as predicate calculus, mathematics, or semantic
networks).
Declaratively represented knowledge can be contrasted with knowledge
represented {\it procedurally} in computer programs. Procedural
knowledge is manifest only by executing the program that contains it and
thus must be specially prepared for the application served by that
program. [[[Perhaps more on this distinction?]]]
For intelligent machines (just as for people) there are several
advantages to being able to represent and to use declarative knowledge.
These were recognized by McCarthy [[ref]] in the early days of AI
research, and include, primarily, the fact that declarative knowledge
can be assembled before all the purposes to which that knowledge might
later be put are known. Just as the laws of Newtonian mechanics can be
expressed in relatively use-independent, mathematical equations and then
later applied for many purposes, knowledge about medicine, business,
geology and other subjects has been expressed declaratively in various
``AI languages'' and then used in so-called {\it expert systems}.
One might hope that a natural language such as English might serve as
the language in which to represent knowledge for intelligent systems.
If this were possible, then all of the knowledge already compiled in
books would be immediately available for use by computers. Although
humans understand English well enough, it is too ambiguous for a
representational medium for computers. An important simplifying
requirement of a useful representation language is that the meaning of
sentences in the language should depend {\it compositionally} only on
the meanings of the constituent structures of the sentence and not on
the meanings of other sentences or on other surrounding context.
Logical languages naturally suggest themselves as candidate languages
for declarative representations. In particular, various versions of the
first-order predicate calculus (with occasional non-classical
extensions, such as modal operators) are used frequently. These
languages can be given a straightforward compositional semantics, and
there are also well understood and reasonably efficient mechanical proof
methods for deriving sound inferences from statements in the language.
Other declarative languages have also been invented, and many of these
are now in use in AI applications. One can view the data structures of
a relational data base, the nodes and arcs of a semantic network, and
the ``units'' of so-called {\it frame-based} languages as sentences in
special declarative languages. Usually these languages can be thought
of as sub-languages of a first-order predicate calculus language in
which the computer implementations represent, in addition to the
sentences themselves, parts of important {\it models} for these
sentences. For example, the implementation of a set of units
representing a taxonomic hierarchy (of geologic minerals, say) uses a
tree-structure that can be considered to be a model of the hierarchical
relations stated by the units. Since reasoning by direct computation in
a model is often more efficient than reasoning by proof, such models are
extremely important.
Notwithstanding the computational importance of having at least partial
models of languages and the importance of those versions of declarative
languages that wear their models on their sleeves (so to speak), an
intended model is not always explicitly available, and the sub-languages
referred to above have limited expressive power. Many of them do not
have a means of saying that one or another of two facts is true without
saying which fact is true. Many cannot say that a fact is not true
without saying what is true instead. Many cannot say that {\it all} the
members of a class have a certain property without explicitly listing
each of them. Finally, these sub-languages generally are not able to
state that at least one member of a class has a certain property without
stating which member does. First-order predicate calculus, through its
ability to formulate disjunctions, negations, and universally and
existentially quantified sentences, does not suffer from these
limitations. Furthermore, the proof methods of first-order predicate
calculus can be combined with model computations when structures that
can be used as partial models are available. [[[Ref Wehyrauch/ ref
Stickel]]]
Having a language does not relieve us, of course, of the problem of
having something to say in the language! A large part of ``the AI
problem'' is really concerned with what should be said. Here again, we
base our discussion on logical terminology. We take the problem of what
is to be said as being the problem of inventing an {\it intended model}
of the sentences that will say it. This intended interpretation, an
informal conception in the mind of the AI machine designer, is the
designer's idea of what the world is (at least of what that part of the
world is that is relevant to the design of the machine). In inventing
the intended interpretation, we are perfectly free to {\it confer
existence} on anything that suits our purposes; we never concern
ourselves with whether or not some object {\it really} does or does not
exist (whatever that might mean). If it is useful to imagine that
unicorns (or justice or pre-cambrian unconformities) exist, we happily
do so.
An intended interpretation consists of the objects imagined to exist and
of relations over these objects (and sometimes explicitly of functions
mapping objects to objects). Although this interpretation itself may
never actually be represented explicitly as mathematical structure, it
is important that it be firmly fixed in the mind of the designer. With
this interpretation in mind, the designer invents linguistic terms to
denote the objects, functions, and relations and writes down predicate
calculus sentences for which the intended interpretation is a model.
These sentences then comprise the {\it knowledge base} of the machine.
The sentences do not in themselves specify the intended model but,
rather, are satisfied by a set of interpretations. The designer must
give the machine enough knowledge (in the form of sentences) so that
the set of models is sufficiently constrained. In designing knowledge
bases, it frequently happens that the designer's idea of the intended
interpretation is changed and articulated by the very act of writing
down (and reasoning with) the sentences.
An AI program then uses this sentential knowledge about its world to
take action in the world, answer questions of a user, make plans,
interpret sensory input, understand language, and perform all or any of
the other aspects of intelligent behavior. The process of logical
deduction is used in inferring sentences of a form appropriate for the
various specific purposes of the knowledge. Using sound rules of
inference (such as resolution), the inferred sentences logically follow
from the given ones. (That is, all models---including the intended
one---of the given sentences are models of the inferred sentence.)
For reasons of efficiency, the inference process is augmented when
possible by direct computations on explicit partial models.
This then, is the general strategy of AI reasoning. Knowledge about the
world is represented by logical sentences, and inference processes are
used to apply the knowledge as needed. Several AI systems are built on
this conceptual base (even though the authors of some of them might not
yet understand them thus). Resolution refutation strategies (and their
many variants) have been made efficient enough to serve as the {\it
inference engines} of these systems. [[[Ref Stickel, Wos, Genesereth]]].
But, there are several serious problems with this strategy, and much
current research in AI is devoted to understanding these problems
more thoroughly and to overcoming them.
First, it is not easy for a designer to squeeze his intuitive and
commonsense ideas about the world into a coherent conceptualization
involving objects, functions, and relations. Although this exercise has
been carried out for several limited problem domains (most notably those
to which expert systems have been successfully applied), there is still
great debate about how certain everyday notions such as actions and
their effects, time, processes, liquids, space and so on ought to be
conceptualized. Additional problems arise when we want to represent the
facts that other agents in the world know, believe, and intend things.
AI researchers join company with philosophers who have also been
attempting to formalize some of these ideas.
Second, even after we have settled on a conceptualization of the world
(the intended interpretation), it is extremely difficult to write down a
set of sentences of which this interpretation is strictly a model. It
is a simple world indeed that can be faithfully captured by a finite set
of sentences, and usually designers either have in mind worlds that
cannot be so captured or allow their conceptualizations to expand so
that a finite set of sentences never catches up.
John McCarthy humorously illustrates this difficulty by imagining how
one might formulate a sentence that says that under certain conditions a
car will start. In English we might say, for example: ``If the fuel
tank is not empty and if you turn the ignition key, the car will
start.'' But this simple sentence is not true of a world in which the
carbureutor is broken, or of which the fuel tank (while not empty) is
full of water, or of which the exhaust pipe has a potato stuck in it, or
... Indeed, it seems there might be an infinite number of {\it
qualifications} that would need to be stated in order to make such a
sentence true (of the world the designer has in mind). (Of course, just
what it means for a designer to have a world in mind is problematical;
he probably didn't even think of the possibility of the potato in the
tailpipe until it was mentioned by someone else who happened to conceive
of such a world.)
A straightforward use of a logical language, like the predicate calculus,
would seem to be inappropriate for representing information about under
what conditions cars would start, for example, because adding a new
fact (about the potato in the tailpipe) seems to torpedo a theorem
(about the car starting) that could be proved before we had that fact.
Ordinary logic is {\it monotonic} in the sense that adding new axioms
doesn't diminish the set of provable theorems. AI researchers have
been investigating {\it nonmonotonic} reasoning techniques involving
inference methods that have the effect of settling on a {\it minimal}
model of a set of formulas [[[ref JMC]]], or that use {\it default}
rules [[[ref]]] to derive plausible conclusions. These methods all
allow the retraction of ``theorems'' in the face of additional
information about the world.
Of course, science has the same problem. Our theories of the physical
world are all falsifiable, and, indeed, we expect scientific progress to
falsify the theories we have and replace them by others. When we
conclude something based on a current physical theory, we admit the
dependence of the conclusion on the theory and modify the theory if the
conclusion is contradicted by subsequent facts. If logical languages
are to serve us as vehicles for representing our current notions about
the world, we must use these languages in a way that tolerates our
changing notions of the world. Those who would argue that logical
languages are inadequate for representing knowledge about the world
[[[ref McDermott]]] would also seem to have to doubt the utility of any
of the languages that science uses to describe and predict reality.
Another problem with the simple model of logical reasoning is that its
only inference techniques are sound. Although sound inference
techniques are the basis for the all-important task of re-expressing
existing knowledge in the form needed by a specific task, they
do not permit the inference of sentences that say something {\it new}
or different about the world. Intelligent machines will need to
translate their sense perceptions into sentences about the things
perceived; they will need to posit induced general laws from a finite
number of facts; and they will need to re-express their beliefs about
the world in a manner that corresponds to inventing different and
better conceptualizations of the world. Research on {\it machine learning}
[[[Ref Machine Learning volumes]]] is beginning to make progress on
some of these problems.
A fourth problem is that even if logical representations could be made
robust in the face of our changing conceptualization of the world, they
aren't adequate, as they stand, for representing {\it uncertain}
knowledge. How do we say ``It is likely that it will be sunny in
Pasadena on New Year's day''? We could, of course embed probability
information itself in the sentence, and this approach and others have
been followed. Attempts to fuzz the crisp true/false semantics of
logical languages have led to an active AI research subspecialty.
[[[Ref probabilistic reasoning workshops]]]. Most expert systems that
reason with uncertain information adopt what must be called ad hoc
ways of attaching {\it certainty factors} to inferred sentences [[[Ref
MYCIN]]].
Perhaps an analogy with electrical engineering and control theory will
contribute to our understanding of the role of logic in AI. Expressing
the properties of certain dynamic systems using differential equations
led to a greatly improved ability to analyze and synthesize such
systems. Although there may have been many inventive people in the
early days of electrical engineering who resisted attempts to thus
``mathematize'' their discipline, differential equations became
indispensable to the development of the field. First-order predicate
calculus plays the same role for the design of intelligent machines.
Its logic and metatheory provide the vocabulary and many of the
techniques both for analyzing the processes of representation and
reasoning and for synthesizing machines that represent and reason. The
fact that we discover elements of reasoning and intelligent behaviour
that do not succumb to the techniques of ordinary logic does not
necessarily imply that we ought to abandon the solid base that we have
already built. On the contrary, it appears that imaginative extensions
to ordinary first-order logic are successfully dealing with many of its
purported inadequacies. Logic itself (originally invented to help
formalize human reasoning) has evolved dramatically in the last 2000
years. We can expect that the role of logic in explaining and
synthesizing intelligence will be just as important as the role of
differential equations in classical control theory.
-------
∂01-Aug-86 1024 RPG Banquet
The food starts at 6:30pm, at the Museuem of Science.
I presume that you will talk at 7:30 or 8:00.
-rpg-
∂01-Aug-86 1119 RA Interview at MIT
Kyoung Paik is a student of Prof. Hal Abelson at MIT. She is writing about
the history of the development of LISP at MIT and would like to interview
you during your stay there next week. If this is not possible she would
come to Philadelphia the following week. She will call me back Monday so please
tell me whether and where you are willing to be interviewed by her.
Thanks,
∂01-Aug-86 1420 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Conference
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Aug 86 14:20:14 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU via Chaosnet; 1 Aug 86 16:13-EDT
Date: 1 Aug 1986 16:13 EDT (Fri)
Message-ID: <KIRSH.12227403491.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Kirsh <KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
to: John McCarthy <Jmc@SU-AI.ARPA>
cc: Kirsh%Oz.ai.mit.edu@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Conference
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Jul 1986 16:56-EDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI.ARPA>
John,
Here's an update of the speakers and a copy of the suggested
guidelines we want to send out to each speaker. What do you think?
Have you talked to Ed Feigenbaum yet? Do you think Seeley Brown would
be a good commentator for Feigenbaum?
-- David
\subsection{I/ LOGIC:}
Chair - McCarthy
Main - Nilsson
Comm - (McDermott/ Simon/ Minsky/Winograd)
\subsection{II/ ORGANIZATIONAL:}
Chair - Nilsson
Main - Hewitt
Comm - (Simon/ McCarthy)
\subsection{III/ CONNECTIONIST:}
Chair - (Hopfield)
Main - Hinton
Comm - Poggio
\subsection{IV/ LIMITS OF MODULARITY THESIS:}
Chair -Ullman
Main - Poggio
Comm - Kirsh
\subsection{V/ ANALOGICAL REASONING:}
Chair - (Gentner/Mitchell/Carbonell)
Main - Winston
Comm - (Mitchell/ Gentner/)
\subsection{VI/ SOCIETY OF MIND:}
Chair - (Papert)
Main - Minsky
Comm - (Simon/ ?)
\subsection{VII/ PRODUCTIONS:}
Chair - (Simon)
Main - (Forgy, Buchanan)
Comm - Norman
\subsection{VIII/ ADEQUACY OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY:}
Chair - (Davis)
Main - (Feigenbaum/ Buchanan)
Comm - (Seeley Brown/ Davis)
\end
\section{\centerline{ SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR SPEAKERS}}
\subsection{WORKSHOP ON AI PARADIGMS}
June 24th-27th or 25th-28th, 1987. ENDICOTT HOUSE, MA.
\offindent
\subsection{FORMAT}
The main talk will be 45 min. long, followed by 15 min. of purely
clarificatory questions. There will be a 20 min. commentary with 10
min. clarificatory questions, then 30 min. general discussion.
The main talk will have two parts: Part A states the thesis and
illustrates it; Part B discusses the scope and limits of the approach
or method. The commentary focuses primarily on the scope and limits
of the approach or method.
\subsection{THE MAIN SPEAKER'S GUIDELINES - first draft due 1st March 1987;
Presentation Time - 45 Minutes}
\subsection{A/ THESIS}
\onindent
\ftpar{1.} State what the basic thesis is.
\ftpar{2.} Discuss the principles underpinning the method or approach.
Describe the natural type of problems and tasks in which this approach
succeeds.
\ftpar{3.} Differentiate your position from others that are
superficially like it. That is, state what your position is not to be
confused with.
\ftpar{4.} Show an exemplary application of the method or approach --
a simple example carefully chosen to highlight different aspects of
the approach.
\ftpar{5.} Explain where the power resides in the method or approach.
\subsection{B/ SCOPE AND LIMITS}
\ftpar{6.} Discuss the scope and limits of the approach.
\ftpar{7.} Identify particular difficulties and provide a concrete
problem that illustrates each.
\ftpar{8.} Analyze each difficulty. Can the approach be adapted to
overcome the difficulty.
\ftpar{9.} Are there any difficulties that you think are
insurmountable?
\subsection{THE COMMENTATOR'S GUIDELINES - first draft due 1st May 1987;
Presentation Time - 20 Minutes}
\ftpar{1.} Evaluate the source of power of the method or approach as
presented by the main speaker. State why you think the
method/approach works and why it fails. Use examples to illustrate your
points.
\ftpar{2.} Comment on the scope and limits of the method/approach.
Where does it succeed and why; where does it fail and why.
\ftpar{3.} Time permitting: discuss briefly the adequacy of the main
speaker's formulation of the thesis.
\subsection{DATES:}
\offindent
March 1st Main Speaker's first draft.
March 15th Organizer's comments (primarily on clarity).
april 1st revised draft sent to commentator.
may 1st draft due from commentator.
may 15 th organizer's comments on commentator's draft.
june 1st all drafts due for conference prepublication.
june 24th-27th or 25th-28th workshop
august 15th final drafts for book version of proceedings.
\end
∂01-Aug-86 1611 RA Reservations for Philadelphia trip
I talked to Claudia and she did not make any reservations for you. She
gave me the names of a few hotels which I need to call. Do you want to be
in Philadephia Saturday night? Are you going to stay there until Friday
morning?
∂01-Aug-86 1637 RA Re: Reservations for Philadelphia trip
[Reply to message recvd: 01 Aug 86 16:14 Pacific Time]
I called the Franklin Plaza and they are booked 11-14 but I got you a
room for the 9 and 10th. I will call the others for the other days. Would
you like to switch on the 11th, or would rather stay at the same place
for the duration of your stay, which
would mean cancelling the Plaza for the 9th and 10th.
∂01-Aug-86 1923 RPG !!!!!
Um, ok. I guess I know the early history ok. I can bleach my hair
and pretend I'm you. Hope you feel better.
-rpg-
∂01-Aug-86 2209 RPG Feeling Better
Well, I hope you feel better enough to make it monday, because
you are a major attraction at the conference. I am leaving tomorrow
and will be trying to think of what to do instead of you speaking.
-rpg-
∂02-Aug-86 1245 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA Aristotle, "Knowledge Processor"
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Aug 86 12:45:33 PDT
Date: Sat 2 Aug 86 12:43:56-PDT
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Aristotle, "Knowledge Processor"
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12227660264.15.RESTIVO@Score.Stanford.EDU>
[cwr]
The Aristotle "knowledge processor" sounds like a
connectionist machine - that Hubris (you'll never get expert systems
to work) Dreyfus is now championing. His explanation sounded like an
analogue network that solved a transform problem - i.e. like a matrix
inversion - of its input values, for all input examples that it has
learned about. Knowing the transform of its input values into
outputs, for all.
I'm not posting this message to anyone else because I'm not an
expert on the topic of connectionist machines, and this is going to be
ad hominem.
Aristotle is a program written in C on an IBM PC AT that
simulates a neural network. I went to the first of two seminars
devoted to it in the Psychology Dept. I recognised no other computer
scientist there. Aristotle does simple hierarchical pattern
recognition of letters, words and sentences. It tolerates minor
spelling errors etc. and this is what really turned on the
psychologists present. I don't think anyone knowing anything about
pattern recog. would be impressed.
As far as I know Aristotle produces canned responses from
previously encountered stimuli, and that's all. It's conditioning
a la Skinner, simulated by changing weightings inside the neural
network.
Voevodsky talks at half the speed of any normal person,
with twice the platitudes, so his net bandwidth is extremely low.
He has fantasies about getting venture capital and selling
Aristotles for financial forecasting, natural language processing
and anything else you mention, he'll say that Aristotle could do
with just some training. Because of his fantasies he was coy about
describing his algorithms in any detail. Also impairing understanding
was his garbage about fifth-generation knowledge processing,
concept understanding, etc. He uses all the AI buzz words but if
they have any technical meaning for him, it's one he invented and
won't divulge. After talking at length about "concepts" and "meaning"
and "understanding" etc. he claimed there was no distinction between
an object and its representation, a sentence and its interpretation:
the "concept" banana "is" inside Aristotle. Now maybe he doesn't
like the Platonic idealism of conventional AI, but he wouldn't discuss
philosophy either. In fact he didn't answer any questions.
The problem is that many people who don't know about
Perceptrons and other pattern recognition work are seduced by the
charms of classification-based learning, especially when networks are
involved. I've never heard of Voevodsky. Either he is deluding
himself, or its a con.
There is a guy in London (Imperial college), Igor Aleksander,
who is also into old-fashioned pattern recognition to solve all
problems. The difference is that he is a real electrical engineer who
knows about previous work in the field. I still don't understand why
he is doing it though.
I've never met Voevodsky before or since this seminar, and
I know nothing about his background, but it seems to me he's just
plain ignorant and stupid, and what admiring audience he has now,
he's going to lose. I hope he doesn't harm worthwhile connectionist
research. By the way, he has only vaguely heard of other
connectionist work, and he is not interested in the conventional
academic exchange of ideas.
Have you heard anything about either Voevodsky or his
current scam ?
Best,
Chuck
-------
∂02-Aug-86 1724 CLT shopping list
instant chicken bouillon
tide
kleenex - boutique and regular 4 each
bar ivory 2 packs small bars
barley,oatmeal and rice cereal
huggies
yoghurt 2 plain 3 fruit
meat and veg for supper
∂02-Aug-86 1837 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 2 August 1986
Previous Balance 13.60
Monthly Interest at 1.5% 0.20
Current Charges 6.00 (bicycle lockers)
0.30 (vending machine)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 20.10
Please deliver payments to Debbie Woodward, room 040, Jacks Hall.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your Pony account name on your check.
Note: Payment recordation takes up to three weeks after delivery of a payment
(but not beyond the next billing date).
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.5% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
Your last Pony payment was recorded on 5/13/86.
Accounts with balances remaining unpaid for more than 55 days are
considered delinquent and are subject to reduction of credit limit.
Please pay your bill and keep your account current.
∂03-Aug-86 0038 cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu Re: Outside use of CSD Computers
Received: from PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 86 00:37:53 PDT
Received: by pescadero.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Sun, 3 Aug 86 00:36:20 pdt
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 00:36:20 pdt
From: David Cheriton <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Outside use of CSD Computers
To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Two comments:
1. I would like the definition of "CSD computer facilities" clarified.
Does this just cover what the department and CSD-CF owns and operates
or is the policy intended to affect research machines, machines bought
with unrestricted funds, machines received as gifts to some faculty
from random company (but given "thru" Stanford)??
2. I thought Stanford had a fairly strong policy about its claim on any
work done at Stanford. In particular, I thought Stanford could claim
ownership of anything done using Stanford facilities UNLESS there is
some Stanford-approved contract with the doers that states otherwise.
So, I would think that Stanford legally owns any results of this
inappropriate use. Right? If I am right, our policy should be
consistent with this issue.
∂03-Aug-86 1519 LES re: Outside use of CSD Computers
To: facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to Tom R's message sent 29 Jul 86]
I agree with Tom's suggestion and propose that the wording of item 2 in my
July 29 message on "Outside Use of CSD Computers" be broadened as follows.
(2) by other entities in support of a contract with Stanford or collaboration
with a Stanford faculty or staff member for which access to departmental
computers is required;
A side-effect of this will be that we will have to set up a review process
to assure that the the collaborative use is appropriate.
[In response to Dave Cheriton's message of 3 Aug 86]
1. As drafted, this policy is intended to apply to all computers operated
by the department, regardless of how they were purchased.
2. Stanford does have policies that claim ownership of a lot of software
developed here, but they are a bit ambiguous and rather clearly do NOT
apply in cases where outside agencies have purchased computer time on our
machines. This policy, if adopted, will not apply retroactively but will
be used as a basis for flushing non-conforming users.
Les
∂03-Aug-86 1549 LES Diablo Disposition
To: facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I understand that Diablo, a VAX 780 (?) running Unix, is about to be
declared surplus to the needs of Sumex. We are being asked "Would CSD-CF
plan on running Diablo as a cost center if the machine were turned over to
your facility?"
I solicit opinions on this issue. One question is, of course, whether
Navajo is nearly fully utilized. I will attempt to find the answer. If
not, then I believe the answer should be "No."
Les
∂03-Aug-86 1632 binford@su-whitney.arpa Diablo Disposition
Received: from WHITNEY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 86 16:32:35 PDT
Received: by su-whitney.arpa with Sendmail; Sun, 3 Aug 86 16:29:41 pdt
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 16:29:41 pdt
From: Tom Binford <binford@su-whitney.ARPA>
To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Les Earnest's message of 03 Aug 86 1549 PDT
Subject: Diablo Disposition
Les
If Navajo is fully utilized then we might investigate whether CSD-CF
can meet its costs running Diablo as a cost center.
∂03-Aug-86 1640 sato@russell.stanford.edu
Received: from RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 86 16:40:44 PDT
Received: by russell.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Sun, 3 Aug 86 16:37:53 pdt
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 16:37:53 pdt
From: Masahiko Sato <sato@russell.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: sato@russell.stanford.edu
I got the following email from Hideyuki Nakashima. He is currently working
at ETL (Electro-Technical Laboratory). Please read the mail and let me hear
your opinion. I know Nakashima pretty well, so if you have questions about
him please ask me.
When will you be going to Boston for the Lisp Conference? I will visit
IBM Yorktown Heights from August 6 to 11.
** masahiko **
-----
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 86 11:38:56+0900
From: nttlab!nakashim@etlvax.etl.junet (Hideyuki Nakashima)
To: nttlab!masahiko@shasta.stanford.edu
Dear Sato-sama,
Thank you for the propmt reply.
Well, I am considering visiting the U.S. for one year (Sept., 1987 -
Aug., 1988). My first target is CSLI. However, as you may know, CSLI
does not have a sufficient office space. I must find another place
and join CSLI indirectly. Stanford and SRI are candidates.
Prof. McCarthy's place is very atractive to me (even if CSLI
disappears next year and I stay Prof. McCarthy's place fulltime).
Will you please ask him the possiblity of my visiting there one year?
I will apply "Kagicho" fund, and will hopefully be supported by it.
I've been working on knowledge representation. But my interest is
shifting toward language acquisition and learning. I am now working
on a language acquisition model of a human child. This is why I want
to join CSLI.
Best regards,
Hideyuki Nakashima
P.S. Do you have any information about CSLI's status in the future?
∂03-Aug-86 1729 sato@russell.stanford.edu reply to message
Received: from RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 86 17:29:32 PDT
Received: by russell.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Sun, 3 Aug 86 17:26:38 pdt
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 17:26:38 pdt
From: Masahiko Sato <sato@russell.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: sato@russell.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 03 Aug 86 1659 PDT
Subject: reply to message
Thank you for your reply. I will send your reply to Nakashima.
** masahiko **
∂03-Aug-86 1803 cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu re: Outside use of CSD Computers
Received: from PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 86 18:03:28 PDT
Received: by pescadero.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Sun, 3 Aug 86 18:02:17 pdt
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 18:02:17 pdt
From: David Cheriton <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: Outside use of CSD Computers
To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
One more try: "operated by the department" means that the department is
paying the operating costs of same in some form, as opposed to some
individual faculty or research group, right?
∂03-Aug-86 1805 cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu Re: Diablo Disposition
Received: from PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 86 18:05:48 PDT
Received: by pescadero.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Sun, 3 Aug 86 18:04:41 pdt
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 18:04:41 pdt
From: David Cheriton <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Diablo Disposition
To: LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
A 780 consumes a lot of space, power, a maintenance money for the computing
services it delivers. We should be trying to get rid of the ones we have,
not acquire more - in my humble opinion.
(and I have one, by the way.)
∂03-Aug-86 1809 LES re: Outside use of CSD Computers
To: cheriton@PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU
CC: facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 3 Aug 86 18:02:17 pdt.]
In my view, the department includes all of its components. Even
independently funded projects are part of the department. Whatever
policy we adopt will apply to ALL projects.
∂03-Aug-86 2038 RPG phone numbers
John:
Here are the pertinent phone numbers:
RPG Hotel (Hyatt Regency-Cambridge): (617) 492-1234 rm.#913
Conference phone number: (617) 253-2909
Hope you can make it!
Lynne (on behalf of RPG)
∂04-Aug-86 0841 roseh@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU Possible Visit to Austin
Received: from IM4U.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Aug 86 08:40:17 PDT
Posted-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 86 10:21:44 CDT
Received: from ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU by im4u.UTEXAS.EDU (4.22/4.22)
id AA01013; Mon, 4 Aug 86 10:30:12 cdt
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 86 10:21:44 CDT
From: roseh@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU (Rose M. Herring)
Message-Id: <8608041521.AA12446@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU>
Received: by ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU (5.15/4.22)
id AA12446; Mon, 4 Aug 86 10:21:44 CDT
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Possible Visit to Austin
Cc: roseh@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU, skr@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU
I have heard from Woody Bledsoe and Bob Boyer that we might be able
to persuade you and Carolyn to spend a year at Austin as visiting faculty.
We would like very much to pursue this opportunity. The circumstances would
be that we would allocate to you for your year of visiting one of the endowed
Chairs which the Department now has. We have a similar arrangement for 1986-
87 with Tony Hoare. We would be delighted to have Carolyn as a visiting
faculty or research scientist (whether or not you come!).
If this seems an interesting possibility, please send me an electronic
mail message and I will follow up with you, or else let me know when you aare
coming to Austin and we will come out and have a visit on the subject.
Best regards,
J. C. Browne
Chairman (via R. M. Herring, Senior Secretary)
∂04-Aug-86 0922 TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Diablo Disposition
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Aug 86 09:22:16 PDT
Date: Mon 4 Aug 86 09:20:30-PDT
From: Thomas Dienstbier <TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Diablo Disposition
To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: facil@SU-AI.ARPA, TOM@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Sun 3 Aug 86 15:49:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12228147519.10.TOM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
As I understand, Navajo is quite loaded during the afternoons. Since
this is summer we can expect higher load averages starting this fall.
Navajo is a full blown 780 so, there is not any possibility for any
more upgrades. Diablo is not. Diablo is running on very little memory 4mb
at most 8mb verses 16mb on Navajo. Our student/hot spares vax "rocky" is
very heavly loaded, much more than Navajo.
Maybe at this time we may want to think about a "deal" with DEC
or some other vendor to trade in our 2 780's throw in 1 or 2 750's and
get a vax7600 or equiv. I am thinking of terms not requiring any real dollars.
This would give us much more computes and free up alot of much needed
floor space, power, etc.
In any case we still have the maintenance problem to deal with.
tomd
-------
∂04-Aug-86 1239 SJM jmc
How are you? What's happening?
Susie
∂04-Aug-86 1440 RA NSF Us-Japan grant extension
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
CC: BS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Pam Ehret from SPO called with a msg. from Charles Wallace at NSF that the
government cannot give more than 6 mos no cost extension on grants. She
suggested that we ask for 6 mos no-cost extension which will extend the
grant to 3/31/88 (instead of 9/30/88 as we requested). This can be done
internally. All travel would have to
be done by that date. If it's ok with you, I will fill out the necessary
forms.
∂04-Aug-86 1527 RA tomorrow
I will work until 6:00 today and come in at 10:00 tomorow. I will have to
leave early (3:00pm) tomorrow for a doctor appointment. This was the only time
I could get him to see me and it can't wait.
∂04-Aug-86 1547 RA Tim Moriarty, Delfin
Moriarty called re your invoice. He wanted to apologize for the delay and
explain why it happened. He would like you to call him back (408) 295 1818.
He says the check is in the mail.
∂04-Aug-86 2328 MILTON@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA Database Research Seminar 8/8
Received: from SRI-STRIPE.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Aug 86 23:28:03 PDT
Date: Mon 4 Aug 86 23:25:19-PDT
From: Jack Milton <MILTON@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
Subject: Database Research Seminar 8/8
To: CS545: ;
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, su-events@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
csd@SU-SCORE.ARPA
We will meet this Friday at 3:15 in room 352 of Margaret Jacks Hall. Note
that the speaker is author of a book entitled Conceptual Structures
(Addison-Wesley 1984), which addresses the fundamentals of AI and data. This
book has been reviewed by William Clancey, which is available as a KSL/CSD
report:
Design Features of Conceptual Graphs
John F. Sowa
IBM Systems Research Institute
Thornwood, New York
Natural languages are the ultimate knowledge representation languages.
All forms of knowledge can be expressed in them: declarative,
procedural, object-oriented, rule-based, abstract logic, and common
sense. Unfortunately, natural languages are not the most computable.
Every other knowledge representation language is a compromise between
power and computability on some range of problems. Conceptual graphs
are a knowledge representation language designed to capture the
semantics of natural languages. Like the others, they embody their
own compromises. This lecture will present the design features of
conceptual graphs and discuss the various trade-offs between
expressiveness and computability. The emphasis will be on those
features that support the mapping from natural language to database
and knowledge base systems.
-------
∂05-Aug-86 0800 JMC
minsky
∂05-Aug-86 0805 KAHN@A.ISI.EDU meeting plans
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Aug 86 08:04:56 PDT
Date: 5 Aug 1986 11:03-EDT
Sender: KAHN@A.ISI.EDU
Subject: meeting plans
From: KAHN@A.ISI.EDU
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: kahn@A.ISI.EDU, reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <[A.ISI.EDU] 5-Aug-86 11:03:47.KAHN>
John,
The meeting will start on friday about 6pm with a catered dinner
at the presidents house where we will meet for the entire
session. Its a lovely stately mansion-type residence house owned
by CMU and located on devonshire street exactly across the street
from raj reddy's new house on devonshire. Raj plans to fly to
philadelphia for aaai on sunday right after lunch and will be
contacting you directly to go together.
There will be a limosine to pick you up at the airport in
pittsburgh assuming you arrive between about 3 and 5pm on friday
the 8th. We will need to know your flight and arrival time.
I hope the laryngitis is gone by weeks end and you are able to
come. We only planned a smallish group (7 people) so it would be
more intimate.
I know we moved it to accomodate your travel plans to aaai, but
your health is more important. Come if you can, but we'll
understand if not.
Raj says he will talk to you before then anyway to coordinate.
bob
∂05-Aug-86 0904 JMC
les about Shankar
∂05-Aug-86 0939 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU [FEIGENBAUM: AI Workshop]
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Aug 86 09:39:39 PDT
Date: 5 Aug 1986 12:40 EDT (Tue)
Message-ID: <KIRSH.12228413262.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Kirsh <KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [FEIGENBAUM: AI Workshop]
cc: kirsh%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
John,
We're making progress finding speakers and commentators.
Feigenbaum has decided not to participate. Do you think we should
scratch the "Adequacy of Current Technology" session? If not, how
about Buchanan?
Newell recommended Richard Young from England for production systems:
he'll definitely bring a cog sci approach to it. Another possibility
for prod systems is Forgy, who Norman suggested. Yet another would be
Buchanan. What do you think?
I'm sending you Feigenbaum's reply and a copy of the sessions and the
suggested guidelines we want to send out.
-- David
[From Feigenbaum]
Dear Mr. Kirsh,
Please ignore the response I sent via Ms. Engelmore (response to your
phone call). After seeing your message, I realized I was confused between
your workshop (about which McCarthy did NOT speak to me) and another
workshop he asked me to participate in. Because I agreed to do that one,
and because I have a very heavy schedule of book writing throughout the
period of relevancy of your workshop, I regret that I have to decline to
participate in your workshop.
From the schedule, it looks very interesting, and I look forward to
reading the contributions in the proceedings.
Best wishes,
Edward Feigenbaum
***************************************
\section{SESSIONS}
\vparfalse
\subsection{I/ LOGIC:}
Chair - McCarthy
Main - Nilsson
Comm - (McDermott)
\subsection{II/ ORGANIZATIONAL:}
Chair - Nilsson
Main - Hewitt
Comm - (Simon/ McCarthy)
\subsection{III/ CONNECTIONIST:}
Chair - (Hopfield)
Main - Hinton
Comm - Poggio
\subsection{IV/ LIMITS OF MODULARITY THESIS:}
Chair - Ullman
Main - Poggio
Comm - Kirsh
\subsection{V/ ANALOGICAL LEARNING:}
Chair - (Gentner/Mitchell/Carbonell)
Main - Winston
Comm - (Carbonell/Mitchell/ Gentner/ Kirsh)
\subsection{VI/ SOCIETY OF MIND:}
Chair - (Papert)
Main - Minsky
Comm - Rumelhart
\subsection{VII/ PRODUCTIONS:}
Chair - (Simon)
Main - (Young, Forgy, Buchanan)
Comm - Norman
\subsection{VIII/ ADEQUACY OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY:}
Chair - (Davis)
Main - (Feigenbaum/ Buchanan)
Comm - (Seely Brown, Davis)
\section{\centerline{ SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR SPEAKERS}}
\subsection{WORKSHOP ON AI PARADIGMS}
June 24th-27th, 1987. ENDICOTT HOUSE, MA.
\offindent
\subsection{FORMAT}
The main talk will be 45 min. long, followed by 15 min. of purely
clarificatory questions. There will be a 20 min. commentary with 10
min. clarificatory questions, then 30 min. general discussion.
The main talk will have two parts: part a states the thesis and
illustrates it; part b discusses the scope and limits of the approach
or method. The commentary focuses primarily on the scope and limits
of the approach or method.
\subsection{THE MAIN SPEAKER'S GUIDELINES - first draft due 1st March 1987;
Presentation Time - 45 Minutes}
\subsection{A/ THESIS}
\onindent
\ftpar{1.} State what the basic thesis is.
\ftpar{2.} Discuss the principles underpinning the method or approach.
Describe the natural type of problems and tasks in which this approach
succeeds.
\ftpar{3.} Differentiate your position from others that are
superficially like it. That is, state what your position is not to be
confused with.
\ftpar{4.} Show an exemplary application of the method or approach --
a simple example carefully chosen to highlight different aspects of
the approach.
\ftpar{5.} Explain where the power resides in the method or approach.
\subsection{b/ SCOPE AND LIMITS}
\ftpar{6.} Discuss the scope and limits of the approach.
\ftpar{7.} Identify particular difficulties and provide a concrete
problem that illustrates each.
\ftpar{8.} Analyze each difficulty. Can the approach be adapted to
overcome the difficulty.
\ftpar{9.} Are there any difficulties that you think are
insurmountable?
\subsection{THE COMMENTATOR'S GUIDELINES - first draft due 1st May 1987;
Presentation Time - 20 Minutes}
\ftpar{1.} Evaluate the source of power of the method or approach as
presented by the main speaker. State why you think the
method/approach works and why it fails. Use examples to illustrate your
points.
\ftpar{2.} Comment on the scope and limits of the method/approach.
Where does it succeed and why; where does it fail and why.
\ftpar{3.} Time permitting: discuss briefly the adequacy of the main
speaker's formulation of the thesis.
\subsection{DATES:}
\offindent
March 1st Main speaker's first draft.
March 15th Organizer's comments (primarily on clarity).
April 1st Revised draft sent to commentator.
May 1st Draft due from commentator.
May 15th Organizer's comments on commentator's draft.
June 1st All drafts due for conference prepublication.
June 24th-27th WORKSHOP
August 15th Final drafts for book version of proceedings.
\end
∂05-Aug-86 1139 RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Aug 86 11:38:32 PDT
Date: Tue 5 Aug 86 07:41:00-PDT
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 4 Aug 86 15:07:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12228391549.12.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
If you are referring to the CS 500 Colloquium - it is Bob Floyd.
-Anne
-------
∂05-Aug-86 1139 RA regular day
My appointment got cancelled so I'll be here until 5:00. I will leave for lunch
at 12:00.
∂05-Aug-86 1213 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: check for $2500
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Aug 86 12:13:36 PDT
Date: Tue 5 Aug 86 08:20:07-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: check for $2500
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: RA@SU-AI.ARPA, DAC@SU-AI.ARPA, BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Sat 2 Aug 86 19:30:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12228398669.14.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, it's very difficult to run a check not really intended for Stanford
through one of our accounts. It really should be returned to the Fredkin
Foundation with a request to reissue it to the AAAI.
Betty
-------
∂05-Aug-86 1451 RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Nils
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Aug 86 14:50:08 PDT
Date: Tue 5 Aug 86 14:48:21-PDT
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Nils
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12228469345.13.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
FYI, Nils is out of town until August 19.
-Anne
-------
∂05-Aug-86 1550 RA Shankar
I put Shankar's CV on your desk.
∂05-Aug-86 1635 SJG planning
John:
I mentioned your thought to Dave Smith; we are not convinced that
the sort of compilation you propose is a necessity; why not include
the information in some sort of meta-level control architecture?
Dave isn't in today, but will be tomorrow. How about if we come and
see you then?
Matt
∂05-Aug-86 1748 RA Shankar
I gave Shankar's CV to Les (so it is not anymore on your desk)
∂05-Aug-86 2030 SJM
why not work on space2.ess or medici[s79,jmc]?
∂06-Aug-86 1022 VAL re: Shoham's chapter 3 draft
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Aug-86 00:28-PT.]
I haven't seen the chapter, and I'd like to have a copy. But I agree with your
comments anyway. Also, I'd like to see what you did in connection with Fred's
story.
∂06-Aug-86 1210 VAL Bob Givan
He's making further progress on computing pointwise circ'n and I think is
approaching the point where he should give a seminar and write a tech. report.
On the other hand, maybe we should talk to him about other directions of work
some time this week (I'll leave for Philadelphia and Washington for 2 weeks on
Sunday).
∂06-Aug-86 1248 SJM what?
What's happening?
Susie
∂06-Aug-86 1320 RA car which was broken int
I will need to take the afternoon off tomorrow. I have to take care of
my car which was broken into last night.
∂06-Aug-86 1344 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Fredkin check
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Aug 86 13:44:35 PDT
Date: Wed 6 Aug 86 12:23:34-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Fredkin check
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 5 Aug 86 14:21:00-PDT
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12228705133.20.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
J.M.,,,,,Claudia is already in Phily & she said to tell you that you can discuss
the reimbursement questions at the conference.
Office
-------
∂06-Aug-86 1402 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA [PUCCI@A.ISI.EDU: Possible visit]
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Aug 86 14:02:51 PDT
Date: Wed 6 Aug 86 14:00:59-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [PUCCI@A.ISI.EDU: Possible visit]
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, Binford@WHITNEY.STANFORD.EDU, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA,
Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Message-ID: <12228722866.12.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Need all your input on this. Will you all please let me know, with copy
to others addressed here, when you will be able to see John Pucci. When
I hear from all of you, I'll get a date and times confirmed with him.
Thanks for your early response,
Betty
---------------
Return-Path: <PUCCI@A.ISI.EDU>
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 6 Aug 86 11:49:53-PDT
Date: 6 Aug 1986 14:50:16 EDT
From: PUCCI@A.ISI.EDU
Subject: Possible visit
To: bscott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: pucci@A.ISI.EDU
Betty,
I am planning to visit (at Stanford's convenience) either later
this month or early next month. In earlier attempts to schedule a
meeting I have found it difficult to coordinate my trip with
peoples' schedules. I would greatly appreciate it, if it is not too
much trouble, if you could try and set up an agenda for me. I need to
talk with you about current events with the contract. I also need to set
up meetings with the P.I.s about presentations I have to make to our
new admirals. In particular, I need enough information to put together
half-hour pitches on each line of research. Prof. Binford andProf.
McCarthy are the people I am supposed to present on first so it is
more important to schedule them than any others. If you or anyone
else want to talk about anything, just add it to the schedule.
Thank You,
John
-------
-------
∂06-Aug-86 1527 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Pucci visit
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Aug 86 15:27:45 PDT
Date: Wed 6 Aug 86 15:13:28-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Pucci visit
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: LES@SU-AI.ARPA, BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Wed 6 Aug 86 14:25:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12228736062.12.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, I most certainly will copy Les on such messages. I had forwarded Pucci's
message to him, but I forgot to copy him on the message I sent to faculty.
Will not forget in future.
Betty
-------
∂06-Aug-86 1837 LES Qlisp funds
To: CLT, RPG
CC: JMC
It is actually worse than what John said -- we have asked SPO at least
three times since July 22 whether they had received our Qlisp funds and
they cleimed they had not.
∂07-Aug-86 0853 RA Meeting with Pucci
We have a tentative date for Pucci's visit--Monday, September 8. I will put
it in your calendar and keep you informed about further developments.
∂07-Aug-86 0854 DLIU@Sierra.Stanford.EDU Re: Mosher case.
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 08:54:46 PDT
Date: Thu 7 Aug 86 08:56:19-PDT
From: David Liu <DLIU@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mosher case.
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Wed 6 Aug 86 23:36:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12228929549.17.DLIU@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
John
I can not agrre more than what you have mentioned in this message.
Especially the similarity you draw for Mr. John Burns' case. I have friends
does business in China (American based business) and I also have relatives
from my father and mother's sides who are presently live in China.
From what I have being told about the situations in Communist China, I can
understand Mr. Mosher had to cut corner sometimes in order to achieve what he
intended to do (which most of us living in this free country have been taking
for granted for example, visiting a local farm, etc.).
It is a pity to consider that both Mr. Burns and Mr. Mosher were lucky
for the kind of treatment they got from PROC government since they are US
citizens. If they were citizens of PROC, or residence of Hong-Kong, the
consequences of their action can be extremly serious (jailed without trial,
trialed then send to concentration camp hard labor, etc. is not uncommon
even at present when most of the US people and media are convinced that
Communist China has 'libralized' after Mao's death.) I believe that we should not expect that Communist Chinese government would treat foreign vistors ,
or even their own citizens fairly. However, decision makers, administrators,
and people in this country should not yield to Communist government standard
and apply such totalitarian society standard onto American citizens.
David Liu
p.s. Just imaging Mosher or Burns were from China and did what they did in US
under similar stuation, the reaction would be very different.
-------
∂07-Aug-86 0905 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: copyright
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 09:01:18 PDT
Date: Thu 7 Aug 86 08:59:20-PDT
From: Oren Patashnik <PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: copyright
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Wed 6 Aug 86 22:07:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12228930097.10.PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
I'm really responding about the Moser case, but while I was at it I
thought I'd mention this: I'm only marginally familiar with American
Spectator so I don't know their reliability reputation, but the
excerpt about Yale and homosexuality almost certainly misrepresents
the situation. I say this because I know how tough it is for
journalists to get things right without lots of checking, and the
last two lines makes their checkers (and the writer) suspect:
> President Giamatti is leaving Yale to become commissioner of the
> National Baseball League."
It's COMMISSIONER of baseball but PRESIDENT of the National League
(actually, "National League of Baseball Clubs", I'm pretty sure, but
this one I won't quibble with). If the American Spectator erred in
something they're likely to know about---after all, the density
(sometimes in both senses, but never mind that) of baseball fans in
our society is quite high---it's probable that they really botched
something they're unlikely to know about---the situation at Yale.
Anyway, here's my constructive comment. The first paragraph starts
out "While dubious ..., I ...". Perhaps it's just me, or perhaps I've
been doing too much writing lately, but this jumped out at me as being
a misusage. I think you want "doubtful" instead of "dubious" (as
opposed to your other use of "dubious", which wasn't). I'm not sure
why this is ingrained in me (I couldn't find it in my Fowler), but "I
am doubtful, it is dubious" seems the "correct" general form to me. I
know this seems piddling, but it's in the very first sentence.
Besides that, I really liked what you said. If forced to bet, I'd bet
that "he's a sleazy character" has at least a few elements of truth to
it (though I'd be the first to admit that my view is based on sleazy
evidence). Furthermore I'd bet that he will do more good for our
society as a journalist than as an academic. Nevertheless I'd also
bet that your basic points are on the mark.
I don't have the time to look into the Mosher matter in detail, but I
think this is a very important issue. If you think you want a REALLY
careful reading of your statement from someone who's generally on the
other side of the political spectrum, send me a current copy of your
draft a week or two before you want to release it and I'll give it a
few hours.
--Oren
-------
∂07-Aug-86 1002 gangolli@diablo.stanford.edu re: Mosher case
Received: from DIABLO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 10:02:17 PDT
Received: by diablo.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Thu, 7 Aug 86 10:03:05 pdt
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 86 10:03:05 pdt
From: Anil Gangolli <gangolli@diablo>
Subject: re: Mosher case
To: jmc@sail, su-etc@score
I agree with you that on the basis of revealed evidence, Mosher's
expulsion was not warranted, and that the University's statements
seem to be a weak attempt to justify earlier judgements.
However, I think that you should properly address the University's
argument on WHY it is not revealing the ``mystery evidence.''
As I understand it, the University CLAIMS:
1) The pertinent evidence has been presented to Mosher and his
counsel for review and rebuttal.
2) Revealing the evidence to the public may endanger the welfare
of a third party; (they imply the involvement of some Chinese
citizen(s) who may be subject to punitive measures by the
Chinese government).
Your analogy that the US government is not able to prosecute if
it does not wish to reveal its own secrets does not quite parallel
the situation that the University claims it is in.
--anil.
∂07-Aug-86 1035 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Aristotle
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 10:35:35 PDT
Date: Thu 7 Aug 86 10:32:40-PDT
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Aristotle
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12228947088.42.RESTIVO@Score.Stanford.EDU>
[cwr]
I don't know enough and have very little in common with the psychologists
to understand why they had Voevodsky on board. Simple spelling correction
algorithms could be implemented and even LEARNED by his scheme even if he
DOESEN'T UNDERSTAND how the perceptron learns.
-------
∂07-Aug-86 1036 VAL reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 07-Aug-86 01:46-PT.]
1. Your comment, "Variables include predicates loadedgun,alivefred,ab1,ab2,ab3,ab4.
The ab's are to be minimized", in the framework of my latest version, should be
formalized and included in the axioms.
2. It seems that ab3 should be given a higher priority than ab2 (or a cancellation
of inheritance axiom added).
3. I don't see why we need, in your last axiom, parts like
V(ab1(t,t'),ab2(t,t'') and V(ab1(t,t'),ab2(t,t'').
I would rather expect something like
V(ab1(t,t'),ab1(t,t'') and V(ab2(t,t'),ab2(t,t'').
All this, plus some simplifications that occured to me, suggests this
modification of your axioms:
¬ab1 t ⊃ (loadedgun t ≡ loadedgun(t+1))
¬ab2 t ⊃ (alivefred t ≡ alivefred(t+1))
loadedgun t ∧ shotfred t ∧ ¬ab3 t ⊃ ¬alivefred(t+1)
alivefred t0
loadedgun t0
shotfred(t0+1)
M[ab1, ab2, ab3]
V[loadedgun, alivefred]
V[ab3, ab2]
t'>t ⊃ V[ab1 t, ab1 t']
t'>t ⊃ V[ab2 t, ab2 t']
Also, we'll apparently need some assumptions about +1 and >, like t+1>t, the
transitivity of >, and the like. When we agree on the formalization, I'd like to
write out these additional assumptions and carefully check that this time the
gun doesn't play any dirty tricks.
∂07-Aug-86 1041 VAL Correction
Clause 3 in my message should read:
3. I don't see why we need, in your last axiom, parts like
V(ab1(t,t'),ab2(t,t'')) and V(ab2(t,t'),ab1(t,t'')).
I would rather expect something like
V(ab1(t,t'),ab1(t,t'')) and V(ab2(t,t'),ab2(t,t'')).
∂07-Aug-86 1055 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Mosher case.
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 10:54:55 PDT
Date: Thu 7 Aug 86 10:52:45-PDT
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mosher case.
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Wed 6 Aug 86 23:36:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12228950744.24.ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Your letter could be improved by a little more information about
the mystery charges. Why is "mystery" appropriate? What are
these charges or at least your basis for deciding they exist?
The following sentence struck me as fairly weak but I am unsure why it
bothered me or what can be done to fix it. "When the Government is
unable to prosecute a spy without revealing secret information, they
have to give up the prosecution."
The new charges may not merit explusion, but the combination of the
old and new may. (That's an obvious response to your letter.)
The Anthropology Dept may have different arrangements regarding thesis
topics. If they are assigned, then changing is not a matter of
negotiation. It is unclear whether assigned topics are acceptable
under university guidelines.
Another problem is length. The letter is a bit long.
-andy
-------
∂07-Aug-86 1113 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Mosher case
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 11:11:17 PDT
Date: Thu 7 Aug 86 11:09:11-PDT
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Mosher case
To: gangolli@diablo.Stanford.EDU
cc: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Anil Gangolli <gangolli@diablo>" of Thu 7 Aug 86 10:02:58-PDT
Message-ID: <12228953737.24.ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Anil <gangolli@diablo> wrote:
As I understand it, the University CLAIMS:
...
2) Revealing the evidence to the public may endanger the welfare
of a third party; (they imply the involvement of some Chinese
citizen(s) who may be subject to punitive measures by the
Chinese government).
Your analogy that the US government is not able to prosecute if
it does not wish to reveal its own secrets does not quite parallel
the situation that the University claims it is in.
The analogy does hold. The US govt may not use secret evidence
regardless of the reason that it refuses to release it. One example
is contractual obligations. Another is more relevant. In spy cases,
successful prosecution can depend on revealing the identity of
uncovered spies (possibly of other countries). The govt has a choice
of exposing them or giving up the case. The University's position is
that it is protecting people whom the Chinese govt will (presumably)
treat as spies. (If you'd like, you can regard the University as a
client state of the US.)
-andy
-------
∂07-Aug-86 1151 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Mosher case.
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 11:51:31 PDT
Date: Thu 7 Aug 86 11:49:40-PDT
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Mosher case.
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 7 Aug 86 11:40:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12228961105.24.ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
If you don't know and they are being withheld, then you should
say that. (Surely revealing the charges can't compromise their
sources.)
-andy
-------
∂07-Aug-86 1210 gangolli@diablo.stanford.edu re: mosher case
Received: from DIABLO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 12:10:38 PDT
Received: by diablo.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Thu, 7 Aug 86 12:11:16 pdt
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 86 12:11:16 pdt
From: Anil Gangolli <gangolli@diablo>
Subject: re: mosher case
To: andy@sushi, su-etc@score
Cc: jmc@sail
Andy, your point is well taken. The analogy is not without some bearing
here.
One should note, however, that the situation in a US court is different
from that in a University hearing.
When the US presents evidence in a court, it becomes a matter of public
record. This is good, since it allows the Bar and the lay public to make
sure things are honest. (Although such checks don't always work, they seem
pretty effective overall.) On the other hand, this also means that the use
of evidence itself may endanger US security interests and the welfare of
other parties.
The University ``court'' records are not public. In this case the
University claims it has used evidence that they presented to the ``court,''
but choose not to release to the public. Of course, this makes the whole
thing suspect, especially since the reasons that are publicized are far too
weak to hold up their case and justify Mosher's expulsion.
Since Mosher himself has not revealed the University's secret evidence that
they claim to have given him. I still see a number of plausible
explanations that prevent me from taking a final stand on the issue.
1) The University's secret evidence is a falsification, is itself
too weak to justify their actions, or was never really presented
in the hearing or to Mosher.
2) The University's secret evidence is real, was presented, and
Mosher, himself seeing that third parties may be hurt by its
publication, will not reveal it.
3) The University's secret evidence is real, was presented, and
is so convincing that Mosher does not wish to reveal it.
McCarthy's argument hinges on the fact that until the evidence is revealed,
we cannot rule out the first possibility, which is by far the most
disturbing under the current circumstances. However, McCarthy does
not address the other two possibilities at all.
--anil.
∂07-Aug-86 1225 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: mosher case
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 12:25:09 PDT
Date: Thu 7 Aug 86 12:23:10-PDT
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: mosher case
To: gangolli@diablo.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Anil Gangolli <gangolli@diablo>" of Thu 7 Aug 86 12:08:42-PDT
Message-ID: <12228967203.24.ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Actually, the University is not only refusing to reveal evidence,
it won't even reveal the charges.
The University ``court'' is bound by fairness standards. The Diane
Paul tenure case, among others, is proof of that. (That case was
settled out of court but it would have been thrown out if the
University ``court'' is allowed to do anything it liked.)
Morals don't count unless they cause some difficulty.
-andy
-------
∂07-Aug-86 1253 RA Fall quarter support
I am assuming that you intend to support Weening, Bellin and Mason this
year. Is there anybody else I should know about?
Thanks,
∂07-Aug-86 1404 RA leaving
I am leaving now. See you tomorrow.
∂07-Aug-86 1435 vardi@diablo.stanford.edu Knowledge Conference 88
Received: from DIABLO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 14:35:38 PDT
Received: by diablo.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Thu, 7 Aug 86 14:36:33 pdt
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 86 14:36:33 pdt
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@diablo>
Subject: Knowledge Conference 88
To: jmc@sail
I'm organizing the next conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about
Knowledge, which will take place in Spring 88 somewhere in the Bay Area.
The previous conference, which I believe was quite successfull, had some
financial support from the AAAI, and I'd like to get such support for the
next conference. Could you tell me how should I go about getting this support?
Moshe
∂07-Aug-86 1639 vardi@diablo.stanford.edu re: Knowledge Conference 88
Received: from DIABLO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 16:39:37 PDT
Received: by diablo.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Thu, 7 Aug 86 16:40:31 pdt
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 86 16:40:31 pdt
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@diablo>
Subject: re: Knowledge Conference 88
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU,
vardi@DIABLO.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: +tark87@diablo
Well, that was easier than I expected. I'll talk to Claudia. I definitely
intend to see other sources of funding.
Thanks,
Moshe
∂07-Aug-86 2125 chuq@Sun.COM Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
Received: from SUN.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 86 21:25:22 PDT
Received: from snail.sun.com (snail-ptp) by sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.0)
id AA04929; Thu, 7 Aug 86 21:24:26 PDT
Received: from plaid.consult. com by snail.sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA06492; Thu, 7 Aug 86 21:26:24 PDT
Received: by plaid.consult. com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA01643; Thu, 7 Aug 86 21:30:21 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 86 21:30:21 PDT
From: chuq@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Message-Id: <8608080430.AA01643@plaid.consult. com>
To: Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, chuq@Sun.COM
Subject: Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
Cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
>Read and learn something.
My apologies in advance to Dr. McCarthy if he isn't interested in hearing
all of this, but I didn't want to send a different train of thought to him
and get things even more confused.
For the record, I agree with McCarthy in toto. I think the laws SHOULD be
expanded. I also think that until they are, people should at least give lip
service to the existing laws, especially when they put others potentially at
liability for their actions.
My points are this:
1) Mark posted the most recent Dvorak column in its entirety.
2) Mark neglected to carry forward the copyright information with it from
the magazine.
To Copyright law specifically allows for the "... fair use of a copyrighted
work ...". The factors for "fair" include (all of this is from "Words Into
Type, Third Edition" which is more or less the publishing industry Bible:
1) Purpose or character of the use (commerical or non-profit)
2) Nature of the copyrighted work
3) amount and substantiality of the work
4) effect on the potential market of the work
Now, (1) could be argued in our favor, (3) is definitely against (most
copyright tort I've seen puts reasonableness at no more than 10%, 30% seems
to be a realistic maximum, and Mark distributed 100%. (2) is up in the air,
and (4) could well be argued against us quite forcefully, as it potentially
kept all those readers from tracking down the magazine, reading the column
and seeing the ads as they went by. "They wouldn't have read it anyway" is
no more justification than the software pirate "I wouldn't have bought it if
I hadn't stolen it".
Anyway, by the strict letter of the Copyright law, Mark is in violation.
Whether the law should be changed doesn't come into the discussion. Courts
are notoriously wierd these days, and we could probably find one to redefine
things in our favor if we wanted to. That seems to be the standard these
days.
Now, more importantly, why did I bitch? Maybe Mark can afford a court fight
over this, but the network certainly can't. Besides posting it to
su.whatever, he posted that copyrighted article to unix-wizards, which goes
all over hell and gone. There is absolutely no precedent for the court to
use for deciding what USENET and the ARPA mailing lists are, and very few
sites out there would put ANY money into protection of the network. They'd
pull the plug first.
Look at the worst case scenario, which really isn't all that unreasonable.
The magazine is infringed. It goes to court. Who does it sue? Mark,
obviously, but if they are interested in punative damages they will also sue
the site that allowed the posting. It is alos possible that they could sue
every site that forwarded or read that message.
Now, likely that would get thrown out of court entirely, but my discussions
with corporate lawyers shows pretty conclusively that it would never get
that far. At the first sign of trouble, they'd force the company off the
net and settle out of court. Period. So, there are no precedents to
protect us, and any attempt to set them will destroy the net.
The reality, then, is that the networks can't afford a single lawsuit. We
can't afford even the implication of wrongdoing, because we wouldn't survive
the onslaught to be vindicated. We might well win in the end, but the
people with the pursestrings wouldn't give us the chance. THAT is why I
bitched, and will continue to bitch when people step over the line. Because
we can't afford to take the chance.
The network is a large, fragile beast. One of these days it may well
collapse on itself. There is no reason to flaunt disaster.
Mark was wrong. He can believe anything he wants, but he was wrong. When
this point was brought out, he dropped into being abusive, which to me is
even worse. Whatever the law SHOULD read, it does read against him. The
fact that he doesn't like that doesn't give him the right to call me nasty
names, in public OR in private. Which he has done on a couple of occasions.
My final point is this: the network is not, as a lot of people seem to
believe, a private playground. It is a cooperative, where people should
live and work together. Mark should look up the word cooperate someday.
Again, my apologies to Dr. McCarthy for the length of this, but I felt that
it was important to inject some facts into the situation and explain my
point of view. I hope Mark learns something from all of this, too.
chuq
∂08-Aug-86 0830 kathy@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU e-mail message from J.C. Browne
Received: from IM4U.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 86 08:29:29 PDT
Posted-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 10:17:08 CDT
Received: from ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU by im4u.UTEXAS.EDU (4.22/4.22)
id AA28807; Fri, 8 Aug 86 10:22:55 cdt
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 10:17:08 CDT
From: kathy@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU (Kathy Guajardo)
Message-Id: <8608081517.AA01040@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU>
Received: by ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU (5.15/4.22)
id AA01040; Fri, 8 Aug 86 10:17:08 CDT
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: e-mail message from J.C. Browne
Cc: kathy@ratliff.cs.utexas.edu
TO: John McCarthy
FROM: J.C.Browne, Chairman - Computer Sciences Dept.
SUBJECT: Year of Programming
The University of Texas at Austin will be holding in 1987 a "Year
of Programming." This year of programming will be somewhat
modelled after the year of complexity recently held at Berkeley.
This activity has been fully funded by the Office of Naval
Research. I am sending a brief description of the year of pro-
gramming. I thought you may be interested in this as a possible
participant and with respect to the possibility of spending a
year on leave at UT.
Best Regards.
∂08-Aug-86 1007 CLT glb/ekl
I think we should meet with gian sometime soon
to see what use you might have for his EKL opus.
He seems willing to help with EKL aspects of 306
this fall if you want. I think the opus could be
made a CS report in its current state and would
be a useful tutorial. He has a few suggested
additions if it is to be used seriously by 306
students. Perhaps you could skim through it.
Then we could all get together - maybe even with
Jussi.
∂08-Aug-86 1012 RA be back
I will be back in the office in about 1/2 hr.
∂08-Aug-86 1147 udi%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA Re: banquet speech
Received: from WISCVM.WISC.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 86 11:47:21 PDT
Received: from (UDI)WISDOM.BITNET by WISCVM.ARPA on 08/08/86 at
13:47:07 CDT
From: Ehud Shapiro <udi%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 15:26:41 -0200
To: JMC@SU-AI.arpa ,
Udi%Wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.edu
Subject: Re: banquet speech
Cc: nilsson@su-score.arpa ,
ullman@diablo.arpa
John,
Thanks again for coming to the conference; I, as well
as others I spoke with, enjoyed your banquet speech a lot.
I have heard just after you have left the conference that Fernando
is/will be interviewing for a position at your department.
I told Jeff Ullman my appreciation for him, but I would like
to tell you as well. I think he is a well-rounded scientist
with broad interests. He has a strong background in many areas, including
mathematics, systems, programming languages, concurrency, and, of course,
natural language processing. I cannot testify for his contributions
in his main research area, natural language processing, but I can
say that he is one of the people in the logic programming communittee
I enjoy most, and find it most productive, to discuss my research with.
Since he has very good reputation and virtually no enemies in the
logic programming community, he is a good person to start a logic programming
group in your department. He will make it an even more attractive place
for researchers interested in the field (including myself).
I know appointing him is difficult from a political point of view, but
I think a solid representation of logic programming in your department
is long overdue, and I cannot think at present of a better candidate.
Regards,
Udi
p.s. On a personal note, having him there during my visit will make it
even more enjoyable.
∂08-Aug-86 1202 BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Mosher case.
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 86 12:02:44 PDT
Date: Fri 8 Aug 86 12:00:48-PDT
From: Alexandre Bronstein <BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Mosher case.
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Wed 6 Aug 86 23:36:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12229225277.54.BRONSTEIN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
I definitely approve your message. If "company" means affixing
my signature at the bottom, I would gladly do it, except that I haven't
read Mosher's books, so I couldn't sign that.
Alex
-------
∂08-Aug-86 1219 RLG Fred problem
i think i have a satisfactory run thru of a "propositional" version of
Fred that gives some insights and verifies correctness of our approach.
I will be back from lunch at 1:30 and can meet any time this afternoon.
Until we meet, i will be looking at neatening up my work, and also
at the non-propositional version...
Bob
∂08-Aug-86 1334 RA leaving
I need to leave now. Will be back at 4:00.
∂08-Aug-86 1414 SJM stat abstract
The Government bookstore will mail you an abstract---they say they mail it
out within a day or two of receiving the order. One sends a check ($22 for
paper, $27 for hardback), no tax, no postage, with a note requesting the
book. Address is GPO Bookstore, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco CA
94102. Most recent one is 1985. Abstract not available at Kepler's,
Stacey's, Stanford Bookstore and Gov. bookstore doesn't know who has it.
Susie
∂08-Aug-86 1433 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 86 14:33:12 PDT
Date: Fri 8 Aug 86 14:32:24-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
To: chuq@SUN.COM
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <8608080430.AA01643@plaid.consult. com>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12229252874.17.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Chuq -
1) By offering legal advice you are yourself in violation of the law.
The American Bar Association may have something to say about your
posturings.
2) It is amazing that you know so much about the network. You know so
much, it bewilders me. You know so much more than people who helped
create the network (like JMC), or who have been involved in the
engineering, protocol design, and politics of the net for over 10
years (like me). Please tell me more. Obviously you are such an
expert about the impending collapse of the network over the posting
of a trivial article from a trade rag, that all of our experience
and knowledge is worthless.
3) Or, perhaps it is just because you are a flamer, whose particular
religion happens to be copyrights. I've received a few private
messages from other individuals in the Unix community whove stated
that this is the case, and that it has been the case since before you
were working at SUN. Perhaps you should get to know Jerry Pournelle
better. He's religious too. He also loves to talk about how close
he is to Reagan, and how he's an intimate collaborator with JMC and
Minsky. Of course, there's that small matter about how he was going
to talk to his buddie Reagan and get the net shut down because MIT-MC
closed his guest account. Maybe he isn't too credible. Neither are
you.
-- mark --
-------
∂08-Aug-86 1450 chuq@Sun.COM argh.
Received: from SUN.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 86 14:50:25 PDT
Received: from snail.sun.com (snail-ptp) by sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.0)
id AA08778; Fri, 8 Aug 86 14:49:31 PDT
Received: from plaid.consult. com by snail.sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA11029; Fri, 8 Aug 86 14:51:25 PDT
Received: by plaid.consult. com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA03104; Fri, 8 Aug 86 14:55:21 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 14:55:21 PDT
From: chuq@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Message-Id: <8608082155.AA03104@plaid.consult. com>
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: argh.
Dr. McCarthy:
I jsut realized you got cc:ed on that last. My apologies, you shouldn't
have seen that. Mark has had it in for me for a while, and I'm tired of
his constant adolescent abuse. I should have been more careful and kept
that response completely private.
chuq
∂08-Aug-86 1450 chuq@Sun.COM Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
Received: from SUN.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 86 14:50:25 PDT
Received: from snail.sun.com (snail-ptp) by sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.0)
id AA08754; Fri, 8 Aug 86 14:47:39 PDT
Received: from plaid.consult. com by snail.sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA11011; Fri, 8 Aug 86 14:49:26 PDT
Received: by plaid.consult. com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA03089; Fri, 8 Aug 86 14:53:21 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 14:53:21 PDT
From: chuq@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Message-Id: <8608082153.AA03089@plaid.consult. com>
To: Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, chuq@Sun.COM
Subject: Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
Cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
> 1) By offering legal advice you are yourself in violation of the law.
> The American Bar Association may have something to say about your
> posturings.
Well, if we're going to nitpick each other to death, I bet the ABA would
LOVE to hear you're telling people what they think...
Seriously, I don't think what I said was legal advice. You could, but that
is a nitpick. You're just trying to avoid the issue by arguing side
topics that are non-issues.
>2) It is amazing that you know so much about the network.
I've lived and breathed computer networks since about 1978. I've worked my
ass off trying to make USENET a better place since about 1981 or so. I've
spent a LOT of time looking into the social and political aspects of the
network, because the technical aspects are meaningless compared to the
them. So, it isn't amazing that I know about about the network.
> 3) Or, perhaps it is just because you are a flamer, whose particular
> religion happens to be copyrights. I've received a few private
> messages from other individuals in the Unix community whove stated
> that this is the case, and that it has been the case since before
> you were working at SUN. Perhaps you should get to know Jerry
> Pournelle better. He's religious too. He also loves to talk about
> how close he is to Reagan, and how he's an intimate collaborator
> with JMC and Minsky. Of course, there's that small matter about how
> he was going to talk to his buddie Reagan and get the net shut down
> because MIT-MC closed his guest account. Maybe he isn't too
> credible. Neither are you.
Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black, Mark... If you REALLY think
I'm a flamer, you should take a close look at the tone of my articles
against yours. I attempted to point out a problem in a rational way. You
were abusive in return, and have been yelling about non-issues since. I don't
consider what I did flaming. I consider you, frankly, an ass. But then
you know that from experience.
As a matter of fact, I've talked to jerry (actually, we've yelled at
each other in the past). He was kicked off of ARPA because he was
pro-SDI and some anti-SDI people decided to be bitchy. There happens
to be a point here called censorship, but we'll drop it. Jerry may
well have said many things in anger, but the reality is that once he
calmed down he did nothing and went off to other, better networks. You
may disagree with him all you want -- I do a LOT. You may also
disagree with me. Please do, because I KNOW that when you're pissed at
me I'm on the right track.
Some people like me on the net, some people hate me. That is
inevitable with someone who is willing to take unpopular stands and try
to make things better. It doesn't bother me, especually when I look at
the people who don't like me and compare my contributions to the Way of
Life with theirs. You can think whatever you will, but please keep it
to yourself. I'm tired of listening to your ranting, raving and
abuse. I don't say this lightly to people, but you can go to Hell, and
with my blessing.
This will happily be my last comment on either the copyright subject or
anything else involving you. I'm not going to change your mind. I'm not
sure there is a mind to change. I'm not going to bother bitching about it
in public, as it isn't the appropriate place. You can do whatever you
want, as that seems to be the only way you deal with life. have fun,
just don't include me in your reality. Excuse me, I have to go wash
my hands now, they feel slimy.
chuq
∂08-Aug-86 1532 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 86 15:32:41 PDT
Date: Fri 8 Aug 86 15:32:51-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>: copyright]
To: chuq@SUN.COM
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <8608082153.AA03089@plaid.consult. com>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12229263878.17.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
I would be pleased if you, Chuq, never communicated to or
about me again. I find you tedious. JMC and I are old rivals on
many political issues, but I have NEVER found anything he said to
be tedious; I respect JMC's scholarship and experience even when
I disagree with his political viewpoints.
If you've "lived and breathed computer networks since about
1978", there's a helluva lot of people, myself included, who've
been around much longer than that. Since you've "look[ed] into
the social and political aspects of the network", perhaps you can
show us your Sociology/Political Science PhD thesis on this
topic. What? You don't have one? Then what does this alleged
qualification mean? In what way do you think you are somehow
specially qualified to speak on the "social and political aspects
of the network"?
Besides lacking credibility, you are also quite credulous.
Wake up and smell the coffee. If you knew the facts behind why
Pournelle got kicked off the ARPANET you'd know it had nothing
whatsoever to do with Pournelle's position on SDI. That is
merely Pournelle's rationalization to himself and to any who will
listen to him. Pournelle HAS gone off to "better" things, things
he does best: being drunk, writing meaningless drivel in Byte,
harassing women at science fiction conventions, and writing books
glorifying a fascist future in which the most basic tenats of
justice and human rights are eliminated.
I'm sorry your hands are so slimey. Think about it the next
time you decide to sling mud.
-------
∂08-Aug-86 1644 SJM mosher statement
line 33 should read in order TO support
line 34: who is presuming guilt? Aren't these people who have access to
the mystery charges? and could claim to know about guilt?
lines 69--71 grammatical change suggested: by having his advisor withdraw
line 91 comma needed after indeed
line 95 should say to justify instead of for justifying
Is this an appropriate response?
Susie
∂08-Aug-86 1739 RA Mahabala
I couldn't do the Mahabala letter because there has been a change in the fonts
and I can no longer get the SU letterhead the way I used to. I will have to find
out on Monday how to fix my letter format to the new font.
Have a nice weekend.
∂08-Aug-86 2041 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:MRC@PANDA American Atheists
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 86 20:41:43 PDT
Received: from PANDA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with Cafard; Fri 8 Aug 86 20:40:56-PDT
Date: Fri 8 Aug 86 20:28:58-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: American Atheists
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12229317786.7.MRC@PANDA>
Hi. I thought that you might want to join American Atheists
(hey, maybe we finally found a cause we both agree with!). This
is Dr. Madalyn O'Hair's organization. Tax-deductable membership
is $40/year for individuals, $50/year for couple/family,
$100/year for sustaining, and $500 for life. You can get
information and a membership application (you have to sign a
statement that you agree with and support the organization's
"Aims and Purposes") from them by writing to:
American Atheists
P.O. Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
-- Mark --
-------
∂09-Aug-86 1003 CLT supper
Could you please get 3 ears of corn and 2 or 3 baskets
of berries at the Webb ranch stand sometime today?
(Put them in the fridge.)
Might as well shuck the corn there since they provide
containers for shuck disposal.
Thanks
∂09-Aug-86 1510 squires@vax.darpa.mil Re: puzzled
Received: from VAX.DARPA.MIL by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Aug 86 15:09:58 PDT
Received: by vax.darpa.mil (4.12/4.7)
id AA01893; Sat, 9 Aug 86 18:07:50 edt
Date: Sat 9 Aug 86 18:07:43-EDT
From: Stephen Squires <SQUIRES@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Subject: Re: puzzled
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: SQUIRES@VAX.DARPA.MIL
Message-Id: <VAX-MM(187)+TOPSLIB(118) 9-Aug-86 18:07:43.VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of 06 Aug 86 1412 PDT
Pucci works for Machado.
Machado is in SPAWAR.
SPAWAR is a NAVY Organazation that acts as the DARPA Agent for the
proposes of contracting.
All technical guidance and funds come from DARPA.
The people within Agent Organization handle the contracting details after
the decision is made by DARPA. Because of their technical interests and
responsibilities within the NAVY they occasionally need to tell their
people what projects they are involved in. When their managment changes
they need to tell the new managment what is going on. They should be able
to do this without being a burden on you. Each of the Agent organizations
has their own style of interaction. I would appreciate any comments that
you have one your interactions with them and any suggestions that you may
have.
You should rest assured that this is a fully funded DARPA project of great
interest to me because of the important role it plays in building a
foundation for supporting the first generation of AI on parallel systems
research. I would like to talk to you about your opinions on the appreach
that is needed to help the research community make the transition.
-------
∂09-Aug-86 1735 JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Secret charges against Mosher
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Aug 86 17:35:04 PDT
Date: Sat 9 Aug 86 17:32:53-PDT
From: John Mark Agosta <JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Secret charges against Mosher
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12229547873.20.JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
If the "secret" charges were as frivolous as the stated ones, might not
Mosher have revealed them himself? In general what is his opinion now?
Is he sympathetic with the "Mosher Defense Committee"?
I assume he is, and I am curious to see what the case "really" was about,
with the hesitation that Mosher doesn't feel his privacy is invaded.
-johnmark
-------
∂11-Aug-86 0215 CERF@A.ISI.EDU Re: reporter
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Aug 86 02:15:46 PDT
Date: 11 Aug 1986 05:15-EDT
Sender: CERF@A.ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: reporter
From: CERF@A.ISI.EDU
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[A.ISI.EDU]11-Aug-86 05:15:17.CERF>
In-Reply-To: The message of 08 Aug 86 1528 PDT from John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
John,
Thank you for the compliment. I will call Mr. Perkins.
Sorry you were unable to join us at Carnegie - the ambiance was superb
and the discussions sparkling. You would have enjoyed and contributed a
lot. Hope you'll be available next time. The idea of a national digital
library seems to fit well with the general trend towards productivity
improvement through personal computing. I'm really looking forward to
hearing your thoughts in this area.
Vint
∂11-Aug-86 0533 spa%hara.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM
Received: from DECWRL.DEC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Aug 86 05:32:54 PDT
Received: from DEC-RHEA.ARPA (rhea.dec.com) by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
id AA28548; Mon, 11 Aug 86 05:33:36 pdt
Message-Id: <8608111233.AA28548@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1986 05:31:57-PDT
From: spa%hara.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM (Salvador Pinto Abreu)
To: jmc@su-ai.ARPA, "jmc@su-ai.arpa"%arpa.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM
Dear prof. McCarthy,
I'm forwarding this message from Prof. Luis Moniz Pereira. I'm
re-sending it because I'm not sure the first one got to you.
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 86 18:29:14 GMT
> From: sic::lmp
> To: hara::spa
> Subject: enviar a JMcCarthy @ stanford
> Status: RO
>
> dear prof. McCarthy
>
> Allow me to remind you of our conversation in London regarding the
> establishing of a Stanford campus in Portugal. You kindly offered to speak t
> o Profs. Feigenbaum and Nilsson about the matter. I would greatly appreciate
> if you would refer our research group as a pool of resources Stanford might
> consider of use.
>
> Please let me have some feedback on the matter.
> Yours sincerely, Luis Moniz Pereira
>
> PS- Sometime ago I sent you a resume' that you may have forwarded to a
> steering committee at the time. Perhaps it may be of use.
PS (by Salvador Abreu): temporarily you can reply to the following email
address (from an ARPA site):
--> salvador%lisvax.dec@decwrl.com <--
And I'll forward it to prof Pereira.
"salvador%lisvax.dec"@decwrl
message from Pereira
I received it and will talk to Feigenbaum and Nilsson when the return
from AAAI next week. I don't remember an earlier message.
- John McCarthy
∂11-Aug-86 1230 HERSHBERGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Mosher opinion piece
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Aug 86 12:29:59 PDT
Date: Mon 11 Aug 86 12:27:55-PDT
From: John Hershberger <HERSHBERGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Mosher opinion piece
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12230016644.32.HERSHBERGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Your writeup has a doubled ``that'' across a line break, i.e., ``that
that''.
jeh
-------
∂11-Aug-86 1425 GRP talk on Andrew
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Andrew is, among other things, a window system that runs on the RT. Janine
has a copy on order and it should be here any day.
∂11-Aug-86 1356 jar@portia.stanford.edu andrew talk
Received: from PORTIA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Aug 86 13:56:32 PDT
Received: by portia.stanford.edu; Mon, 11 Aug 86 13:55:07 PDT
To: IBM-RT@su-ai.arpa
Subject: andrew talk
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 86 13:55:03 -0800
From: jar@portia.stanford.edu
I will be giving an introductory lecture on Andrew,
the environment from Carnegie-Mellon University, on
Thursday morning at 8AM in SKilling Auditorium.
You are welcome to attend. I will be covering a
wide range of things related to Andrew, from using
it (as a user) to programming with it (with no
experience and with some experience). Basically,
it will be something ofor everyone.
See you there!
(This Thursday, the 14th.)
Janine Roeth
∂11-Aug-86 1503 RA [Reply to message recvd: 09 Aug 86 19:31 Pacific Time]
There is a Steven Mosher in Fresno, but there is no address, I am assuming
that this is the Mosher you want; he tel. (209) 222 6098.
∂11-Aug-86 1530 RA TEX course
My TEX course starts tomorrow and ends Saturday. It is every day 9:00-5:00.
I will come to the office at 5:00 in order to do things which cannot wait.
∂12-Aug-86 1120 JMC
bon-bon chicken
∂12-Aug-86 1215 Arnon.pa@Xerox.COM Visit of Prof. Wu Wen-Tsun (re: Theorem Proving)
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Aug 86 12:15:17 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 AUG 86 12:15:39 PDT
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 12:15:33 PDT
From: Arnon.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Visit of Prof. Wu Wen-Tsun (re: Theorem Proving)
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, PRATT@NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: Arnon.pa@Xerox.COM, Shang-Ching Chou <ATP.CHOU@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>,
Boyer@MCC.COM, Oren Patashnik <PATASHNIK@sushi.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <860812-121539-2794@Xerox>
Dear Prof. McCarthy and Prof. Pratt:
I believe Prof. Boyer and/or Shang-Ching Chou (both at Texas-Austin)
mentioned to you the upcoming visit of Prof. Wu Wen-Tsun of the Academia
Sinica, Beijing. He is the originator of what has become known as Wu's
method for proving geometry theorems. He will be in the Bay Area
Thurs-Fri, Aug 21-22; I am coordinating his schedule. Would you be
interested to meet with him? Perhaps he might give a talk at Stanford?
He has two prepared talks; I append some info on them and him. I hope
to hear from you.
Dennis Arnon
Xerox PARC
494-4425
P.S. I am copying Oren Patashnik in case the AFLB format might be
suitable/preferable for a talk by Wu.
====================================================================================
TALK TITLES:
(1) "Mechanization of Geometry" (including Geometry Theorem Proving).
(2) "The Planar Imbedding of Linear Graphs".
He came across a solution ealier than Hopcroft and Tarjan, and gave
complete solutions of this and other related harder problems.
BACKGROUND ON PROF. WU:
Professor Wu Wen-tsun has been known as one of the leading
mathematicians in the People's Republic of China. He is currently the
president of Chinese Mathematical Society. He received the state Doctor
Degree in France in 50s, and was a member of Bourbaki group. In the
first National Science and Technology Awards in China in 1956, Professor
Wu was one of three people awarded a first prize for their important
contributions to science and technology.
In 1977, Wu extended classical algebraic geometry work of Ritt to an
algorithm for proving theorems of elementary geometry. The method has
recently become well-known in the Automated Theorem Proving community,
due chiefly to the fact that researchers at the University of Texas have
successfully used it to prove more than 300 theorems of Euclidean and
non-Euclidean geometry.
∂12-Aug-86 1225 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Visit of Prof. Wu Wen-Tsun (re: Theorem Proving)
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Aug 86 12:25:46 PDT
Date: Tue 12 Aug 86 12:23:32-PDT
From: Oren Patashnik <PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Visit of Prof. Wu Wen-Tsun (re: Theorem Proving)
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 12 Aug 86 12:20:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12230277991.8.PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Unfortunately, I won't be able to arrange the talk. Here's a copy of
what I sent Arnon:
Although "The Planar Imbedding of Linear Graphs" would be an
appropriate AFLB talk, I will be out of town then and, worse, most
other people will be too (the only other AFLB this summer had just
four people in the audience). Thanks for the interest though.
--Oren
-------
∂12-Aug-86 1334 Arnon.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Theorem Proving)
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Aug 86 13:33:55 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 AUG 86 13:32:48 PDT
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 13:32:35 PDT
From: Arnon.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Theorem Proving)
In-reply-to: "JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU's message of 12 Aug 86 12:20 PDT"
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Cc: Arnon.pa@Xerox.COM, PRATT@NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU,
ATP.CHOU@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Message-ID: <860812-133248-2881@Xerox>
I'll tentatively plan to bring Prof. Wu to your office at 11am on
Thursday the 21st. Could you give me the building and room number?
I'll confirm this when I know more about the rest of his schedule.
Thanks,
Dennis Arnon
∂12-Aug-86 1449 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Re: job offer
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Aug 86 14:49:46 PDT
Date: Tue 12 Aug 86 16:49:47-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Re: job offer
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 11 Aug 86 16:37:00-CDT
Message-ID: <12230304614.38.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
I am absolutely ecstatic about the prospect of working in your group.
It is going to be quite an adventure for me.
There are some loose ends I'd like to tie up here so that I can start
work at Stanford on a clean slate. A more realistic starting date
would be around mid-october. I'll keep you informed on this.
We never discussed whether you were going to pay the air-fare
for my trip. I wanted to check with you before I mailed you
the ticket stub. The amount is $298.
Regards,
Shankar
-------
∂12-Aug-86 1557 SJM
where
∂12-Aug-86 1558 SJM where
Question of why we should make improvements when terrible things are about
to happen starts on line 50 of hoter.ess[ess jmc. Distinction between
products and services is in how.ess.
Susie
∂13-Aug-86 0900 JMC
Bukovsky
∂13-Aug-86 0947 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Fifth Discussion Topic
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Aug 86 09:46:59 PDT
Date: 13 Aug 1986 11:55:45 EDT
Subject: Fifth Discussion Topic
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: davis@HT.AI.MIT.EDU, tk@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, allen.newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, schank@YALE.ARPA, rhayes-roth@SRI-KL.ARPA,
ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, winograd@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, waltz@GODOT.THINK.COM,
brown.pa@XEROX.COM, kay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, raj.reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, lenat@MCC.COM,
hollister%ti-csl@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, herb.simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, lehnert%umass@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, wilensky@DALI.BERKELEY.EDU,
jlk%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, feldman@ROCHESTER.ARPA,
norman@NPRDC.ARPA, collins@BBNA.ARPA, lederberg@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
lederberg@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA, weldon@NOSC-COD.ARPA, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU,
sebrecht%weslyn.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU,
hthompson%uk.ac.ed.eusip@CS.UCL.AC.UK,
aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
dts%cstvax.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, litp!jp.uucp@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
cc: ota@A.ISI.EDU
FIFTH DISCUSSION TOPIC
We'd like to return to a specific issue regarding the Federal
role in AI.
In the past few years, there has been a growing debate about the
predominance of military agencies in funding certain kinds of
research, particularly research in information technology. The
field of AI is one of the most prominent examples, with the vast
majority of funding coming from DARPA, ONR, and a few other
defense agencies. Those who believe this is a problem argue (in
part) that even when a good proportion of the defense-funded work
is tagged as "basic" research, there may be problems and
approaches for which it is difficult to get funding because they
lie outside the defense agencies' interests.
This topic focuses not on the defense agencies (whose work in
funding AI has been pioneering and, in general, effective) but on
possible major AI research initiatives in the non-defense
agencies. Below we present two ideas for such initiatives, one
elaborated in some detail, and one quite sketchy. Our questions:
A) What do you think of these possible initiatives?
B) How important do you feel it is to have a stronger
civilian agency balance in funding of AI?
Idea #1: "The Forecaster's Associate"
[The following is excerpted from Dr. Robert Kay at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who has developed it in
considerably more detail]
This initiative consists of an ensemble of expert knowledge-
based systems that would operate in real-time to assist a weather
forecaster. It would include knowledge-based programs for the
automated analysis of satellite and radar imagery; quality
control and heuristic corrections to input data; reconciliation
of uncertain and conflicting data from sensors, physical models,
and data bases; and the formatting and wording of output
forecasts and warnings.
Associated with The Forecaster's Associate are research issues
including:
-- New generation of computer architectures to exploit
concurrency in blackboard-based signal understanding
systems.
-- Data fusion and image understanding of time-varying
images of non-rigid bodies.
-- Techniques for temporal representation and non-monotonic
reasoning where certainty of sensor-derived information
decreases with time.
--Paradigm to support the integration of multiple uncertain
reasoning techniques into a single system.
-- Visual display techniques to communicate information
relating to multi-dimensional time-varying data.
-- Machine learning to recognize environmental patterns and
relate to phenomena, including reduction of unnecessary
rules by consolidation.
-- Comparison of neighboring geographic nodes to compare
forecasts and to resolve conflicts.
-- Interaction between user and system to enable The
Forecaster's Associate to explain its conclusions
differently to different users, taking account of a specific
user's recognizable knowledge; to comment and critique the
forecast submitted to it by a human forecaster; and to
relate its forecasts to the science of meteorology in
addition to explaining its reasoning by a resume of the
chain of inferences that led to its conclusions.
Ultimately [Kay says] it is reasonable to expect the following
improvements to result from the Forecaster's Associate:
-- predict the onset of frontal weather to within several
minutes, rather than to within a few hours;
-- predict the location of the line separating rain from
snow to an accuracy of 10 km rather than 50 to 100 km;
--reduce the error in the forecast of the minimum and
maximum temperature by a factor of two;
--reduce the costs attributable to inaccurate or false
severe weather warnings by a factor of two to four; and
--produce a forecast that is as accurate at twelve hours, as
present forecasts are at three to six hours.
It has been shown that the economic value of very-short-range
forecasting in the United States is about $1.5 billion per year.
The Forecaster's Associate offers an opportunity to recover about
10 percent of such values and to annually save 60 lives from
synopotically forced weather systems and 1500 lives from terrain
induced systems. In addition, there are potential enhancements
in military functions such as precision bombing and
reconnaissance, flight plans, electromagnetic surveillance and
communication, air terminal operations, and general equipment and
personnel management.
The initial proposal for this program was for DARPA to fund this
effort, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
as the program manager, at approximately $10-15 million annually
for 10 years.
Idea 2: "Intelligent Libraries"
This idea, raised in some of OTA's workshops and discussions, has
been elaborated in considerably less detail. Essentially, it is
to develop a major research initiative focused on an area of
social welfare which is not likely (or at least uncertain) to be
met readily by either the commercial sector or defense-sponsored
efforts. This system would supplement existing libraries by
assisting ordinary citizens who are trying to tap information
resources (including books, journals, magazines, data bases of
all kinds). The system could offer assistance in refining
topics, help in sorting relevant and useful information from
other, and help in identifying information resources from a much
wider range of options than normally available. The system would
certainly have extensive applications for education as well as
for large-scale data base management in general. The initiative
would build well on work at the National Library of Medicine,
although there are other possible institutional homes as well.
Thanks,
Jim Dray and Earl Dowdy, OTA
-------
∂13-Aug-86 1411 ullman@diablo.stanford.edu Shankar appointment
Received: from DIABLO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Aug 86 14:11:25 PDT
Received: by diablo.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Wed, 13 Aug 86 14:12:26 pdt
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 86 14:12:26 pdt
From: Jeff Ullman <ullman@diablo>
Subject: Shankar appointment
To: jmc@sail
Sounds very good to me.
---jeff
∂13-Aug-86 1417 GC.TLX@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu telephone service
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Aug 86 14:17:25 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Wed, 13 Aug 86 14:17:36 pdt
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 86 14:19:34 PDT
From: SALES & MESSAGE CTR <GC.TLX@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: telephone service
REPLY TO 08/13/86 13:13 FROM JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU: telephone service
I WILL PASS THIS MESSAGE ONTO THE PROCESSING CENTER
THEY HAVE ALL THE RECORDS OF THE TELEPHONE LINES.
THANK YOU
MESSAGE AND SALES CENTER
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: GC.PXS
∂13-Aug-86 1411 CLT HAGIYA@RUSSELL,Nakahara@RUSSELL,
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, sf@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, RWW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
JK@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, CG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
CLT@SU-AI.ARPA
final mini seminar
Since Jussi has a conflict on tuesday but can come on Friday Aug 22
I propose we have the final seminar a noon on Aug 22.
(Gian Luigi wil talk about his EKL work - with Jussi kibitzing.)
Please let me know if you have a conflict.
∂13-Aug-86 1515 GC.AMC@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu TELEPHONE ANSWER
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Aug 86 15:15:45 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Wed, 13 Aug 86 15:15:50 pdt
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 86 15:17:34 PDT
From: Anne Crowley <GC.AMC@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: TELEPHONE ANSWER
John,
For the telephone number 3-4430, our records show this line with
service level "C". The features now assigned to your phone number
are the following:
1. Call Transfer
2. Call Hold/ Call Park
3. Last Number Redial
4. Speed Dial
5. Call Forwarding
6. Call forward no answer to 4-0057
Hope this helps you out, any further questions, please address them
to myself at GC.AMC@FORSYTHE.
Anne M. Crowley
Services
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: GC.TLX, GC.PXS
∂13-Aug-86 1655 GRP meeting
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
LES suggests it's time for a meeting. Since Ralph's schedule seems
to be the most tightly packed, I checked with his calendar and got
either of the two following times:
Tuesday (Aug. 19) 10am
Wednesday (Aug. 20) 2pm
If neither of these is ok let me know and I'll see what else might
be arranged. (Any time is ok with me.)
∂13-Aug-86 1738 RWW rww
To: JMC
CC: RWW
This is Yasuko using RWW account to check his mail.
Richard is at AAAI conference in Philadelphia during this week.
He will be back late Saturday night.
Yasuko
∂13-Aug-86 1746 JJW Re: alliant rev-2 release
To: alliant!jat@MIT-EDDIE.ARPA
CC: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
(Les sent a copy of your message to me.)
We haven't received the new software yet, but I hope we will soon.
On Monday I called Customer service and said we were anxious to get
it. The person I spoke to (Bob Toop) didn't know exactly when it
would be shipped to users; he only know that it had been passed from
development to manufacturing.
With respect to mailing lists, I'm not sure what would interest you.
There's a weekly list of colloquia for the department; if you'd like
to get that, send a message to Contreras@SU-Score.ARPA.
Joe
∂13-Aug-86 1810 alliant!jat@EDDIE.MIT.EDU alliant rev-2 release
Received: from MIT-EDDIE.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Aug 86 18:10:27 PDT
Received: by EDDIE (5.31/4.7) id AA24411; Wed, 13 Aug 86 18:54:11 EDT
Received: by alliant.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA04282; Wed, 13 Aug 86 15:56:12 edt
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 86 15:56:12 edt
From: alliant!jat@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Jack Test)
Message-Id: <8608131956.AA04282@alliant.ARPA>
To: mit-eddie!jmc@su-ai.ARPA
Subject: alliant rev-2 release
Cc: mit-eddie!clt@su-ai.ARPA, mit-eddie!les@su-ai.ARPA
Have you received the REV-2 Software Release yet? It is now being
shipped out of Alliant manufacturing so you should receive a copy,
I believe. I would like to come out and visit soon to discuss how
things are going with Qlisp and other projects using the Alliant.
If there is a particularly good time within the next month or so,
please let me know.
I would appreciate it if you could include me in relevant mailing
lists you have there at the Computer Science Department. I would
like to keep in touch with what is going on there.
-Jack
∂14-Aug-86 0953 SJM various
I am in the office, ideally for the last time. I need advice on
what to do with various files.
I would also find it very helpful if you would look at my draft of
the article on child abuse and give me any suggestions you have. It is
called WOODS[1,sjm].
Susie
∂14-Aug-86 1018 SJM michaelsons
do you have the michaelsons' address and phone number?
Susie
∂14-Aug-86 1116 SJM buick
do you have the pink slip?
Susie
∂14-Aug-86 1153 LES re: Computer Science Account Blockage
To: AS.CFB@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: AS.JXN@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, AS.PHU@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU,
AS.WLR@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, BScott@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 10 Aug 86 03:10:19 PDT.]
Fred:
I am quite puzzled by your message of August 10. While I participated in
a meeting with you on August 6, I said nothing about the incidents you
describe and do not subscribe to your "concern."
I did express concern over what had happened to the funding for our Qlisp
research project as well as some other issues. As we later learned, there
was a substantial administrative screw-up then in progress in your office.
We had been working on getting the Qlisp research project funded for about
two years and were recently told by the contracting agency (Space and
Naval Warfare Systems Command) that the start date was to be July 15.
We knew that it was to be added as a task to an existing contract
(N00039-84-C-0211) and we repeatedly contacted your office to learn if the
task documentation had been received. We were repeatedly told that it had
not.
We needed to staff up for this project but could not do so without
confirmed funding. By late July, I was faced with the necessity of
purchasing some computer modems that would be needed to meet our
commitments under the contract, yet I had no funds. In desperation, I
used unrestricted funds, knowing that the sales tax would be unrecoverable.
On August 7 we learned that the paperwork had been resting in SPO for
weeks. There obviously would have been much less grief if this matter had
been handled properly. It is bad enough that the processing was not
done expeditiously. Being told that it had not been received when it had
been was inexcusable.
Les Earnest
∂14-Aug-86 1722 CLT dinner
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, sf@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, RWW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
JK@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, CG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
HAGIYA@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU, Nakahara@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I want to try to arrange for our group to
go to dinner somewhere before Masahiko leaves (22 Aug I think).
Next Tuesday evening is the best for our Japanese visitors.
They would like to go to La Fiesta (the Mexican Restuarant
that we went to last year.)
If you really want to come, but can't come on Tuesday let me
know and specify when you could come.
Spouses etc. are welcome, as are others who have been
coming to the seminars, or are interested in talking
more with our visitors.
I will need a head count by Tuesday morning if we go on Tuesday evening.
∂14-Aug-86 1735 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA re: The Realities of a Socialist Workers' Paradise
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Aug 86 17:35:05 PDT
Date: Thu 14 Aug 86 17:35:14-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: re: The Realities of a Socialist Workers' Paradise
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 14 Aug 86 15:24:00-PDT
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12230859023.12.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
I agree with everything you say about the Berlin Wall.
I might note that the government on the western side of the wall is
Socialist, and was when the wall was erected (Willy Brandt was mayor of
West Berlin in 1961).
I have never been to East Germany or Berlin; my planned trip there
in 1984 was aborted due to several reasons. The main reason was that the
East Germans would not give me a straight answer about whether or not my
portable VCR and video camera was allowed. It was illegal to use one
because it records sound (the ban is on audio recorders, not movie cameras),
but they wouldn't say whether I'd be allowed to transit to West Berlin with
it in my car trunk. Eventually I figured it out; it all depended on how
they felt about the US that day, what Reagan said about the USSR that day,
how the border guard's stomach felt that day,... With the Olympics going
on and the nasty feelings about that I decided that discretion was the
better part of valor.
Their attitude freaked me out so much that I decided against going to
Hungary and Yugoslavia as well. I didn't find out until I returned that not
only wasn't there a problem in those countries, but that they'd be happy to
sell me blank videotape if I ran out...
-------
∂14-Aug-86 2031 LES "Free" DEC 2060
To: "@FACIL.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Pat Suppes' company has a DEC 2060 that they want to get rid of. He has
discovered that the bottom has dropped out of the 2060 market and so would
like to donate it to Stanford. More specifically, he would like to make
half of it available to his IMSSS group and give the other half to another
group in return for their maintaining it.
Given that CSD-CF has already acquired a spare 2060 for maintenance, it
would seem to make no sense to get involved with another one. If anyone
knows of another use for 1/2 of a 2060, please speak up.
Les
∂15-Aug-86 0809 WATSON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU L5
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 86 08:09:48 PDT
Date: Fri 15 Aug 86 08:07:35-PDT
From: Kennita L. Watson <WATSON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: L5
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12231017830.8.WATSON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
I saw your name in the newsletter. Did you have much to do with drafting the
Space Incentive Act? I think that your discussion of what you think of the
whole thing would be general-interest enough to post, but if not, I'd like
to hear your views in my mailbox anyhow.
Ad astra,
Kennita
-------
∂15-Aug-86 1227 GRP User interface manager
To: "@EBOS.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
UIM.TXT[1,GRP] is a slight modification of a proposal I made once before,
which may be relevant to the ebos project.
∂15-Aug-86 1343 CLT dinner
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, sf@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, RWW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
JK@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, CG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
HAGIYA@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU, Nakahara@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I want to try to arrange for our group to
go to dinner somewhere before Masahiko leaves (22 Aug I think).
Next Tuesday evening is the best for our Japanese visitors.
They would like to go to La Fiesta (the Mexican Restuarant
that we went to last year.)
If you really want to come, but can't come on Tuesday let me
know and specify when you could come.
Spouses etc. are welcome, as are others who have been
coming to the seminars, or are interested in talking
more with our visitors.
I will need a head count by Tuesday morning if we go on Tuesday evening.
"ucscc!beeson%ucscd.ucscc.UUCP"@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU,
japanese visitors
Sato leaves next Wednesday, so we are gathering
a group to go to dinner on Tuesday (Aug 19th).
We will go to La Fiesta, the Mexican restuarant we
went to last year. We would love to have you join us
if you can.
∂15-Aug-86 1346 CLT oops
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, sf@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, RWW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
JK@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, CG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
HAGIYA@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU, Nakahara@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
sorry about that last message
i intended only to mail the part of the page
beginning with beeson's address
∂15-Aug-86 1629 RLG Fred's unenlightened suicide
the solution seems to be to add the following axioms:
∀t (ab1 sit t ⊃ abmin1 t)
∀t (ab2 sit t ⊃ abmin2 t)
∀t (ab3 sit t ⊃ abmin3 t)
and then minimize the abmin's:
M[abmin1, abmin2, abmin3]
(of course, no longer minimize the ab's)
PROBLEM: This approach seems to lose the ability to prioritize 2 ab's absolutely
(i.e. in a global rather than chronological sense)
e.g. to vary ab1 while minimizing abmin3 fails because our axioms pin down all
values of ab1. I don't see how to solve this with a similar trick. I'll
be thinking about it.
p.s. Maybe i should ponder longer between times i interrupt you. I like the
faster feedback, but if it is annoying to deal with my unfinished thoughts,
please tell me. I am still a bit intimidated about interrupting you...!
∂15-Aug-86 1629 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu default problem
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 86 16:29:20 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA03296; Fri, 15 Aug 86 19:28:17 EDT
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 86 19:28:17 EDT
From: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8608152328.AA03296@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: val@su-ai.arpa
Subject: default problem
Cc: ether%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, grosoff@su-score.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa,
kautz@rochester.arpa, mcdermott@yale.arpa,
reiter%toronto@csnet-relay.arpa, shoham@yale.arpa
Vladimir,
I probably will see you in Washington next week, before you get a
chance to read this, but just in case not: I am having second thoughts
about what you said regarding my counterexample of default reasoning that we
first discussed in Kentucky last year. At first I thought you were right
that Skolem constants and names (instead of individuals) settles it, but now
I think not. To be precise, I'll start from the beginning, and instead of
birds I'll provide relief in the form of chocolate and grandchildren. Also,
since the efficacy of default logics was a big issue at the AAAI this year,
I am sending copies of this to several people, who I hope will feel free to
reply.
---------------------------------
The Queen has 100 grandchildren, whom she dearly loves and knows by
sight and by their names P1...P100. However, she cannot recall anything
else about them individually. But she does know that almost all of them
like chocolate and also that at least one of them does not. When P17 comes
to visit her one day, she offers him some chocolate.
---------------------------------
Represent and justify the Queen's reasoning in terms of some default
formalism, in which are included the facts that P1...P100 are her only
grandchildren, that liking chocolate is the typical (default) case for them,
and that at least one of them does not like chocolate. Caution: note that
if LikesChocolate(P17) is inferred, your methods will probably also infer
the same of P1...P100, which is an apparent contradiction. Note also that a
STRAIGHTFORWARD treatment using circumscription leads to FAILING to conclude
LikesChocolate(P17), and hence failing to model the Queen's reasoning, for
in one minimal model, P17 will not like chocolate.
For those who want a simple formal example, consider the following
watered down case: A = { (Ex)(GrdChld x & -LikesChocolate x) , GrdChld P17 }.
Then circumscribing -LikesChocolate in A does NOT lead to the expected
conclusion LikesCholcolate(P17). The mere existence of a case that doesn't
obey the default (which after all is half of what makes defaults DEFAULTS,
the other half being that such cases are rare), seems to block the default
conclusion. For we have no way to get P not to be that exceptional case, in
the present formulation of A. The challenge is to rewrite A so it will
work, but honestly, i.e., respecting the intuitions of the original problem.
Skolemizing is one direction to try, but my cautions in the previous paragraph
point to trouble if the full problem with all 100 grandchildren is faced,
for the Skolemized grandchild name must corefer with one of the 100.
My suggestion is that in addition to whatever mechanism specifies
defaults, another mechanism must specify the range to which it is to apply,
i.e., a focus of interest must be determined which, if too large, nullifies
the use of the default, but if small (e.g., just P17) sanctions it. As long
as we care about only a few cases, it is sensible to use defaults, but not
when we consider global questions. This points in an unfortunately messy
direction, but I see no way to avoid it.
--Don
∂16-Aug-86 1156 RPG Lisp Conference
The banquet went well without your presence. The only interesting
thing happened as I walked to the dessert table. Someone asked whether
it was true that I intended to take your place and give the history of
Lisp talk. When I said `no,' everyone at the table cheered and applauded.
The rooms in which the banquet took place would have been impossible to
use for a talk. Tables were strewn over three floors, and only
1/6 of the people could have even seen you.
I hope you are feeling better.
-rpg-
∂16-Aug-86 1546 RA TEX course
I would benefit a lot from participating in the second week of the TEX course.
My schedule will be similar to that of last week. I will come by at lunch time
and after work (except for Tuesday and Thursday when I have to leave immediately
after the TEX class.
∂16-Aug-86 1607 RPG Qlisp
To: LES, JMC
So, it sounds like we should get together and discuss not only
the schedule, but when we can get the link running and some
of the money over here.
-rpg-
∂16-Aug-86 1621 CLT
we could meet tuesday noon in 252 which I have reserved for
the mini seminar
∂16-Aug-86 1638 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu Re: default problem
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Aug 86 16:38:02 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA21890; Sat, 16 Aug 86 19:38:33 EDT
Message-Id: <8608162338.AA21890@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Re: default problem
In-Reply-To: Your message of 15 Aug 86 1634 PDT.
<8608160036.AA04792@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 19:38:31 -0500
From: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
From: John McCarthy <JMC@su-ai.arpa>
[In reply to message sent Fri, 15 Aug 86 19:28:17 EDT.]
I have forwarded your message to grosof@score, since grosoff@score is
non-existent. I'll consider the substance of your message later.
----
Thanks, John. By the way, I heard at AAAI that you have not been well. I hope
you are rapidly improving. Too bad you weren't at the vigorous sessions on
default reasoning. They were quite stimulating.
Best regards,
Don
∂16-Aug-86 2027 LES Qlisp
To: JMC, RPG, CLT
Either Monday or Tuesday at 11 is fine with me.
∂17-Aug-86 1007 RPG
To: LES, JMC, CLT
∂16-Aug-86 2027 LES Qlisp
To: JMC, RPG, CLT
Either Monday or Tuesday at 11 is fine with me.
I won't know whether tomorrow is possible until tomorrow. I'll
need to have either JK or Shlager come along.
-rpg-
∂17-Aug-86 1109 shoham@YALE.ARPA Re: default problem
Received: from YALE-BULLDOG.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Aug 86 11:09:02 PDT
Received: by Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA; 16 Aug 86 12:28:14 EDT (Sat)
Date: 16 Aug 86 12:28:14 EDT (Sat)
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8608161628.AA13613@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: default problem
To: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
Cc: val@su-ai.arpa, ether%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, grosoff@su-score.arpa,
jmc@su-ai.arpa, kautz@rochester.arpa, mcdermott@YALE.ARPA,
reiter%toronto@csnet-relay.arpa, shoham@YALE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>, Fri, 15 Aug 86 19:28:17 EDT
Don,
It's the first time I see this good example, but I think I understand what's going on
here. Let me suggest an account of it.
Let me first say that it isn't obvious what conclusions one would *like* the queen to arrive at,
regardless of the mechanism for arriving at them. Suppose all 100 kids visit
her: should she give all of them chocolate? all but one, chosen at random? none?
That will determine her behavior in the case where P17 visits her (why does everyone
use P17 to represent randomness? I use HOUSE17 in my paper). According to the three
choices above, she will either give P17 his fix automatically (which you
apparently prefer), or else she will
give it to him iff he happens to not be identical to the child chosen at random
ahead of time, or else she will not give it to him no matter what.
I agree that the second possibility seems a bit silly, but the third one isn't. For
example, replace `x likes chocolate' by `x likes chocolate and is not strongly
alergic to it', and correspondingly replace `x does not like chocolate' by `either x
doesn't like chocolate or else he is strongly alergic to it'; if I were the queen I'd
hold back on all the kids.
Since you require an account of the first option, I will treat it explicitly. Let
me just say parenthetically that the third option is as easily implementable, and
that I think the second one isn't implementable without a notion of random choice
in the logic itself.
I will use nonmon epistemic logic, which I hope will also serve to illustrate that
nonmon modal logic is really a good way to go.
I will use:
<>phi: possibly phi (i.e., -phi is not known)
[]phi: necessarily phi (i.e., phi is known)
grch(x): x is a grandchild.
likechoc(x): x likes chocolate
givechoc(x): the queen decides to give x chocolate
First we fix the grandchildren:
(0) forall x. []grch(x) <-> []p1(x) V ... V []p100(x)
The translation of the default rule into this logic yields:
(1) forall x. []grch(x) & <>likechoc(x) -> []givechoc(x)
In other words, the queen descides to give chocolate to all kids which she does not
know for certain not to like chocolate (in the allergic child version, the cautious
queen would replace <>likechoc(x) by []likechoc(x) ).
The other condition is:
(2) [] exists x. grch(x) & -likechoc(x)
Note that this is quite distinct from `exists x. [] (grch(x) & -likechoc(x))' -
you can't move quantifiers across modal operators.
We adopt nonmon semantics as explained in the chapter I sent you (and to
most of the cc'ed). Briefly, we prefer models which satisfy
[]-likechoc(x) for as few x's as possible, and among those models we prefer
to know as little as possible (again, in the usual sense of set-inclusion).
It is not hard to see that in all preferred models the queen does not know
-likechoc(P17), and therefore by (1) she must give P17 chocolate. Note that Axiom (2)
plays no role here.
Yoav.
-------
∂17-Aug-86 1457 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu Re: default problem
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Aug 86 14:57:19 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA06475; Sun, 17 Aug 86 17:56:26 EDT
Message-Id: <8608172156.AA06475@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: shoham@yale.arpa
Cc: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
Cc: val@su-ai.arpa, ether.allegra%btl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa,
grosof@su-score.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa, kautz@rochester.arpa,
mcdermott@yale.arpa, reiter%toronto@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: default problem
In-Reply-To: Your message of 16 Aug 86 12:28:14 EDT (Sat).
<8608161628.AA13613@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 17:56:25 -0500
From: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@yale.arpa>
I will use nonmon epistemic logic, which I hope will also serve to
illustrate that nonmon modal logic is really a good way to go.
I will use:
<>phi: possibly phi (i.e., -phi is not known)
[]phi: necessarily phi (i.e., phi is known)
grch(x): x is a grandchild.
likechoc(x): x likes chocolate
givechoc(x): the queen decides to give x chocolate
First we fix the grandchildren:
(0) forall x. []grch(x) <-> []p1(x) V ... V []p100(x)
The translation of the default rule into this logic yields:
(1) forall x. []grch(x) & <>likechoc(x) -> []givechoc(x)
In other words, the queen descides to give chocolate to all kids
which she does not know for certain not to like chocolate.
It is not hard to see that in all preferred models the queen does
not know -likechoc(P17), and therefore by (1) she must give P17
chocolate.
-----
Well, I see I should have stuck with birds! I have not expressed my
intentions well enough. I meant that the queen by default assumes that
a child LIKES chocolate unless known otherwise, not simply that she
GIVES chocolate unless known that it likes chocolate. This is in analogy with
assuming a bird FLIES (not just closing its cage door). So you see, there
lurks here a potential conflict with concluding P17 actually LIKES chocolate
(and perhpas so do all the others, but they can't...).
Don
P.S. Note that I had grosof's address wrong in the first message; it is
correct now. (one f, not two). I also had Etherington's old address; it
too now is correct.
P.P.S. Please try again!
∂17-Aug-86 1742 shoham@YALE.ARPA chap. 3
Received: from YALE-BULLDOG.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Aug 86 17:41:59 PDT
Received: by Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA; 17 Aug 86 20:12:27 EDT (Sun)
Date: 17 Aug 86 20:12:27 EDT (Sun)
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8608180012.AA00174@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Subject: chap. 3
To: jmc@su-ai.ARPA
Dear John,
In a roundabout fashion (read: through Vladimir) I got your criticism of
my devoting time to criticizing other formalisms. I think you're right,
and will change the chapter accordingly. Any other comments you have are
welcome, as usual.
Yoav.
-------
∂17-Aug-86 2354 LES Bill Pitts
Home: 949-0142
Work: 960-1401
∂18-Aug-86 0859 shoham@YALE.ARPA Re: default problem
Received: from YALE-BULLDOG.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 86 08:58:04 PDT
Received: by Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA; 18 Aug 86 10:16:48 EDT (Mon)
Date: 18 Aug 86 10:16:48 EDT (Mon)
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8608181416.AA00932@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: default problem
To: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
Cc: val@su-ai.arpa, ether.allegra%btl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa,
grosof@su-score.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa, kautz@rochester.arpa,
mcdermott@YALE.ARPA, reiter%toronto@csnet-relay.arpa
In-Reply-To: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>, Sun, 17 Aug 86 17:56:25 -0500
!
! Well, I see I should have stuck with birds! I have not expressed my
! intentions well enough. I meant that the queen by default assumes that
! a child LIKES chocolate unless known otherwise, not simply that she
! GIVES chocolate unless known that it likes chocolate. This is in analogy with
! assuming a bird FLIES (not just closing its cage door). So you see, there
! lurks here a potential conflict with concluding P17 actually LIKES chocolate
! (and perhpas so do all the others, but they can't...).
!
! Don
----------------
Don, I'm not sure I understand your motivation. By your criterion, if all 100
kids visit the queen then she must infer that all of them like chocolate (the
reasoning about p17 can be duplicated for all kids). Therefore the queen is
inconsistent, and so should our formulation (replace givechoc in my formulation
by likechoc).
But this is probably not what we mean intuitively - when the queen gives one kid
chocolate she still has a nagging doubt about his really liking it (a 1% doubt,
in fact). If 2 kids visit her, do you require that she still believe that both
like chocolate? If not, why the arbitrary distinction between 1 and 2? If yes,
then how about 3 kids? etcetera. Clearly what's going on here is that the more
chocolates she hands out the bigger the doubt - for n kids its
n%. For some n this is just too big, according to some utility criterion.
To capture that you must incorporate the notions of probability and utility in the
language itself, I believe. In summary, I think we should require the logic to support
decision making in the presence of incomplete knowledge, and not the
augmentation of that partial knowledge.
Yoav.
-------
∂18-Aug-86 0900 JMC
Feigenbaum and Nilsson about Pereira.
∂18-Aug-86 0922 RPG Qlisp meeting
To: JMC, LES
I don't think we can make it at 11 today. This afternoon
would be ok, or tomorrow. I remain sceptical that we can
proceed very well until the link to Stanford is in.
Also, if LES could get the Alliant Unix manual for us, we
could start doing some things here. The information I need
about Alliant's Unix is the exact format of a.out files.
-rpg-
∂18-Aug-86 1126 RPG Potential Grad Student
To: nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
TOB@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Chris Warren is interested in visiting Stanford August 27 as
a potential grad student. He is currently at U Penn. He is interested
in connectionism and vision. Would you be willing to chat with him that
day?
∂18-Aug-86 1203 binford@su-whitney.arpa Potential Grad Student
Received: from WHITNEY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 86 12:03:51 PDT
Received: by su-whitney.arpa with Sendmail; Mon, 18 Aug 86 12:02:24 pdt
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 12:02:24 pdt
From: Tom Binford <binford@su-whitney.ARPA>
To: RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, TOB@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Dick Gabriel's message of 18 Aug 86 1126 PDT
Subject: Potential Grad Student
Dick
Yes, at 5pm.
∂18-Aug-86 1532 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu Re: default problem
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 86 15:30:51 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA09822; Mon, 18 Aug 86 18:28:23 EDT
Message-Id: <8608182228.AA09822@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: shoham@yale.arpa, mcdermott@yale.arpa
Cc: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
Cc: val@su-ai.arpa, ether.allegra%btl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa,
grosof@su-score.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa, kautz@rochester.arpa,
reiter%toronto@csnet-relay.arpa, kyburg@rochester.arpa,
minker@mimsy.umd.edu, mm@tove.umd.edu, drapkin@tove.umd.edu
Subject: Re: default problem
In-Reply-To: Your message of 18 Aug 86 10:16:48 EDT (Mon).
<8608181416.AA00932@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 18:28:20 -0500
From: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@yale.arpa>
From: perlis@maryland
The queen assumes that a child LIKES chocolate unless known
otherwise.
If all 100 kids visit the queen then she must infer that all of them
like chocolate (the reasoning about p17 can be duplicated for all
kids). Therefore the queen is inconsistent...
Yes, that's the point, or at least that's the danger. It is not out of the
question that some mechanism could select the child of interest, as I hinted
at, a kind of focus device. E.g., if x is of interest and if nothing else is,
then use default rules for x...
But this is probably not what we mean intuitively - when the queen
gives one kid chocolate she still has a nagging doubt about his
really liking it (a 1% doubt, in fact).
Well then, you can say the same about birds judged to fly in the absence of
evidence to the contrary. If it's one or two or three birds, ok, but if it's
thousands, we begin to expect some non-fliers there, not because of ostriches
but because of odd birds that 'ought' to fly but don't due to broken wings
or birth defects or whatever.
you must incorporate the notions of probability and utility in the
language itself, I believe. In summary, I think we should require
the logic to support decision making in the presence of incomplete
knowledge, and not the augmentation of that partial knowledge.
That was precisely what I was hinting at toward the end of my initial
message. But then it seems to infect all default reasoning, not just this
one example. If this is so, then we are barking up the wrong tree, it seems
to me, in looking for a logically complete and sound inference structure.
----------------
From: mcdermott@yale
Congratulations! You have rediscovered the Lottery Paradox.
So others have told me as well. And I have accordingly put Henry Kyburg on
the Cc list.
I discuss this problem in Nonmonotonic Logic II, which appeared in
JACM a few years ago.
Someone did refer me to your paper; but I had thought on reading it that you
regarded the paradox as boding ill for monotonic logic but not for its
opposite number. Sorry about that.
Our conclusion must be, once again, that while there are lots of
interesting theories of nonmonotonic *inference,* there are few
interesting nonmonotonic *logics.*
I guess I don't know what distinction you have in mind. I think that there
are very important and technically complex formal mechanisms to be
discovered, and that they will *contain* classical logic as subsets, with
however the qualification that they will not be undone by contradictions:
they will be sufficiently introspective to note (damaging) contradictions
before they get out of hand. That is, with Kyburg, conjunctions of beliefs
need not be beliefs, but here I think that a subtle "doublethink" may be
appropriate: we see the contradiction arising as we start to do the
conjunction, and then we realize it for what it is and purposely avoid it
while also telling ourselves that the individual conclusions for each bird
(or child) are after all only extremely likely and so in ISOLATION are ok.
I think that a key to this is a DO predicate, that has no foreordained
logical semantics, any more than any other predicate; it allows much of
control to be placed in the inferences. That is, a reasoner can instruct
itself to avoid certain conclusions, etc., by means of such a predicate.
I am handwaving here in the extreeme, but this is a direction that I think
deserves pursuing.
Perhaps your point is that such things should not be considered logic?
∂18-Aug-86 1538 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu AAAI gossip
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 86 15:38:02 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA10086; Mon, 18 Aug 86 18:38:30 EDT
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 18:38:30 EDT
From: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8608182238.AA10086@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Subject: AAAI gossip
John,
I'll summarize what I recall of the discussions, without attempting
to resist the urge to editorialize along the way.
There was considerable disagreement on the role of logic in
commonsense reaoning, in particular at the panel on autonomous agents,
starring McDermott, Nilsson, Rosenschein, and Rosenbloom. McDermott was the
maverick, stating his new view that logic is not the way to go after all.
He gave a very entertaining talk, tho I was not convinced by his arguments.
That is, he made a number of points that I think are sound, but drew (Drew?)
from them the wrong conclusion. As I recall, he argued that almost no
general statements in the real world are true, even at the level of
commonsense (I agree), and that logic deals with certainties (I disagree),
therefore the unsuitablility of the latter. He in particular criticized
efforts to formalize default reasoning, saying that it was leading to more
and more complex notations designed to force the logic into ill-fitting
clothes and from which no general principles were emerging: rather, we were
merely cramming our (already poor) intuitions into the logic for each
special case.
Someone also claimed (it may have been McDermott again) that since
logic simply tells us what is already implicit in our axioms, then it has no
bearing on insight, learning, guessing, etc. I think this is a mistake, in
that logic can serve to tell us what our tentative THEORIES entail. Indeed,
I see no need for axioms to be true. We can use Bird x -> Flies x even tho
it is false. In fact, I think we can devise logics that do not face
disaster in the presence of inconsistency. What I think we do need is a
realtime logic, i.e., one that blends in with a control structure and is
robust enough to withstand minor radical alterations (i.e., if given just
ONE new and unusual axiom, it will soon come to ignore it). But it will
still be logic in that it will show us (some) valid conclusions, and
therefore let us see more clearly what assumptions we are entertaining. It
can also codify for us past experience in the form of (more or less) good
rules for future guesses. It can I think also be put to the task of telling
us when to use probabilities, when to use defautls, and so on, as in the
chocolate grandchildren puzzle I sent around.
In hallway discussions at AAAI it was said that in a paper of
Drew's, there is the following example: Drew notices a coffee cup upside
down on the table, and infers his wife placed it so. The claim is that this
is not a logical inference. I haven't seen the paper, and so don't know
details, but it seems to me that this is precisely the kind of
theory-building that we (and logic) are good at. We notice something and
try to build a theory to fit it. John Anderson gives a similar example of
human illogicality (so he says): if I am dying the doctor will be frowning;
the doctor is frowning so I must be dying. I see this as simply an attempt
to explain the facts. In so doing we cast about for "inner models" (much
like circumscription) that account for things without too much baggage
(circumscription may be overkill in this, tho). That is, on the issue of
newness, if a new input arrives, say x, then all of a sudden there is a
whole RAFT of NEW things that become true (entailed) and which are NOT
already known until they are deduced as part of this new state (theory) that
the old plus new input form. That is, logic plays the role of telling us
what our changing theories really are like (what they entail) and also can
give us info on how to use/improve theories with axioms such as above with
DO or CONSIDER. That is, control can be axiomatized, as long as there is a
top level controller that obeys the proven control commands (suggestions?).
I might claim that without logic we are sunk, for then nothing means
anything to us at all. We can't even see when we are in fact contradicting
ourselves.
Also, axioms can be prescriptions, such as "if this then DO (or consider)
that" so that truth isn't even an issue, but rather efficacy. Of course, I
am making unproven claims, but I think this is at least a direction worth
trying. Perhaps some would say it is not logic if it does these things.
But at least it will be syntactic in form, have a vestige of semantics, have
important subcases that are valid, and so on.
I guess I have beaten enough drums here, so I'll sign off!
Regards,
Don
∂18-Aug-86 1612 LES Qlisp meeting
To: JMC, CLT, RPG
OK, 11:00 AM Tuesday it is.
∂18-Aug-86 1745 shoham@YALE.ARPA Re: default problem
Received: from YALE-BULLDOG.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 86 17:44:55 PDT
Received: by Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA; 18 Aug 86 20:18:19 EDT (Mon)
Date: 18 Aug 86 20:18:19 EDT (Mon)
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8608190018.AA04585@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: default problem
To: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
Cc: val@su-ai.arpa, ether.allegra%btl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa,
grosof@su-score.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa, kautz@rochester.arpa,
reiter%toronto@csnet-relay.arpa, kyburg@rochester.arpa,
minker@mimsy.umd.edu, mm@tove.umd.edu, drapkin@tove.umd.edu
! But this is probably not what we mean intuitively - when the queen
! gives one kid chocolate she still has a nagging doubt about his
! really liking it (a 1% doubt, in fact).
!
! Well then, you can say the same about birds judged to fly in the absence of
! evidence to the contrary. If it's one or two or three birds, ok, but if it's
! thousands, we begin to expect some non-fliers there, not because of ostriches
! but because of odd birds that 'ought' to fly but don't due to broken wings
! or birth defects or whatever.
I must disagree with you here. There are two issues here. The first is whether
we can infer that an individual bird can fly, and the second is whether we
care to. Let me explain what I mean.
1. In the usual Tweety example we don't usually say "Oh, and by the way, at
least one bird can't fly." But suppose we did, then
2. indeed we are no longer justified in concluding that Tweety can fly (since there
is a minimal model in which she can't. As Drew points out this is one model among
an overwhelming number of others, but as we all agree there is no way to capture
this unlikelihood in the logic as it stands). The question is so what. All we lose
is the ability to answer the question `can Tweety fly'. But any other inference
that depends on Tweety being able to fly can go through: as I said previously,
we simply condition the inference on <>canfly instead of on []canfly.
Note that this introduces no contradiction: )[]exists x -canfly x) and
(forall x <>canfly x) are not contradictory.
This is also why in the chocolate example you needed to say that queen *gave*
chocolate to P17, which depended on P17 *possibly* liking chocolate. The fact
that she gave chocolate is known for sure, but the fact that he likes it isn't.
For some reason you seem to want to have also the fact that P17 is known to like chocolate.
I don't know why you do; that inference doesn't seem to be justified, neither
formally nor intuitively.
Again, we need to distinguish between the *meaning* of our formulas, which is
minimal knowledge (I claim), and the justification for adopting that meaning
on the other (most birds can fly, most kids like chocolate). The latter is
totally extra-logical.
-------
∂18-Aug-86 1749 shoham@YALE.ARPA oops
Received: from YALE-BULLDOG.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 86 17:49:47 PDT
Received: by Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA; 18 Aug 86 20:23:04 EDT (Mon)
Date: 18 Aug 86 20:23:04 EDT (Mon)
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8608190023.AA04623@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Subject: oops
To: val@su-ai.arpa, ether.allegra%btl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa,
grosof@su-score.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa, kautz@rochester.arpa,
reiter%toronto@csnet-relay.arpa, kyburg@rochester.arpa,
minker@mimsy.umd.edu, mm@tove.umd.edu, drapkin@tove.umd.edu
Gentlepeople (or gentlemen, depending on the gender of mm and drapkin),
I've just found out that I cc'ed you by mistake in my recent messages
to Don Perlis. My apologies.
Yoav.
-------
∂19-Aug-86 0900 JMC
letter to Clark
∂19-Aug-86 0903 RPG Today
To: LES, JMC, CLT
See you at 11.
-rpg-
∂19-Aug-86 1039 JJW Alliant
To: CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
kolk@NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU
I just talked with Jack Test at Alliant; he said that they're sending
out their new system to customers at the rate of only 3 per week, but
he's trying to put us at the top of the list.
Also, he plans to be here the week of September 8 to meet with us.
∂19-Aug-86 1155 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu Re: default problem
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 86 11:52:57 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA04214; Tue, 19 Aug 86 14:49:02 EDT
Message-Id: <8608191849.AA04214@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: shoham@yale.arpa
Cc: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
Cc: val@su-ai.arpa, ether.allegra%btl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa,
grosof@su-score.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa, kautz@rochester.arpa,
reiter%toronto@csnet-relay.arpa, kyburg@rochester.arpa,
minker@mimsy.umd.edu, mm@tove.umd.edu, drapkin@tove.umd.edu
Subject: Re: default problem
In-Reply-To: Your message of 18 Aug 86 20:18:19 EDT (Mon).
<8608190018.AA04585@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 86 14:49:00 -0500
From: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
From: shoham@yale
1. In the usual Tweety example we don't usually say "Oh, and by the
way, at least one bird can't fly." But suppose we did, then 2.
indeed we are no longer justified in concluding that Tweety can fly
(since there is a minimal model in which she can't. As Drew points
out this is one model among an overwhelming number of others, but as
we all agree there is no way to capture this unlikelihood in the
logic as it stands). The question is so what. All we lose is the
ability to answer the question `can Tweety fly'. But any other
inference that depends on Tweety being able to fly can go through:
as I said previously, we simply condition the inference on <>canfly
instead of on []canfly.
This I do not agree with. SOME inferences, yes, but hardly all. For instance,
the inference that if <>canfly then []can-escape-cat. For it may be of
interest whether Tweety is safe, and flying is a way to be safe; merely
saying "oh, well, maybe she can and maybe she can't" won't do: we want a
reasonably solid conviction without demanding absolute certainty. That after
all is what typicalities are for: they give us the expected case.
Also, note that what you call the "usual" form of the problem (without the
negative existential axiom) then comes into question as to its significance.
Why are we studying such problems? What are we learning from such a
rarified case that it cannot even tolerate the simple assertion that there
are counterexamples to the rule? We might as well simply assert Bird x ->
Flies x and be done with it, if we intend only to deal with cases like that.
As for probabilities, note that the chocolate example can be given without
the number of children being known except by way of an upper bound, e.g.,
less than 10**100 children, and then the calculation of probabilities is
irrelevant.
Don
P.S. I think several of the potential discussants here are at a meeting,
and so perhaps we should wait til next week to continue this, if there
is interest.
∂19-Aug-86 1339 squires@vax.darpa.mil Re: qlisp implementation
Received: from VAX.DARPA.MIL by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 86 13:38:44 PDT
Received: by vax.darpa.mil (4.12/4.7)
id AA14114; Tue, 19 Aug 86 16:36:05 edt
Date: Tue 19 Aug 86 16:35:57-EDT
From: Stephen Squires <SQUIRES@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Subject: Re: qlisp implementation
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: SQUIRES@VAX.DARPA.MIL
Message-Id: <VAX-MM(187)+TOPSLIB(118) 19-Aug-86 16:35:57.VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of 19 Aug 86 1305 PDT
My discussion with Dick was based upon the expectation that it should be
"easy" to get Lucid Common Lisp on the Alliant and the desirability of
having a high quality Common Lisp with simple message passing. From the
point of view of groups will be making a transition from systems on
single workstations to system on cooperating workstations, it seems that
this would provide a useful capability for those needing the performance
during the next two years. I view this as a practical step that would be
very useful to the SC program while the more advanced approaches are
being developed. If this is going to be done through some other path,
such as Alliant is already doing it that is fine. I will try to call you...
-------
∂19-Aug-86 1358 CLT car
(cad) is ready, i suggest you pick me up at home about
5:15 and we can go get it.
∂19-Aug-86 1730 LES Charge authorization
To: RPG
CC: JMC, CLT
With any luck, it will be permissible for Lucid to charge to the Qlisp
project beginning tomorrow, pending completion of the subcontract. I have
asked our bureaucrats to confirm by phone to Dave Schlager.
∂20-Aug-86 0457 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Aug 86 04:57:15 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Wed, 20 Aug 86 08:00:11 EDT
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 08:00:11 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8608201200.AA03335@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
What address should I mail the ticket receipts to?
∂20-Aug-86 1120 MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA CS306
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Aug 86 11:20:47 PDT
Date: Wed 20 Aug 86 11:18:40-PDT
From: Gina Modica <MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: CS306
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12232363335.28.MODICA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Judith Lemmon from SITN asked me to find out if TV students in your
class will have dial-up access to a mainframe. In other words how can
a TV student do the homework assignments? What kind of equipment will
he or she need? etc.
Thanks.
-Gina
-------
∂20-Aug-86 1838 CLT kcl
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, RWW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
HAGIYA@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
We should set a time for a kcl talk by Masami.
What about next tuesday (26th) at noon?
∂21-Aug-86 0913 RPG Files
To: LES, JMC, CLT
I think what you want in terms of the old proposal is in
boise UMBRLA.TEX[ARP,RPG].
-rpg-
∂21-Aug-86 0914 RPG Files (again)
To: JMC, CLT, LES
ARP83.TEX[ARP,RPG] is the formal reasoning part of it.
-rpg-
∂21-Aug-86 1119 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA ai and logic
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 86 11:18:53 PDT
Date: Thu 21 Aug 86 11:16:46-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: ai and logic
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12232625132.37.NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Here's the draft I sent Hopcroft:
The Role of Logic in Artificial Intelligence
Nils J. Nilsson
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
August 1, 1986 (DRAFT)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a broad collection of theoretical ideas,
implementational techniques and apparatus, aspirations, points of view
about computation, and points of view about computation as the substrate
of intelligence. To the extent that intelligence can be explained and
achieved in machines by the formal manipulation of symbols (the famous
{\it physical symbol system hypothesis} of Newell and Simon), it is
difficult to see how AI can be viewed as a separate subspecialty of
computer science. There seems to be no aspect of computer science that
might not be important in the explanation and implementation of
intelligence---broadly conceived.
Yet, regarding certain aspects of intelligent behavior there are
important subtopics that coalesce around a common body of concepts,
theory, and techniques. It seems likely that AI (to the extent that it
can be distinguished from the rest of computer science) will evolve to
concentrate on these subtopics. They involve the problems inherent in
gathering, representing, and using {\it declaratively} represented
knowledge. By declarative knowledge, we mean the sort of information
that is ordinarily expressed by sentences in a language. These may be
sentences in a natural language (such as English) or in a formal
language (such as predicate calculus, mathematics, or semantic
networks).
Declaratively represented knowledge can be contrasted with knowledge
represented {\it procedurally} in computer programs. Procedural
knowledge is manifest only by executing the program that contains it and
thus must be specially prepared for the application served by that
program. [[[Perhaps more on this distinction?]]]
For intelligent machines (just as for people) there are several
advantages to being able to represent and to use declarative knowledge.
These were recognized by McCarthy [[ref]] in the early days of AI
research, and include, primarily, the fact that declarative knowledge
can be assembled before all the purposes to which that knowledge might
later be put are known. Just as the laws of Newtonian mechanics can be
expressed in relatively use-independent, mathematical equations and then
later applied for many purposes, knowledge about medicine, business,
geology and other subjects has been expressed declaratively in various
``AI languages'' and then used in so-called {\it expert systems}.
One might hope that a natural language such as English might serve as
the language in which to represent knowledge for intelligent systems.
If this were possible, then all of the knowledge already compiled in
books would be immediately available for use by computers. Although
humans understand English well enough, it is too ambiguous for a
representational medium for computers. An important simplifying
requirement of a useful representation language is that the meaning of
sentences in the language should depend {\it compositionally} only on
the meanings of the constituent structures of the sentence and not on
the meanings of other sentences or on other surrounding context.
Logical languages naturally suggest themselves as candidate languages
for declarative representations. In particular, various versions of the
first-order predicate calculus (with occasional non-classical
extensions, such as modal operators) are used frequently. These
languages can be given a straightforward compositional semantics, and
there are also well understood and reasonably efficient mechanical proof
methods for deriving sound inferences from statements in the language.
Other declarative languages have also been invented, and many of these
are now in use in AI applications. One can view the data structures of
a relational data base, the nodes and arcs of a semantic network, and
the ``units'' of so-called {\it frame-based} languages as sentences in
special declarative languages. Usually these languages can be thought
of as sub-languages of a first-order predicate calculus language in
which the computer implementations represent, in addition to the
sentences themselves, parts of important {\it models} for these
sentences. For example, the implementation of a set of units
representing a taxonomic hierarchy (of geologic minerals, say) uses a
tree-structure that can be considered to be a model of the hierarchical
relations stated by the units. Since reasoning by direct computation in
a model is often more efficient than reasoning by proof, such models are
extremely important.
Notwithstanding the computational importance of having at least partial
models of languages and the importance of those versions of declarative
languages that wear their models on their sleeves (so to speak), an
intended model is not always explicitly available, and the sub-languages
referred to above have limited expressive power. Many of them do not
have a means of saying that one or another of two facts is true without
saying which fact is true. Many cannot say that a fact is not true
without saying what is true instead. Many cannot say that {\it all} the
members of a class have a certain property without explicitly listing
each of them. Finally, these sub-languages generally are not able to
state that at least one member of a class has a certain property without
stating which member does. First-order predicate calculus, through its
ability to formulate disjunctions, negations, and universally and
existentially quantified sentences, does not suffer from these
limitations. Furthermore, the proof methods of first-order predicate
calculus can be combined with model computations when structures that
can be used as partial models are available. [[[Ref Wehyrauch/ ref
Stickel]]]
Having a language does not relieve us, of course, of the problem of
having something to say in the language! A large part of ``the AI
problem'' is really concerned with what should be said. Here again, we
base our discussion on logical terminology. We take the problem of what
is to be said as being the problem of inventing an {\it intended model}
of the sentences that will say it. This intended interpretation, an
informal conception in the mind of the AI machine designer, is the
designer's idea of what the world is (at least of what that part of the
world is that is relevant to the design of the machine). In inventing
the intended interpretation, we are perfectly free to {\it confer
existence} on anything that suits our purposes; we never concern
ourselves with whether or not some object {\it really} does or does not
exist (whatever that might mean). If it is useful to imagine that
unicorns (or justice or pre-cambrian unconformities) exist, we happily
do so.
An intended interpretation consists of the objects imagined to exist and
of relations over these objects (and sometimes explicitly of functions
mapping objects to objects). Although this interpretation itself may
never actually be represented explicitly as mathematical structure, it
is important that it be firmly fixed in the mind of the designer. With
this interpretation in mind, the designer invents linguistic terms to
denote the objects, functions, and relations and writes down predicate
calculus sentences for which the intended interpretation is a model.
These sentences then comprise the {\it knowledge base} of the machine.
The sentences do not in themselves specify the intended model but,
rather, are satisfied by a set of interpretations. The designer must
give the machine enough knowledge (in the form of sentences) so that
the set of models is sufficiently constrained. In designing knowledge
bases, it frequently happens that the designer's idea of the intended
interpretation is changed and articulated by the very act of writing
down (and reasoning with) the sentences.
An AI program then uses this sentential knowledge about its world to
take action in the world, answer questions of a user, make plans,
interpret sensory input, understand language, and perform all or any of
the other aspects of intelligent behavior. The process of logical
deduction is used in inferring sentences of a form appropriate for the
various specific purposes of the knowledge. Using sound rules of
inference (such as resolution), the inferred sentences logically follow
from the given ones. (That is, all models---including the intended
one---of the given sentences are models of the inferred sentence.)
For reasons of efficiency, the inference process is augmented when
possible by direct computations on explicit partial models.
This then, is the general strategy of AI reasoning. Knowledge about the
world is represented by logical sentences, and inference processes are
used to apply the knowledge as needed. Several AI systems are built on
this conceptual base (even though the authors of some of them might not
yet understand them thus). Resolution refutation strategies (and their
many variants) have been made efficient enough to serve as the {\it
inference engines} of these systems. [[[Ref Stickel, Wos, Genesereth]]].
But, there are several serious problems with this strategy, and much
current research in AI is devoted to understanding these problems
more thoroughly and to overcoming them.
First, it is not easy for a designer to squeeze his intuitive and
commonsense ideas about the world into a coherent conceptualization
involving objects, functions, and relations. Although this exercise has
been carried out for several limited problem domains (most notably those
to which expert systems have been successfully applied), there is still
great debate about how certain everyday notions such as actions and
their effects, time, processes, liquids, space and so on ought to be
conceptualized. Additional problems arise when we want to represent the
facts that other agents in the world know, believe, and intend things.
AI researchers join company with philosophers who have also been
attempting to formalize some of these ideas.
Second, even after we have settled on a conceptualization of the world
(the intended interpretation), it is extremely difficult to write down a
set of sentences of which this interpretation is strictly a model. It
is a simple world indeed that can be faithfully captured by a finite set
of sentences, and usually designers either have in mind worlds that
cannot be so captured or allow their conceptualizations to expand so
that a finite set of sentences never catches up.
John McCarthy humorously illustrates this difficulty by imagining how
one might formulate a sentence that says that under certain conditions a
car will start. In English we might say, for example: ``If the fuel
tank is not empty and if you turn the ignition key, the car will
start.'' But this simple sentence is not true of a world in which the
carbureutor is broken, or of which the fuel tank (while not empty) is
full of water, or of which the exhaust pipe has a potato stuck in it, or
... Indeed, it seems there might be an infinite number of {\it
qualifications} that would need to be stated in order to make such a
sentence true (of the world the designer has in mind). (Of course, just
what it means for a designer to have a world in mind is problematical;
he probably didn't even think of the possibility of the potato in the
tailpipe until it was mentioned by someone else who happened to conceive
of such a world.)
A straightforward use of a logical language, like the predicate calculus,
would seem to be inappropriate for representing information about under
what conditions cars would start, for example, because adding a new
fact (about the potato in the tailpipe) seems to torpedo a theorem
(about the car starting) that could be proved before we had that fact.
Ordinary logic is {\it monotonic} in the sense that adding new axioms
doesn't diminish the set of provable theorems. AI researchers have
been investigating {\it nonmonotonic} reasoning techniques involving
inference methods that have the effect of settling on a {\it minimal}
model of a set of formulas [[[ref JMC]]], or that use {\it default}
rules [[[ref]]] to derive plausible conclusions. These methods all
allow the retraction of ``theorems'' in the face of additional
information about the world.
Of course, science has the same problem. Our theories of the physical
world are all falsifiable, and, indeed, we expect scientific progress to
falsify the theories we have and replace them by others. When we
conclude something based on a current physical theory, we admit the
dependence of the conclusion on the theory and modify the theory if the
conclusion is contradicted by subsequent facts. If logical languages
are to serve us as vehicles for representing our current notions about
the world, we must use these languages in a way that tolerates our
changing notions of the world. Those who would argue that logical
languages are inadequate for representing knowledge about the world
[[[ref McDermott]]] would also seem to have to doubt the utility of any
of the languages that science uses to describe and predict reality.
Another problem with the simple model of logical reasoning is that its
only inference techniques are sound. Although sound inference
techniques are the basis for the all-important task of re-expressing
existing knowledge in the form needed by a specific task, they
do not permit the inference of sentences that say something {\it new}
or different about the world. Intelligent machines will need to
translate their sense perceptions into sentences about the things
perceived; they will need to posit induced general laws from a finite
number of facts; and they will need to re-express their beliefs about
the world in a manner that corresponds to inventing different and
better conceptualizations of the world. Research on {\it machine learning}
[[[Ref Machine Learning volumes]]] is beginning to make progress on
some of these problems.
A fourth problem is that even if logical representations could be made
robust in the face of our changing conceptualization of the world, they
aren't adequate, as they stand, for representing {\it uncertain}
knowledge. How do we say ``It is likely that it will be sunny in
Pasadena on New Year's day''? We could, of course embed probability
information itself in the sentence, and this approach and others have
been followed. Attempts to fuzz the crisp true/false semantics of
logical languages have led to an active AI research subspecialty.
[[[Ref probabilistic reasoning workshops]]]. Most expert systems that
reason with uncertain information adopt what must be called ad hoc
ways of attaching {\it certainty factors} to inferred sentences [[[Ref
MYCIN]]].
Perhaps an analogy with electrical engineering and control theory will
contribute to our understanding of the role of logic in AI. Expressing
the properties of certain dynamic systems using differential equations
led to a greatly improved ability to analyze and synthesize such
systems. Although there may have been many inventive people in the
early days of electrical engineering who resisted attempts to thus
``mathematize'' their discipline, differential equations became
indispensable to the development of the field. First-order predicate
calculus plays the same role for the design of intelligent machines.
Its logic and metatheory provide the vocabulary and many of the
techniques both for analyzing the processes of representation and
reasoning and for synthesizing machines that represent and reason. The
fact that we discover elements of reasoning and intelligent behaviour
that do not succumb to the techniques of ordinary logic does not
necessarily imply that we ought to abandon the solid base that we have
already built. On the contrary, it appears that imaginative extensions
to ordinary first-order logic are successfully dealing with many of its
purported inadequacies. Logic itself (originally invented to help
formalize human reasoning) has evolved dramatically in the last 2000
years. We can expect that the role of logic in explaining and
synthesizing intelligence will be just as important as the role of
differential equations in classical control theory.
-------
∂21-Aug-86 1450 CONTRERAS@SU-SCORE.ARPA message
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 86 14:49:59 PDT
Date: Thu 21 Aug 86 14:47:55-PDT
From: Tina Contreras <CONTRERAS@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: message
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12232663571.41.CONTRERAS@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Phil Dejardins of Toronto Canada phoned, please call. 416 484-2600 ext 2308.
tina
-------
∂21-Aug-86 1654 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Afghan Journalists
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 86 16:53:55 PDT
Date: Thu 21 Aug 86 16:54:02-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Afghan Journalists
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: su-etc@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 21 Aug 86 13:55:00-PDT
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12232686531.15.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Somehow I don't see how the exercise of the right to protest (by
all appearances, ineffectually) what appears to be a pet project of
certain (highly motivated) individuals. Does JMC really admire the
courage or principles of John Silber, when these appear to leave faculty
members of Boston University afraid to speak out openly against this
project for fear of losing their jobs?
I have not yet heard of Donald Kennedy threatening to fire JMC for
JMC's outspoken right-wing political views. If Kennedy has, I hope that
others would join me in protest.
I have always been opposed to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,
and am quite pleased that they are being mired in something that may end
up being their Vietnam. On the other hand, I am skeptical of such levels
of support for Islamic Unity. This group seems to have no particular
love for the West in general or the US in particular. Right now, they
aren't engaged in anti-Western rhetoric (or worse) because they're too
busy with the Soviets. I doubt that if (in the unlikely event) they win
they will peacefully lay down their weapons and become a model peaceful,
free country.
I would rather see the Soviets bogged down in Afghanistan than see
Afghanistan become another Iran and the Soviets free to work mischief
elsewhere. Why don't the noble other Islamic countries do something if
they care so much? They have the money, arms, and technology. They
won't bore the Islamic Unity guerrillas with these goofy Western ideals
of individual liberties and human rights. Could it be that Saudi Arabia
is too greedy for more petrodollars to sponsor their orgy of spending?
Are Syria and Libya too subservient to their Soviet masters and dependent
upon the flow of arms to dare to utter a peep? Seriously, I think that
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is, like the Iran-Iraq war, a blessing
in disguise.
-------
∂22-Aug-86 0900 JMC
clothes to be photographed in.
∂22-Aug-86 1045 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA [Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>: proposed seminar outline]
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 22 Aug 86 10:45:50 PDT
Date: Fri 22 Aug 86 10:34:44-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>: proposed seminar outline]
To: mayr@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
TW@SU-AI.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, Rosenbloom@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA, Shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Message-ID: <12232879625.45.NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Yoav Shoham, our new faculty member to arrive in April '87 has volunteered
to teach the following seminar upon his arrival. (We may also want to ask
him to teach another course in Spring Quarter---or we may want to give him
a chance to get used to the place before getting fully connected to the
treadmill the following autumn.)
I'm forwarding the following brief seminar description to Ernst Mayr,
chair of the new curriculum committee, for formal curric comm consideration
and approval, and to the AI faculty for their possible comments, which they
can forward directly to Ernst. -Nils
---------------
Return-Path: <shoham@YALE.ARPA>
Received: from yale-bulldog by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 21 Aug 86 15:45:46-PDT
Received: by Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA; 21 Aug 86 18:34:07 EDT (Thu)
Date: 21 Aug 86 18:34:07 EDT (Thu)
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8608212234.AA01775@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Subject: proposed seminar outline
To: nilsson@su-score.ARPA
Cc: shoham@YALE.ARPA
Here it is. I still need some references to HPP/KSL work on causal reasoning,
probably in medicine.
Title: Causation and Artificial Intelligence.
Outline:
The notion of causation appears very frequently in AI, whether in
medical diagnosis systems, device understanding programs, planning or
program debugging. That's not surprising, since the concept of causation is
so central to our intuitive understanding of the world. What is surprising is
that there have very few attempts in AI to actually define the notion, and
even those have varied in their degrees of precision. Usually, the
meaning of causal terms (such as "causal links" in a data structure) is taken
as self evident, and thus is left undefined.
Perhaps it isn't that surprising after all that there have been few attempts to
define causation, since
philosphers
have struggled over its definition for centuries, with partial success at best.
But if for our own reasoning the intuitive understanding of causation is sufficient,
for AI programmers the issue becomes critical: For which A and B are we allowed
to say that "A causes B" or "A caused B"? What inferences are we justified
in making from those two statments? (Pat Hayes argues that the only inference
is that A preceded B, and the philosopher David Lewis claims that even that
inference is unwarranted. But then why is such a useless concept so ubiquitous in our
everyday thinking?) What is the connection between causal inferences,
temporal inferences, logical inferences and probabilistic ones? Is there a
connection in the first place?
The seminar will be devoted to pursuing these questions and others. Our objective
will be to get at the possible computational role of causation in commonsense
reasoning, and to decide whether that role can be carried over to
artificial forms of commonsense. To that end we will read some of the relevant
literature in philosophy, psychology, several other sciences, and AI.
Partial reading list:
Philosophy:
Causation and Conditionals, Sosa (ed.)
The Cement of the Universe: a study of causation, Mackey
Causality and the Law, Hart and Honore
Assorted disciplines:
Cause and Effect, Lerner (ed.)
Psychology:
The Child's Conception of Physical Causality, Piaget
AI:
Physical devices: de Kleer & Brown, Forbus, Iwasaki & Simon
Medical diagnosis: various KSL reports (which?), Pople, the MIT guys
-------
∂22-Aug-86 1139 POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Afghanistan
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 22 Aug 86 11:38:57 PDT
Date: Fri 22 Aug 86 11:36:46-PDT
From: Bill Poser <POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Afghanistan
To: su-etc@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
I think that JMC miscontrues the argument here. No one
disagrees (except partially MRC) with the position that the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan is a bad thing and that the resistance forces are
deserving of support. This seems to be the consensus on the bboard, and
there is nothing inconsistent with it in the news item that JMC
presented. So at least on the surface there is no dispute about who
the good guys are in Afghanistan. What is in dispute are two issues:
(1) Is it appropriate for the BU Communication department to undertake
to train Afghan journalists in Pakistan?
(2) Is the resistance to this project at BU politically motivated,
i.e. due to opposition to the Afghan resistance?
With regard to the first issue, some people at BU evidently think it
inappropriate. I myself am uncertain and would want to know more about
the details. It strikes me as suspicious that the University wants to
do it outside the normal academic setting, but there may be valid
reasons for it. (Note, by the way, that it was not clear to me before
that Maitre was even a member of the BU faculty. In fact, other than
JMCs assertion of this the only evidence we have from the news item
is that he has been appointed interm dean. It never actually said he
was a faculty member or in any way previously associated with BU.)
I do not object to journalism with a point of view, but I would rather
see journalists trained by people with some standards of objectivity
(not very high, I admit) than by people from organizations like USIA
whose very purpose is propaganda.
The second issue is the crux of the issue raised by JMC in
his first message. His claim there was that the opposition to this
project was politically motivated. I think that it is fair to say
that we have seen no evidence of this thus far. JMC has adduced no
explicit statements to this effect. He admits that he cannot provide
any evidence of support, even implicit support, for the Soviets and
the puppet government on the part of American leftists. JMC's argument
evidently boils down to the claim that opposition on grounds other
than political is so implausible that the opposition can rationally be
attributed only to political motivation. This sort of argument is
inherently weak since it relies on claims about other peoples' motivations
(just because we can see that something is utterly illogical doesn't
mean that other people aren't firmly convinced of it) and in any case
relies on the dubious proposition that there is no plausible basis for
non-political opposition to this project. This claim is especially
undermined, as Joe Pallas pointed out, by the expressed willingness
of the BU faculty to undertake the project in Boston.
In sum, JMC has provided virtually no reason to believe that the opposition
to the project is politically motivated. He is just introducing red
herrings by talking about the justice of the Afghan cause and the
appropriateness of the project.
Since JMC has made the ad hominem argument that those who
disagree with him on this issue are people who in the past have always
exhibit anti-anti-communist tendencies (whence, he reasons, we are
anti-anti-communists), let me point out something about JMC's
arguments. If my memory serves me, the debates on bboard between JMC
and others are rarely about the political issues themselves. That is,
we don't have JMC saying "Joe Stalin/Pol Pot/Fidel Castro is a bastard
and ought to overthrown/shot...", to which someone (e.g.MRC, Joe Pallas, me)
replies in disagreement. Rather, JMC presents a second-order argument,
to the effect that something has happened that he thinks is motivated
by the leftist views of some of the participants. So, in this case
we have little disagreement about Afghanistan. The disagreement
is over whether the opposition to the journalism project at BU is
motivated by anti-anti-communism. Note that this is not merely the direction
in which the discussion has evolved; it's the issue orignally introduced
by JMC. The same think is true of the Mosher case. There has been
no debate over China's population control policy or larger issues of
Chinese politics. The issue has been whether the University's treatment
of Mosher was politically motivated (i.e. by a desire to please China and/or
by desire to punish Mosher for his attacks on China). In both cases
JMC has presented what I consider to be very weak arguments for his case.
The same can be said of the recent Stockdale incident (though I don't
recall hearing from JMC on this one). In this case his friends at
the Hoover Institution and the Wall Street Journal (along with Admiral
Stockdale himself) have accused the Philosophy department of cancelling
his course for political reasons. Here again, not a shred of evidence
of political motivation has been presented; rather, we are reminded
of the Admiral's suffering as a prisoner of war in Vietnam etc.
If one can generalize over JMC, The Wall Street Journal, and the
Hoover Institution, we detect a pattern. Rather than dealing with a
real political issue the Right tries to make someone out as a victim
of leftists in the absence of any real evidence. This turns the
debate away from the real issues (where perhaps the Rightists are
worried that they will lose?) and if successful makes the Left
look like it is behaving unfairly (which is far worse than being
wrong on the issues in the American football-oriented view of things).
-------
∂22-Aug-86 1300 JMC
psa stickers
∂22-Aug-86 1345 SJG Time for another New Paltz conference?
To: "@NMI.DIS[1,SJG]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Hi Folks:
Erik Sandewall, David Etherington and I are considering putting
together another Non-mon workshop, probably in October 1987, and
possible at New Paltz again. It seems like enough has been done
that it would be profitable for the community to get together
in a workshop setting and talk about it.
On the other hand, it could be argued that there are already two
forums next year (AAAI and IJCAI) for presenting any new results,
and that we already do a pretty good job of talking to each other,
so maybe this is all unnecessary. I'm writing to ask you all:
(1) What do you think of this? On a 10 scale, I think it's about
an 8, and Hector thinks it's around a 4 (roughly for the reasons
I stated). Additional reasons would of course be welcome ...
(2) If this comes to pass, would you be prepared to be on the
program committee for such a workshop? The program committee
will hopefully be about ten people, so that each of us has to do
as little as possible ...
Thanks for your replies. Another message will follow in a week or
two when I have some feeling for what people think of this all.
Matt Ginsberg
P.S. Here's the list of people to whom I'm sending this message:
sjg@su-ai ;me
"allegra!ether"@berkeley ;David Etherington
"ejs@liuida.uucp"@seismo ;Erik Sandewall
"reiter@toronto"@csnet-relay ;Ray Reiter
jmc@su-ai ;John McCarthy
mcdermott@yale ;Drew McDermott
val@su-ai ;Vladimir Lifschitz
nilsson@su-score ;Nils Nilsson
israel@csli ;David Israel
bmoore@sri-ai ;Bob Moore
konolige@sri-ai ;Kurt Konolige
rperrault@sri-ai ;Ray Perrault
"hector@toronto"@csnet-relay ;Hector Levesque
∂23-Aug-86 0924 SJG re: Time for another New Paltz conference?
[In reply to message rcvd 22-Aug-86 15:19-PT.]
OK, I'll put you down for about a 7. I suggested Yoav for the program
committee, but David and Erik said they thought not because he hadn't
even really finished yet.
Later --
Matt
∂23-Aug-86 1354 RA dinner at Fiesta
How many people participated in the dinner at the Fiesta?
Thanks
Rutie
------
∂23-Aug-86 1448 LES IVA BELL HOT SPRINGS - 1986
To: pat@CCRMA-F4, RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, ucbvax!pixar!jam@UCBVAX.Berkeley.EDU,
Tucker@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
DATES: Friday, October 3 through Monday, October 6.
SYNOPSIS
This hike to the finest hot springs in the Sierra will follow about the
same schedule as the Iva Bell hikes in '73, '76, '78 and '80. With any
luck, there may be an earthquake or two while we are there. If we are
unlucky, there may be a snowstorm or a volcanic eruption. We will keep an
eye on the weather forecast and be prepared to cancel if it turns sour.
As usual, we will plan to eat well.
On Friday, we will dine en route to the trailhead and rendevous there at
6:30 PM. From the Bay Area the driving time is about six hours via Tioga
Pass. Go to Mammoth Lakes, just off Route 395, then continue over Minaret
Pass past Devil's Postpile to the trailhead, just below the Reds Meadow
Resort. There are several excellent restaurants in Mammoth Lakes.
If you get to Reds Meadow early, you might loosen up with a soak in the
hot-spring-fed bathhouse in the campground. We will distribute the food
to be carried at the trailhead and hike past Rainbow Falls to Crater Creek
(3 miles, mostly gentle downhill), where we will camp Friday night.
Beginning Saturday morning, we hike about 8 miles to Iva Bell Hot Springs
(see details below). There are lots of hot springs in the target area,
several suitable for bathing.
Sunday is a day of leisure or day hikes or spring testing. Monday we
hike back out and return home.
Food for the hiking portion of the trip will be communally purchased and
prepared. Food is an individual responsibility while travelling to or
from the hike. Community food begins with Saturday breakfast and ends with
Monday lunch.
Distance Elevation
total diff. total diff.
Reds Meadow 0 7,600 ft.
Crater Creek Crossing 3 3 6,800 -800 ft.
Rim of Fish Valley 6 3 7,050 +250
Fish Creek Crossing 8 2 6,400 -650
Iva Bell Hot Springs 11 3 7,200 +800
COST: About $35 per person for food; no advanced payment needed. The
exact amount will be announced as the hike begins. For those who car
pool, each passenger should contribute $15 toward transportation expenses.
WHAT TO BRING: Normal backpacking gear, including Sierra Cup, eating
utensils, plate or bowl and trail snacks if you want them.
DECISION DAY: In order to permit food planning and acquisition to be
carried out, participants must commit themselves by Monday evening,
September 29. A commitment means that you will pay for your share of the
food whether or not you come. (If you end up not coming, you will likely
get some food back).
Please call Les Earnest to confirm or negotiate (home: 415 941-3984,
work: 415 723-9729) or send electronic mail to LES@SAIL or write to:
12769 Dianne Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
∂23-Aug-86 1721 CLT shopping list
pnutb
pinesol
pine magic? ( spray ala spray n wash recommended by zella)
rice cereal
eggs
cottage cheeze
meat and veg for supper
∂24-Aug-86 1303 MCGRATH@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Re: Afghanistan
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Aug 86 13:02:56 PDT
Date: Sun 24 Aug 86 13:02:54-PDT
From: James McGrath <MCGRATH@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Afghanistan
To: POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
cc: su-etc@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Bill,
The problem is not that leftist members of the faculty sit down behind
closed doors and plan in detail how to screw over the campus right
(well, perhaps in the case of Manley and Hoover that IS the case, but
it is not a general pattern). Rather, leftists adopt the following
mindset. Any position that can be classified as "conservative"
(normally referred to as "reactionary") is inherently in error. Thus
we do not need to extend towards these ideas, and their spokepersons,
the same intellectual protections we (i.e. "liberals" (or "leftists"))
demand. If someone points out a specific instance where we have given
rather short shift to a conservative, at most we will offer a weak
apology, make minor restitution, and then mumble under our breath how
those "uppity" right wingers are getting out of line, and how such
"mistakes" are really minor matters, since only "they" (and their
erroronous intellectual values) are harmed anyway.
Thus I would characterize the Stockdale incident as more a sin of
omission than one of commission. The powers that be did not notify
Stockdale when they altered the course approval procedures simply
because it was not perceived to be an important issue. So what if he
could not get his course approved due to an administrative matter he
was not properly informed about. He is only a conservative afterall!
Lest you think my opinions (and on this issue opinions are all you
can really claim) are groundless, I have taken graduate level seminars
in the Political Science Department for 5 years. I have gotten to
know the faculty and graduate students on a personal basis. And, as
strange as it may sound, in many quarters it IS considered to be an
indication of extreme ignorance and/or stupidity to admit being a
Republican, let alone a conservative. They really do think that
"those people" are simply WRONG, not differing in opinion, but flat
out in error. And thus anything a conservative says, does, or
professes is simply not acceptable input into a "proper" policy
debate, except as a point to ridicule.
With this sort of attitude it would take constant care and attention to
insure that conservatives were NOT discriminated against in many
subtle ways - much as blacks were (and still are) discriminated
against in the north (in the south they were at least honest and open
about it).
Jim
-------
∂25-Aug-86 0159 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 86 01:59:28 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Mon, 25 Aug 86 05:02:27 EDT
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 05:02:27 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8608250902.AA00832@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
What did the generals think of the GNU Emacs manual?
Would they like to fund GNU?
∂25-Aug-86 0800 JMC
Rosanne Klass.
∂25-Aug-86 0800 JMC
door button
∂25-Aug-86 0804 RA Re: Freiling
[Reply to message recvd: 24 Aug 86 22:17 Pacific Time]
I have put in a request to pay him. When we can the approval (probably in
a few days) we'll pay him.
∂25-Aug-86 1021 CLT calendar item correction
fr1 5-sep thru sun 7-sep idaho
1254 united lv sf 1:26 arr boi 3:55
1141 " lv boi 7:40 arr sf 8:15
tickets to be delivered wed 3-sep
∂25-Aug-86 1025 RPG Student
To: EAF@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
TW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Chris Warren, an undergraduate at UPenn, is looking at graduate
schools for work in AI. He wants to visit Stanford this
wednesday and thursday. Tom Binford and I are talking to
him wednesday. Would you be willing to chat with him one of
those days? Thanks.
-rpg-
∂25-Aug-86 1230 JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 86 12:30:10 PDT
Date: Mon 25 Aug 86 12:28:02-PDT
From: John Mark Agosta <JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
To: JJW@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, Reuling@Score.Stanford.EDU, ME@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Joe Weening <JJW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Sun 24 Aug 86 19:33:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12233686681.13.JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
>Re: Campus Reports Calendar to be listed here
> (from your message to SU-ETC):
> SAIL has a feature that allows anonymous postings to bboards.
>
>Oh, really? If so, I'd call it a misfeature. I don't think we want
>to allow anonymous postings to any sort of public BBoard; there's too
>much possibility for abuse.
Joe - JMC mentioned this feature. Apparently it was intended to extend
bboard discussions to those who otherwise could not participate. My
hope is to see people who don't have accounts among those
who can post: they would be expected to use their names. Perhaps
non- account postings can be moderated (or sent to su-etc) if
they aren't appropriate for campus events listings.
-johnmark
-------
∂25-Aug-86 1240 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The following message was unsent because of a command error:
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
∂25-Aug-86 1240 JMC reply to message
To: JOHNMARK@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
CC: Reuling@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from JOHNMARK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU sent Mon 25 Aug 86 12:28:02-PDT.]
------- End undelivered message -------
∂25-Aug-86 1319 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU reply to message
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 86 13:19:07 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Mon, 25 Aug 86 16:01:54 EDT
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 16:01:54 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8608252001.AA05838@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 25 Aug 86 0907 PDT
Subject: reply to message
The Emacs manual doesn't say how to program in Lisp.
It just has a few examples of common simple customizations
in the section on init files in the chapter on customization.
Some people are working on a manual for writing in Emacs Lisp
but I think the rest of the GNU system has a higher priority
for me to work on.
∂25-Aug-86 1324 VAL
To: JMC, RLG
See file cause1[1,val] for more on the axiomatization of causality.
∂25-Aug-86 1405 JJW REPLY macro
I think I've fixed the REPLY macro in EINIT.CMD[1,3].
∂25-Aug-86 1426 ME bboard/event messages
To: JOHNMARK@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, JJW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
Reuling@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
ME@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I think the important thing to emphasize is NOT that SAIL might allow
anonymous messages to be sent, but that it might allow people without
accounts to send messages. In such a case, SAIL will ask for the person's
name (but of course SAIL would have no way of verifying it). We shouldn't
advertise that ANONYMOUS messages can be sent, or we will probably find
that we have to eliminate such a potentially useful feature.
Let me point out, at any rate, that because of past abuses, we some time
ago disabled the sending of MAIL by unlogged-in users reaching SAIL via
network. So the referenced feature does not in general currently exist.
∂25-Aug-86 1536 RA Your trip to NY 8/27-28
Franklin Hirsh just called to let you know that there are no more window or
aisle seats on the American flight you wanted. If you are willing to switch
flights on your way back, he might be able to get you a window or an aisle
seat on United which leaves at 6:00pm or TWA at 6:25. Please let me know.
Thanks,
∂25-Aug-86 1648 RA CS 520
Judith Lemmon, Stanford Instructional TV, would like you to write
(for promotional purposes) a few sentences
about the course; what she needs is for you to say what was it about,
and why was it important.
Thanks,
∂25-Aug-86 1704 JMC Re: Towers, 1 For loop.
∂25-Aug-86 1443 PEHOUSHEK@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Towers, 1 For loop.
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 86 14:43:05 PDT
Date: Mon 25 Aug 86 14:38:04-PDT
From: Daniel Pehoushek <PEHOUSHEK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Towers, 1 For loop.
To: su-etc@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12233710354.38.PEHOUSHEK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I said something about using 3 FOR loops in a simple manner, for the Towers
program. Even though the code below solves it with one loop, I see no easy
way to solve the problem with three loops (unless you stick in two useless
loops).
(defun towers (n from to middle)
;; move n discs from FROM to TO using middle.
(cond ((oddp n) (setf c middle b to a from))
(T (setf c to b middle a from)))
(for i from 1 to 2**N - 1 do
(case (mod i 3)
(0 (move.between.towers a c))
(1 (move.between.towers a b))
(2 (move.between.towers b c)))))
(defun move.between.towers (x y)
(print "Move a disk from " x " to " y
" or from " y " to " x ", whichever is legal."))
It could be improved to give more explicit movement commands, but you
get the idea. My claim about three FOR loops stands. -dan
-------
∂25-Aug-86 1439 VAL Chernobyl
News from Kiev: People who have gardens outside the city are advised (on the
radio) not to go there. On the other hand, workers from Kiev are sent to
collective farms to help the farmers. They are told to dress more heavily
and, when they are back, dispose of what they were wearing.
∂25-Aug-86 1455 VAL meeting with Ginsberg
Matt Ginsberg wants to talk to us about the relation of his work to (pointwise)
circumscription. When can we meet with him?
∂25-Aug-86 2032 MAYR@SU-SCORE.ARPA TVOntario
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 86 20:30:00 PDT
Date: Mon 25 Aug 86 20:26:32-PDT
From: Ernst W. Mayr <MAYR@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: TVOntario
To: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, feigenbaum@SU-SCORE.ARPA, genesereth@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
McCarthy@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Rosenbloom@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Winograd@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
Buchanan@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Binford@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Shortliffe@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12233773789.9.MAYR@Score.Stanford.EDU>
TVOntario has sent me a letter asking whether they can interview me for a
television series on "Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems" some time
between September 30 and October 3. The Program Outlines which they included
look quite reasonable (to me, at least), but I am certainly not an AI expert,
and I don't intend to participate. However, should any one of you be
interested please let me know so I can send them a more positive response.
-ernst
PS: Rosemary Napier has the Program Outlines in case you want to take a look!
-------
∂25-Aug-86 2137 YOUNG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU CS326 for credit
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 86 21:35:09 PDT
Date: Mon 25 Aug 86 21:32:02-PDT
From: Michael Young <YOUNG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: CS326 for credit
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12233785713.8.YOUNG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
John,
IN the Winter of 1984-85 I took CS326 (then CS226) from you for
pass/no-credit. Now it turns out that those powers that be would prefer
that I had a grade for the course. What would be necessary for me to
do in order to have the pass changed to a letter grade? Could I
write a paper or do some directed reading, etc?
-Michael
-------
∂25-Aug-86 2145 YOUNG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: CS326 for credit
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 86 21:45:01 PDT
Date: Mon 25 Aug 86 21:42:01-PDT
From: Michael Young <YOUNG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: CS326 for credit
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 25 Aug 86 21:41:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12233787532.8.YOUNG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
The powers that place a limit to 6 units that can be taken p/nc towards the
MSCS. I have 9 such untis and would like to avoid having to throw away
3 units already taken...
I won't need it until the end of Spring (my intended graduation date) and
I wasn't aware that you required a term paper these days - that sounds
fine if it's alright with you. Can I get started on it before the beginning
of winter?
-m
-------
∂26-Aug-86 0622 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:SHORTLIFFE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: TVOntario
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 86 06:22:33 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 26 Aug 86 06:19:23-PDT
Date: Tue 26 Aug 86 06:04:24-PDT
From: Ted Shortliffe <Shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: TVOntario
To: MAYR@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, feigenbaum@SU-SCORE.ARPA, genesereth@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
McCarthy@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Rosenbloom@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Winograd@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
Buchanan@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Binford@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <12233773789.9.MAYR@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Sabbatical address: 404 So. Front St., Philadelphia 19147: (215) 592-9213
Message-ID: <12233878987.11.SHORTLIFFE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Bruce Buchanan, Larry Fagan, and I have all agreed to some
filming for them -- in fact, they got me in Philadelphia last week
during AAAI.
Ted
-------
∂26-Aug-86 0945 CLT possible visit to texas
here is the message I sent to Browne via his secretary, and
the reply I got back
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roseh@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU
possible visit
(to J.C. Browne)
Yes, the possibility of John and myself spending a year at
Austin as visiting faculty does interest us.
We would also like to explore the possibility of spending
less than a year - for example two quarters.
It would help us decide if we had a clearer idea what our
responsibilities would be. In particular, what difference
would there be if I were to be a visiting faculty member
versus an research scientist? What courses might you
want either of us to teach, if any?
∂26-Aug-86 0702 kathy@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU Msg from J.C. Browne
Received: from IM4U.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 86 06:58:19 PDT
Posted-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 08:41:22 CDT
Received: from ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU by im4u.UTEXAS.EDU (4.22/4.22)
id AA27526; Tue, 26 Aug 86 08:51:20 cdt
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 08:41:22 CDT
From: kathy@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU (Kathy Guajardo)
Message-Id: <8608261341.AA07918@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU>
Received: by ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU (5.15/4.22)
id AA07918; Tue, 26 Aug 86 08:41:22 CDT
To: CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Msg from J.C. Browne
Cc: kathy@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU
TO: Carolyn Talcott
RE: More information on visitorship at Austin
We are enthusiastic that you and John are interested
in spending time as visiting faculty in Austin. I am giving
you sketchy answers to the questions you raised. I will,
after sending this material on, call and follow up with you
after you have had time to digest it.
1. We run on a semester system. It is certainly possible
to spend one semester in residence. For example Amir
Pnueli is visiting for the Fall semester and is holding
an endowed position on a visiting basis.
2. The responsibilities of a visiting appointment are
negotiated. An example is Tony Hoare. Tony is giving
one course during his year stay here. He is teaching a
graduate seminar in his speciality area. We would
feel it to be of great benefit to our graduate students
to have the opportunity of taking a course from John.
3. The visiting faculty members normally teach, research
scientists can teach if they want to. The Computer
Sciences Department has been granted a $5 million grant
for research in formulation and programming in parallel
computation. Your research would clearly be in the
coverage of this grant. You could probably serve as a
visiting research scientist under this project. We
look forward to the opportunity of making you an offer
you can't refuse.
Best Regards,
∂26-Aug-86 1313 RA meeting
I will be at this meeting for the next hour:
This is to remind you of the meeting with Betty at 1:15 today in the Chairman's
conference room. Please let me know if you can't come.
Sharon
∂26-Aug-86 1429 GENESERETH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 86 14:29:41 PDT
Date: Tue 26 Aug 86 14:28:59-PDT
From: Michael Genesereth <GENESERETH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Sun 24 Aug 86 22:58:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12233970845.84.GENESERETH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John,
I borrowe it from Narinder Singh, MJH 242.
mrg
-------
∂26-Aug-86 1505 VAL re: meeting with Ginsberg
[In reply to message rcvd 25-Aug-86 21:01-PT.]
Let's make it Wednesday at 11.
∂26-Aug-86 1524 RA Al Shanmugam
from HP Boise (208) 323 2025 called re information about CS306. I told him
to try and call later today.
∂26-Aug-86 1949 G.MDP@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: An idea for gun registration
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 86 19:49:30 PDT
Date: Tue 26 Aug 86 19:46:12-PDT
From: Mike Peeler <G.MDP@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: An idea for gun registration
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: SU-ETC@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 26 Aug 86 15:35:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12234028591.11.G.MDP@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I have the impression that home manufacture of ammunition is
already common. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Perhaps
it is just assembly, not actual manufacture.
Thanks,
Mike
-------
∂26-Aug-86 2213 CRAMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: And idea for gun registration
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 86 22:13:38 PDT
Date: Tue 26 Aug 86 22:10:27-PDT
From: Mike Cramer <CRAMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: And idea for gun registration
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 26 Aug 86 21:01:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12234054851.10.CRAMER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I do not think that hand loading is so difficult. My father still has a set up
in his garage, and I used to help him all the time, when I was in grammar
school. The expense might be there, but I do not think there is any problem
with getting the equipment or the skill. It is simply a matter of following
instructions.
Mike
-------
∂26-Aug-86 2256 CRAMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: multiple messages
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 86 22:56:34 PDT
Date: Tue 26 Aug 86 22:53:25-PDT
From: Mike Cramer <CRAMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: multiple messages
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 26 Aug 86 22:53:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12234062674.13.CRAMER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Sorry about that. I kept getting messages from the mailer saying that they did
not get through. Next time I will not believe that, and check the bboard
myself. Talk to you later..
Mike
-------
∂27-Aug-86 0244 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Fifth Topic -- Special Request
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Aug 86 02:44:32 PDT
Date: 27 Aug 1986 05:39:56 EDT
Subject: Fifth Topic -- Special Request
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: ota@A.ISI.EDU
Prof. McCarthy:
Could I put in a special request for you to respond to the fifth
topic? I know schedules are hectic this time of year, but
I think the fifth topic is particularly important.
We'll be wrapping up the conference soon (only one more topic,
I think).
Thanks,
Jim
-------
∂27-Aug-86 0800 JMC
Stagg
∂27-Aug-86 0900 JMC
Call Vicky
∂27-Aug-86 1026 JJW Alliant users meeting
To: JMC, CLT
I'd like to go to the Alliant Users meeting. Should I make
arrangements with Rutie?
Also, if I can arrange it I'll try to visit Argonne the day
before the meeting.
∂28-Aug-86 1015 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [Elliott Levinthal <LEVINTHAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>: optical storage]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Aug 86 10:15:47 PDT
Date: Thu 28 Aug 86 10:15:01-PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: [Elliott Levinthal <LEVINTHAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>: optical storage]
To: rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, yeager@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
les@SU-AI.ARPA, brutlag%BIONET@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Message-ID: <12234448898.15.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
ELLIOTT LEVINTHAL CALLED THIS TO MY ATTENTION: AN INEXPENSIVE WRITE-ONCE
OPTICAL DISK STORAGE. REMARKABLY LOW PRICE.....ED
---------------
Return-Path: <LEVINTHAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from Sierra.Stanford.EDU by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Wed 27 Aug 86 17:35:22-PDT
Date: Wed 27 Aug 86 17:35:35-PDT
From: Elliott Levinthal <LEVINTHAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: optical storage
To: feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12234266957.11.LEVINTHAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Ed, The name of the company is INformation Storage Inc. 27768 Janitell Road
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 303-579-0460. The unit is the ISI 525 WC
Optical dISK dRIVE @ $3995. It has a data transfer rate of 2.5 million bis
per sec. I don't know if this applies to the write - once as well as
the read mode. Stores 115 million bytes on optical disk cartridges.
Elliott.
-------
-------
∂28-Aug-86 1022 hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA McDermott status
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Aug 86 10:22:27 PDT
Received: from toronto by csnet-relay.csnet id ay04256; 28 Aug 86 11:25 EDT
Received: by utai.toronto.edu id AA04565; Thu, 28 Aug 86 09:17:45 edt
Message-Id: <8608281317.AA04565@utai.toronto.edu>
Date: 28 Aug 86 09:17:41 EDT (Thu)
From: Hector Levesque <hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
To: james@ROCHESTER.ARPA, bobrow@XEROX.COM, kabowen%syr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
rjb%allegra%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
ec%brown.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, dekleer.pa@XEROX.COM,
jon.doyle%c.cs.cmu.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, forbus@A.CS.UIUC.EDU,
genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, phayes@SRI-KL.ARPA, hewitt@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,
hinton@A.CS.CMU.EDU, hobbs%sri-warbucks%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
israel@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA, lenat@MCC.COM, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
minsky%mit-oz@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, bmoore@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA,
nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, pentland@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA,
watdaisy!dlpoole%watmath.UUCP%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
reiter%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, stan@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA,
alberta!lksc%ubc-vision.UUCP%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
briansmith@XEROX.COM, stickel@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA, tw@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
woods@BBNG.ARPA
Subject: McDermott status
Dear Commentator,
By now you have no doubt had time to look at the paper by Drew McDermott and
think a bit about it. In fact, if you were at AAAI, it was hard *not* to think
about it. What I need to know today is if you intend to comment on it as
discussed in my previous message. So far, I have submissions from Charniak,
Poole, and Winograd, and commitments from Hayes and Doyle. For the rest of
you, please let me know where you stand so I can find other commentators if
necessary. Once again to expedite matters, you can use the following codes:
A. I've been so busy what with AAAI and the like, I really haven't
yet decided. Give me just a few more days and ask me again.
B. Things are proceeding on schedule. You will get a commentary
from me within a couple of weeks (and don't bother me until then).
C. No, sorry, but I'm going to have to back out. Good luck, though.
D. I really would like to submit something, but I just don't think
I can make the mid-September deadline. Here's what I propose: ...
I hope to hear from you very soon.
Hector
ARPA: hector%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY
CSNET: hector@toronto
UUCP: ...{utai,utcsri}!hector
REGULAR: Dept. of Computer Science
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A4
CANADA.
PHONE: (416) 978-3618
∂28-Aug-86 1030 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA 2nd Knowledge Acquisition Workshop
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Aug 86 10:24:54 PDT
Date: Thu 28 Aug 86 10:24:04-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: 2nd Knowledge Acquisition Workshop
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: aaai-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12234450546.28.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John,
Have you approved this workshop yet?
Claudia
-------
∂28-Aug-86 1108 @MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Yuri←Gurevich@UMich-MTS.Mailnet
Received: from MIT-MULTICS.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Aug 86 11:08:43 PDT
Received: from UMich-MTS.Mailnet by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA with Mailnet id <2703088979073406@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>; 28 Aug 1986 14:02:59 edt
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 08:41:24 EDT
From: Yuri←Gurevich%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <1456183@UMich-MTS.Mailnet>
This is just to inform that I am using new e-addresss:
Yuri←Gurevich%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
∂28-Aug-86 1109 VAL Gaifman and Gurevich on the Moscow meeting
∂27-Aug-86 1551 GAIFMAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA Re: Moscow meeting
Received: from SRI-STRIPE.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Aug 86 15:50:53 PDT
Date: Wed 27 Aug 86 15:49:05-PDT
From: Haim Gaifman <GAIFMAN@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Moscow meeting
To: VAL@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Wed 27 Aug 86 13:56:00-PDT
I do not know, as of now, of any Israelis who plan to attend. But I shall
try to find out and will let you know as soon as I know. Thanks for your
concern and activity.
----------Haim.
-------
∂28-Aug-86 1054 @MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Yuri←Gurevich@UMich-MTS.Mailnet Moscow congress
Received: from MIT-MULTICS.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Aug 86 10:54:19 PDT
Received: from UMich-MTS.Mailnet by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA with Mailnet id <2703087967493789@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>; 28 Aug 1986 13:46:07 edt
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 08:23:30 EDT
From: Yuri←Gurevich%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: VAL@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <1456141@UMich-MTS.Mailnet>
Subject: Moscow congress
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks for the message. I will be very glad to "keep in touch and inform each
other on the progress or the lack of it". I am an Israeli citizen. I do not
know any additional emigrants or Israelis who would like to attend the Moscow
meeting, but I would guess that there are or will be plenty people like that.
John McCarthy called yesterday on the same subject, but let me repeat the story.
But I am at home and am about to leave Ann Arbor for a couple of days,
the relevant documents are in my office in the University.
In April 86, I copied a form enclosed to the first announcement, filled in the
form, and sent it to Moscow by registered mail with return notification.
At the end of June, I came back and discovered that nothing even the
notification did not returned from Moscow. I sent another form, and called
Dana Scott who is the Chairman of the relevant organization. Dana advised
me to contact the Secretary General of the organization, a Finnish philosopher.
John wrote down his name yesterday. The Finn promissed to me to discuss the
matter with Soviets in the beginning of Sep. He sounded terribly naive.
By the way, my department is moving to another building, and I am using
different computer. The new e-address is:
Yuri←Gurevich%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA.
Regards,
-Yuri
∂28-Aug-86 1742 shoham@YALE.ARPA your comments
Received: from YALE-BULLDOG.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Aug 86 17:41:40 PDT
Received: by Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA; 28 Aug 86 20:23:32 EDT (Thu)
Date: 28 Aug 86 20:23:32 EDT (Thu)
From: Yoav Shoham <shoham@YALE.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8608290023.AA08194@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Subject: your comments
To: jmc@su-ai.ARPA
John,
Thanks a lot for your comments on Ch.3. I've rewritten it in a way which
I think you will find more satisfying (i.e., I've tried to eliminate all
"logic x is inferior because .."s).
I also added a section debunking the distinction between
"autoepistemic logics" and "default logics." In this connection, do you
remember Bob Moore's example "if I had an older brother then I'd know it"?
Well, it occurred to me that by the same token "if I didn't have an older
brother then I'd know it." But the two sentences have the opposite effects
(the former makes it so I don't have a brother by default, the second that I do),
and together they have know interesting effect (I either have a brother and know
it, or else I don't have a brother and know iot). Just another nail in the coffin.
I've also looked up the Bossu and Siegel article, which I thought was very good
and clearly very relevant (since it was recommended by Drew, you'd think he'd
have mentioned it to me). The bottom line is that we share the semantical
approach (with some minor differences), but that they look at a very
special case of mine (and in fact at a special case of circ'n). I've included
in the chapter a short comparison with their work.
If you intend keeping my chapter, I'd like to send you the new version. I feel
a bit embarrassed about the first one.
Yoav.
-------
∂28-Aug-86 2056 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA puzzle
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Aug 86 20:56:22 PDT
Date: Thu 28 Aug 86 20:48:52-PDT
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: puzzle
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12234564289.15.RESTIVO@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Only profound scholars can be dons at Oxford.
No insensitive souls are great lovers of music.
No one whose soul is not sensitive can be a Don Juan.
There are no profound scholars who are not great lovers of music.
Therefore, all Oxford dons are Don Juans.
Which of the following inferences leading to the conclusion
above is NOT valid?
[a] All Oxford dons are profound scholars.
[b] Oxford dons are sensitive souls.
[c] Sensitive souls are Don Juans.
[d] Great lovers of music are sensitive souls.
[e] Profound scholars are great lovers of music.
-------
∂29-Aug-86 1053 JK
∂28-Aug-86 1029 CLT jmc
will be in NH tomorrow so he won't be able to meet with you
------------------------------
set up another time?
JK
∂29-Aug-86 1127 SARASWAT@C.CS.CMU.EDU Logic Programming and map-coloring.
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 86 11:27:45 PDT
Received: ID <SARASWAT@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 29 Aug 86 14:27:38-EDT
Date: Fri 29 Aug 86 14:27:34-EDT
From: vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Logic Programming and map-coloring.
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, saraswat@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <12234724250.31.SARASWAT@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Dear Prof. McCarthy:
We had first met at the Logic and AI Workshop at Univ. of Maryland in 1984,
when you had introduced the notion of formula circumscription. I have since
been working on my thesis on 'Concurrent Logic Programming Languages', under
Professors Dana Scott, Steve Brookes and Jon Doyle.
I diverge from the pure Logic Programming advocates in that I view the
specification of control (i.e. specification of knowledge on how to use the
clauses in a program in the proof of a particular goal) as an integral part of
most logic programs. Rather than view a logic program as a first order Horn
clause theory, I prefer to give a semantics to the control constructs using
conventional operational and denotational techniques. To that end I have been
developing control constructs, in the framework of SLD-resolution: the purpose
of these control constructs is to allow the programmer to exercise some
direction in the search for a proof for a given query using the clauses in the
given program.
As an illustration, let me present the four-colour problem. Imagine given a
query which consists of goals next(X,Y) (where X and Y are logical variables:
each region has exactly one associated logical variable) for every two regions
(represented by X and Y) that are adjacent to each other in the (planar) map.
Now if we allow the use of BAGS (i.e. unordered lists--I will notate a bag of
four elements r,g,b,y as {r,g,b,y}), then there is an extremely simple program
to solve the map-coloring problem. The program is:
next(X,Y):- {X,Y,←,←} ={r,g,b,y}.
The query terminates successfully iff it is possible to colour the regions with
one of the four colours r,g,b and y so that no two adjacent regions are colored
the same: the coloring is contained in the ndings of the variables associated
with the region. (Here I use Prolog-like syntax: ← is the anonymous variable).
Note that the control specification for this
program is NOT PROLOG like. Rather the default control specification is that
any goal in the current resolvent can at any time resolve against any clause in
the program, and that in case there is a choice (e.g. if the goal next(X,Y) has
the variables X and Y unbound, then the bag-unification will result in 12
choices) then the current resolvent splits as many times as there are choices,
and the choices are followed in parallel. (This is like Concurrent Prolog, but
with a DON'T KNOW COMMIT, rather than a DON'T CARE COMMIT.)
The search described by this program is rather inefficient. Esssentially, the
decision about which next goal should resolve next is arbitrary, and this is
really random search. Much more focussed search can be obtained by using very
similar clauses, but with different control annotations: these annotations
would ensure, for instance, that if there are two regions adjacent to each
other with the same colour, then failure must immediately be signalled, if
there are four regions of different colour surrounding a region whose color is
not yet chosen then failure should be signalled, if there are three regions of
different colors surrounding a fourth region whose color is not yet known, then
its color should be deduced rather than guessed etc. The important point is
that exhaustivity of the search is not lost (I presume that all solutions are
desired) but the user can program specific heuristics in a very natural fashion
to cut down the search space. Both the evils of chronological backtracking over
a fixed ordering of subgoals and of using a generic truth maintenance system
are avoided: the price paid is that more clauses controlling the search have to
be added.
Now the reason for writing to you is to obtain from you a copy of an internal
memo 'Map colouring and the Kowalski doctrine' which I believe you had
circulated. Also, I would be glad to hear any comments from you. I will be
visiting Ehud Shapiro early October at Stanford, and perhaps we can get a
chance to talk about this, and the broad programme of research I am working on,
then. I would be glad to send you some of my papers on the definition and
semantics of the language CP[!,|,&] (which contains these control constructs).
Thanks,
Vijay Saraswat
Department of Computer Science
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh Pa 15216.
-------
∂29-Aug-86 1253 andy@shasta.stanford.edu automatic text entry
Received: from SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 86 12:53:18 PDT
Received: by shasta.stanford.edu; Fri, 29 Aug 86 12:52:59 PDT
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 12:52:59 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@shasta.stanford.edu>
Subject: automatic text entry
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
I believe you were looking for this service some time ago.
From glacier!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!bryan Fri Aug 29 12:28:01 PDT 1986
Article 459 of ca.general:
Path: Shasta!glacier!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!bryan
>From: bryan@psivax.UUCP (Bryan Marr)
Newsgroups: ca.general,net.general,net.misc,net.consumers
Subject: "Superscan" and bleeding fingers
Message-ID: <1406@psivax.UUCP>
Date: 27 Aug 86 14:30:45 GMT
Reply-To: bryan@psivax.UUCP (Bryan Marr)
Followup-To: ca.general,net.followup,net.misc,net.consumers
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 16
Xref: Shasta ca.general:459 net.general:1267 net.misc:3843 net.consumers:5512
I thought I'd pass this along to all you people in "netland".
***Please Note*** I have no connection with this company, but I thought you'd
be interested in knowing about them.
I had 300 pages of hard copy I needed to get on my computer in a hurry, and
was faced with typing it in. Fortunatley, I was told about an optical
scanning service in Los Angeles called Superscan. I sent it to them, got it
back fast, and what's more important, accurately. And I thought what I
paid for the job was fair.I was impressed enough to post this for any of you whomight run into a need for this kind service.
They can be contacted at (818) 907-7226
--
MONGO of VOLUMUS MAXIMUS
{sdcrdcf|ttidca|group3|scgvaxd|nrcvax|mc0|hoptoad|csun|quad1|
bellcore|logico|rdlvax|ihnp4}!psivax!bryan
∂29-Aug-86 1619 MRC China
The August 25 issue of Beijing Review has a truly amazing article entitled
"Minister on Social Order in China". It's an interview with the Minister
of Public Security Ruan Chongwu by various "foreign journalists."
It invites your flamage. It is without a doubt the most amazing article
Beijing Review has ever posted.
The one thing I haven't figured out is if Ruan is sincere. Some of the
things he says are crazy enough that they might be for real.
∂30-Aug-86 1634 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU AI DISC: Update and Searle's Reply
Received: from ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Aug 86 16:34:20 PDT
Received: by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.53/1.16)
id AA05797; Sat, 30 Aug 86 15:55:55 PDT
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 15:55:55 PDT
From: vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Vijay Ramamoorthy)
Message-Id: <8608302255.AA05797@ernie.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: AI DISC: Update and Searle's Reply
Hello everyone,
Bet you thought we had called an unofficial close? Not quite;
summer is drawing to a close and everyone should be around again.
However, the disc. will be comming to a close soon.
Here we have John Searle presenting a response to all the
second stage responses to his original comments.
Also, we have available 3 files ("Stage1", "Stage2", and "Stage3"-so far)
that contain all the commentary by participants. We will send them
out, via e-mail, to any of the participants upon request.
When you receive them, you can print them out--
a stapled printout of each stage is much easier to read
than a terminal readout.
- VR, RA, JS, DB
VERY IMPORTANT: Please acknowledge receipt of this message, and
let us know if you would like a copy of the files.
-------------
REPLY BY JOHN SEARLE
Reading over these many papers, I am struck by a recur-
ring question: Why does anyone still think strong AI is
worth defending? That is, why would anyone think it
worthwhile to defend the view that by writing appropriate
computer programs and implementing them in any old hardware,
we must literally be creating thoughts and feelings? I
think I have refuted this view, but whether or not I am
right about that, the idea is so implausible to start with
that it is hard to see why anyone wants to defend it. I am
pleased to see that many, perhaps most, people in AI - espe-
cially in the younger generation - have abandoned this view,
and I am grateful for the support I have received from many
of them. I think the interest of AI derives from the fact
that the computer is a very powerful tool all around, and
an especially powerful tool in the study of the mind. I
would frankly rather talk about that view (weak AI) than
talk about the Chinese Room Argument. So, before answering
my critics, I will make some brief remarks about what I
think can be usefully achieved by computer simulations of
cognitive processes. I write here very much as an outsider
and there is probably a lot going on that I know nothing
about.
- 2 -
Weak AI
First of all, we need to distinguish carefully between
artificial intelligence construed as a branch of
philosophy/psychology/cognitive science and artificial
intelligence construed as automation/technology. The word
"intelligence" in the expression "artificial intelligence"
has been a source of confusion here, because the concept of
intelligence tends to oscillate between that which is
psychologically relevant and that which has simply to do
with making a product that does what we want it to do. So
for example, my present pocket calculator is much more
"intelligent" than the one that that I owned ten years ago,
but neither has any psychological relevance. In
general,there is nothing that is necessarily psychologically
relevant about developments in pure automation technology.
The present system of airline reservations, for example, now
well computerized throughout the world, is, I take it,
psychologically irrelevant. No one cares whether or not the
programs adequately mirror the psychology of airline employ-
ees. The only question is whether or not they get the job
done. The same is true of many expert systems. If an
expert system helps in medical diagnosis or oil exploration,
it really doesn't matter much if it tells us something about
the psychology of doctors or geologists. Who cares? AI
automation seems to me a branch of automation technology
like any other and it is of no essential philosophical or
psychological interest. I will have nothing further to say
about it. The more interesting use of AI is in its
- 3 -
application to philosophy, psychology and to cognitive sci-
ence generally. And here we have what I think is AI at its
most intellectually interesting. Weak AI, so construed is
essentially a branch of applied philosophy and psychology.
Some of the most exciting areas of AI so construed are
the following:
1. The new connectionism.
The new connectionism at its best does speculative neu-
rophysiology and does it rigorously and systematically. It
abandons the idea that the program level is necessarily a
mental level, and thus it can focus its attention on pre-
cisely the sort of area where the computer functions best as
a research tool: in the simulation of formal features of
natural processes. Notice that in these cases we are no
longer using the computer as if it had or was a mind, but
rather we are using it as a mechanism to model brain func-
tions.
2. Theory Formulation and Testing
In my own work, I have found AI's greatest contribution
to be in the discipline it imposes on the formulation and
testing of hypotheses about natural language production and
understanding. If, for example, one develops a theory of
speech acts (or indirect speech acts, or the production and
comprehension of metaphor) as I have tried to do, AI
research is a very powerful tool for formulating and testing
- 4 -
hypotheses. Because computational systems will not tolerate
vagueness, gaps, or ambiguity, the programmer is forced to
state the "rules" and "principles" very precisely. You can
then see precisely where the gaps and inadequacies in the
system of rules and principles lie. The fact that natural
language understanding programs invariably fail does not
imply that the research effort was worthless. If we can
discover reasons in principle why the programs fail, then we
will have made an important contribution to the understand-
ing of the nature of language. On my view, one of the rea-
sons they fail is that natural language production and
understanding requires what I call a "Background," and the
Background, being non-representational, is not programmable
as a set of representations. One of the merits of AI is
that it enables us to probe the limits of representation and
to explore the gray area where the Network of representa-
tional contents shades off into the Background of preinten-
tional capacities. If natural language production and
understanding in human beings is not algorithmic, one of the
great merits of algorithmic attempts to simulate these
processes will lie precisely in their failure to capture
non-algorithmic principles with algorithmic methods.
3. Marr, Vision, and a Hundred Flowers
To me, Marr's book is the most exciting work I have
seen in AI so far. Why? For a number of reasons. First,
it opened up a new area of investigation. It was weak AI
- 5 -
done with imagination and panache, so that one was not
tempted to suppose that the program actually had visual
experiences or anything of the sort. It was also done with
care and attention to neurophysiology of a kind that I had
not seen in other AI writings. And finally, it attacked a
series of interesting intellectual problems about the nature
of vision in a way that used sophisticated intellectual
resources. This work has now inspired a whole line of
inquiry into "computer vision." The task here seems to me to
get a well defined empirical problem, and just explore it.
To repeat a point I made earlier: AI is likely to flourish
when it forgets about the absurd philosophical claims that
were made on its behalf.
I now turn to the objections made to my paper.
"Reply to Charniak"
Charniak says he doesn't "really care that much about
the Chinese Room problem." I don't see any reason why he
should care, as long as he sticks to weak AI and doesn't
confuse simulation of mental processes with duplication.
Nonetheless, he does have an objection to my argument. He
points out, correctly, that there are different senses of
"semantic." I think he is quite right about that, but I
thought that my sense was quite obvious when I used the
notion of "mental contents" in my initial formulation, and I
- 6 -
just used the word "semantic" as a shorthand for all of the
various features of mental contents. In stating the argu-
ment, I stated it as briefly as I could. But the word
"semantic" can be dispensed with if he finds it a source of
puzzlement. The idea of the Chinese Room example is that
just having the symbols (the syntax) is not sufficient for
having an understanding of the meaning of the symbols (the
semantics). I find the use of "syntax" and "semantics" a
useful shorthand, but the argument doesn't in any way depend
crucially on which words we use. The substance of the argu-
ment can be stated in other words.
I can see now that I should probably not have compared
my use of the syntax/semantics distinction with the similar
distinction in logic, because it led Charniak and others to
suppose I might have some model theoretic conception of
semantics in mind. Nothing could be further from the truth.
(More about this later.)
He is puzzled as to whether or not the argument is
"empirical" or not. Well, some of the premises of the argu-
ment are empirical, for example, the premise that brains
cause minds. That, I take it, is just an empirical fact.
But other premises of the argument are conceptual or logi-
cal, such as the claim that the symbols by themselves are
not sufficient for mental content. The validity of the
argument is in no way altered by the fact that some of the
premises are empirical, and in any case the the empirical
- 7 -
premises are so well substantiated as not to be in dispute.
Reply to McCarthy
McCarthy's contribution suffers from his tendency to
use abusive and intemperate language. This is almost invari-
ably a sign that the author feels himself on the losing side
of a bad argument, and such I fear is the case with his
present offering. He professes not to understand my views,
but it is hard to see that he makes any serious objections
other than his failure to understand. So, I will restate my
views in a way that I hope he will find clear.
His chief substantive point appears to be that you can
arbitrarily assign a semantics to any syntax in a way that
is well understood in logic,"by the prescription of domains
and predicates and functions operating on these domains".
But this is irrelevant to my argument. The point of the
Chinese Room Argument is not that the man in the Chinese
Room couldn't arbitrarily assign any interpretation to the
symbols that come in. Of course he could arbitrarily assign
to them any number of interpretations. The point of the
syntax-semantics distinction, as it bears on this issue, has
nothing to do with " the prescription of domains". It has
to do with the fact that just having a bunch of Chinese sym-
bols together with rules for manipulating them does not give
you the meaning of any of those symbols. When you under-
stand English sentences, you don't arbitrarily attach an
- 8 -
interpretation to the words; rather, you know what they
already mean. But in the case of the Chinese room, you
don't have any semantic content attaching to the symbols.
If someone seriously was unable to understand the dis-
tinction between syntax and semantics as it bears on this
issue- and was not just pretending to be unable to under-
stand it as a way of trying to make it seem obscure and
mysterious- I would begin to explain it in the way one would
explain the distinction to beginning students in a course in
language or linguistics. Think for example of the distinc-
tion between seeing a written sentence in a language you
understand , such as English, and seeing a sentence in a
language you dont understand, such as Russian or Chinese.
In both cases one sees a syntactical object,viz. a sentence.
But in the case of English one has more than just the sen-
tence, one knows what it means, one grasps or understands
its meaning. And "semantics" as I am using the term just is
a name for such meanings generally. Furthermore I argue
that one can then extend this notion of semantics to cover
thoughts and mental contents. Now is that so difficult? I
dont really think it is. Of course to get a systematic
"theory" of syntax and semantics so construed is very diffi-
cult, but the intuitive idea is quite simple. Now, with
that in mind, let's go through his comments on the steps.
Proposition 1: McCarthy grants me that programs are
purely formal. To that he adds the irrelevancy that you can
- 9 -
arbitrarily assign a semantics (in e.g.the model theoretic
sense) to any syntax. (By the way, his formulation, in
terms of "prescription of domains" sounds model theoretic
but then he keeps name dropping "Tarski," who did not always
use a model theoretic semantics.In any case, this is not the
kind of "semantics" that is employed by the Chinese Room
argument.
Proposition 2: He grants me (I guess) that syntax by
itself doesn't contain any mental content. It is hard to see
how he or anyone else could deny this. This is the whole
point of the Chinese Room example.
Proposition 3: Minds have mental contents. To this he
objects that he doesn't know "what kind of entity a mind is
supposed to be." For me, it isn't an entity in any interest-
ing sense at all. What I mean by "mind", as I have written
repeatedly , is just the sequence of thoughts, feelings,
sensations, beliefs, desires, etc. of the sort that take
place in human beings. I use "mind" as a shorthand term,
not as the name of a separate thing or entity.
McCarthy then goes on to draw a conclusion from his
discussion which seems to me more or less incredible, in the
literal sense of being unbelievable. He thinks that since
we can arbitrarily assign a semantics "in the Tarski sense"(
I guess he means in the model theoretic sense) to program
systems, it follows that programs have minds. How we are
supposed to get any mental contents into these alleged
- 10 -
minds, he doesn't tell us. The fact that we as outside
observers can arbitrarily assign an interpretation to any
object or system whatever is simply irrelevant to whether or
not the object or system has mental contents. I can for
example arbitrarily assign a semantics "in the Tarski sense"
to the arrangement of objects now on my desk. Does he think
that this is enough to give the objects on my desk thoughts
and feelings? I sometimes fear that perhaps he does.
McCarthy then goes on to make the mistake that he had
already made in his BBS commentary. It is the mistake
enshrined in the Turing Test. He thinks that from the fact
that a system can handle Chinese texts in such a way as to
match the input correctly with the output, it follows that
the system knows the meanings of the expressions. But this
simply does not follow, and it fails for the reason that I
have stated over and over: the system might have the right
inputs and outputs without having any semantic content
attaching to any of the Chinese symbols. To repeat: syntax
(in the sense of formally specified symbols) is not suffi-
cient for semantics (in the sense of mental contents).
Finally, McCarthy professes to be puzzled by my use of
the word "cause" when I claim that specific neurobiological
phenomena in the brain cause mental phenomena. But this is
the ordinary use of the word "cause" in which we think of
causing something as making something happen. On this ques-
ion of how the brain functions causally, I can only suggest
- 11 -
that he look at any standard textbook of neurophysiology.
(Several that I have found useful are those by Shepherd,by
Kuffler and Nicholls,by Leiman and Rosenzweig, by Guyton,and
by Mountcastle and Edelman.) We don't know a great deal
about how the brain causes mental phenomena, but we are not
entirely ignorant. Let me give one example. Many people
nowadays ingest chemical substances for the purpose of
inducing special states of consciousness. One of these sub-
stances is cocaine, and there is even some agreement among
neurophysiologists as to how it works. Let's suppose they
are correct. According to the orthodox view, cocaine
operates, at least in part, by affecting the rate at which
synapses process a specific neurotransmitter, norep-
inephrine. Specifically, cocaine decreases the capacity of
the postsynaptic receptors to reabsorb norepinephrine. It
is evidently these changes in the normal rate of operation
of NE that cause, or are at least one of the causes of, the
peculiar experiences associated with cocaine. This is a
fairly simple example of how specific biochemical phenomena
"cause" psychological phenomena. Now what is McCarthy going
to say about such a case? Is he going to say that he
doesn't understand the notion of causation involved? And
how are we to suppose that strong AI could deal with such a
case? Are we supposed to think that if we could just get
some system that had a "syntactical" or formal structure of
elements that was isomorphic to the elements to the brain
processes that that system would have exactly the same
- 12 -
experiences that human beings have when they take cocaine?
Since this view is stated explicitly by Hofstadter and
implicitly by McCarthy, let's try to take the idea seri-
ously and try it out. Suppose we model the brain out of a
system of beer cans. The isomorphism can be as fine grained
as you like. One beer can per neuron (or even ten per
synapse), let's suppose. And now let's model the structure
of cocaine using ping pong balls. Now bombard the beer cans
with the ping pong balls. Again, make the formal or the
syntactical features of the beer can/ping pong ball system
as much like the neuron/cocaine system as you like. Same
syntax, different physical realizations. Now will McCarthy
(or Hofstadter, or anyone) tell me that the beer can system
will have--indeed "must have"--exactly the same sorts of
experiences that human cocaine users have? Recall: that's
what their version of strong AI commits them to. And will
it help McCarthy to say that we can arbitrarily assign a
semantics "in the Tarski sense" to the system of beer cans?
I find it, frankly, not at all easy to take these views
seriously, but they are a strict logical consequence of the
position held by McCarthy and Hofstadter.
McCarthy concludes by repeating a parable that he ori-
ginally stated at the New York Academy symposium. Suppose
someday people said things like, "The computer believes that
such and such." He then remembers me--or rather,
misremembers me--as having said that this would just be weak
AI. But this isn't weak AI, and I never said it was. It's
- 13 -
not AI at all. It's just a manner of speaking. And he
doesn't have to wait for the future. We already speak this
way. Many people, including myself, say things like, "The
computer thinks (or believes, wants, knows, etc.) that such
and such." But this is a harmless metaphorical or loose way
of speaking. It carries no psychological or philosophical
implications whatever. And I am frankly amazed that he
supposes that it does.
Reply to Bobrow
Bobrow says my view is a kind of "rabid neovitalism."
Vitalism is standardly defined as the view that biochemical
processes are insufficient to account for life and cons-
ciousness. My view is precisely that biochemical processes
"do" in fact account for the phenomena of life and conscious-
ness. Now in what conceivable sense of "vitalism" or "neo-
vitalism" he thinks I am defending it, he never makes clear.
A correct description of my view would be "anti"-vitalism.
Since he makes the same mistake in interpretation that
was made by Charniak, I obviously did not express myself
clearly. I thought that my use of the word "semantics" in
conjunction with the Chinese Room and offering "mental con-
tent" as a paraphrase would make it quite clear.
It is quite common in natural language programs to make
a distinction between the syntax, the semantics, and even
- 14 -
the pragmatics. But this is irrelevant to the claims of
strong AI. As I mentioned in reply to both Charniak and
McCarthy, the fact that you can attach an interpretation to
a set of symbols, and the fact that you can then call this
interpretation "semantics," is simply irrelevant to psychol-
ogy. It shows nothing about mental contents.
Bobrow points out that his mind functions differently
from that of his wife. No doubt. But that is quite
irrelevant to the fact that they both have a lot in common.
They both have consciousness and intentionality, and each of
those involves a lot of mental contents. Now that's what
they can't get just in virtue of going through a set of sym-
bol manipulations, as was shown by the original Chinese Room
Argument.
Reply to Hofstadter
Hofstadter holds a view that I have never seen expli-
citly defended in public before. His view is that syntax is
indeed sufficient for semantics, and that brains are an
example of this. His view would have the consequence that
the specific neurophysiology of the brain does not matter at
all, that any system that was formally or syntactically iso-
morphic with the brain, made out of any substance whatever-
-beer cans, ping-pong balls, anything--would have to have
exactly the same mental processes as the brain. This view
has the empirically absurd consequence that we could get
- 15 -
exactly the conscious mental states produced by cocaine in a
human brain if we just used ping-pong balls banging into
beer cans. As I have pointed out before, such a claim isn't
logically self contradictory, but it's empirically out of
the question.
The question is: why would anyone want to believe it?
What deeper mistake is motivating it? I will conclude with
a few general remarks about the nature of formal models,
because I sincerely believe that his failure to appreciate
these points is what underlies Hofstadter's extraordinary
view, and I have an uneasy feeling that similar misconcep-
tions may be fairly widespread.
Models and Reality
Formal models are abstractions, and as abstractions,
they leave something out. If they didn't leave anything out
they would cease to be models and would be duplicates of the
real thing. For example, a model of a water molecule made
out of colored ping-pong balls shares certain features of an
actual water molecule, but lacks others. But a model of a
water molecule using hydrogen and oxygen atoms in appropri-
ate combinations isn't just a model, formal or otherwise,
it's the real thing. Now when we come to AI models of brain
processes, whether at the level of cognition or at the level
of neurons, what gets put in and what gets left out? What
- 16 -
gets put in are certain formal or syntactical features of
the phenomena being modelled. What gets left out, among
other things, are the specific chemical, physical, biochemi-
cal, electrical properties of the brain. And this has to be
the case because AI models consist of computer programs, and
these, being formal, have to be runnable in any medium what-
ever. Any hardware that is stable enough and rich enough can
run the program, it doesnt matter what the medium is. The
AI model then amounts to a type of 'description' of the for-
mal properties of the brain phenomena, but the AI descrip-
tion is no more the real thing than any other description.
"But suppose we made the formal model at a more basic
physical level, right down at the level of the structure of
the norepinephrine molecules, for example. Since they have a
formal structure and undergo formal processes, we can simu-
late all of that on the computer." Yes, but the simulation
is still just a simulation and not a duplication. Suppose
we run our `cocaine high' program on my VAX750. We can
model the formal processes at any degree of refinement you
like. But it is still just a symbolic description. What it
can only "describe" but not "reproduce" is the actual action of
cocaine on norepinephrine; it can only describe that, it
can't duplicate it, because a VAX750 is made out of the
wrong kind of stuff.
Of course, if we ran a "computer simulation" of the
brain using a system made of neurons with axons, dendrites,
- 17 -
boutons, receptors, synaptic clefts and all the rest of it,
it would cease to be a simulation and would be the real
thing. But that is precisely what computer simulations of
natural phenomena do not attempt to do. They attempt to
describe, rather than duplicate, the actual chemistry and
physics of diseases or oil prospecting and they would be
crazy to try to duplicate rather than describe. And the
same is true of computer simulations of cognition. They
don't attempt to reproduce the biochemistry of the brain and
they would be crazy to try. Any one with even a smattering
of knowledge of neurophysiology would find Hofstadter's
claim that the causal powers of the brain work on purely
syntactical principles like those of an axiomatic system,
rather than on "biochemical" principles like those of any
other organ, to be not a serious scientific hypothesis. As
a scientific hypothesis it is not worth discussing. Brain
processes, like any other formally describable processes,
are syntactically "representable". But it's just a mistake
to conclude that therefore the processes themselves are
purely syntactic.
∂31-Aug-86 1054 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU re: AI DISC: Update and Searle's Reply
Received: from ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Aug 86 10:53:39 PDT
Received: by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.53/1.16)
id AA14510; Sun, 31 Aug 86 10:53:22 PDT
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 86 10:53:22 PDT
From: vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Vijay Ramamoorthy)
Message-Id: <8608311753.AA14510@ernie.Berkeley.EDU>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: AI DISC: Update and Searle's Reply
Sure, if you have some comments you'd like to make to Searle (short as
they may be) that would be fine. What would be really interesting is the
infusion of a few new topics; if you have anything that's on your mind
that you'd like to hear some comments about (from any or all of the three
groups), why not mention them too- it's not often that we can get the people
we have to read, consider, and comment (formally or informally) on the same
things.
-Vijay
P.S. If you're intersted in knowing, the Dreyfus's are preparing some comments;
they have already said (publically, I believe) that they are taking back some
of what they have said in their new book.
∂01-Sep-86 1057 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 September 1986
Previous Balance 20.10
Payment(s) 20.10 (check 8/12/86)
-------
Current Charges 6.00 (bicycle lockers)
0.30 (vending machine)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 6.30
Please deliver payments to Debbie Woodward, room 040, Jacks Hall.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your Pony account name on your check.
Note: Payment recordation takes up to three weeks after delivery of a payment
(but not beyond the next billing date).
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
∂01-Sep-86 1900 JMC
minker
∂01-Sep-86 2000 JMC
phone Drexler
∂02-Sep-86 0947 RA Meeting with Pucci
Betty would like to firm up
the meetings with Pucci for next Monday, September 8 & 9. Is your scheduled
meeting with Pucci ok with you? Please let me know.
September 8 Binford 10:30 a.m.
McCarthy 2:00 p.m.
September 9 Manna 9:00 a.m.
Luckham 11:00 a.m.
John Pucci said he would like about an hour with each person.
∂02-Sep-86 1035 JJW Registration hold
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
ullman@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
The registration hold that I have from Black Friday needs to be
lifted this week so that I can register for fall quarter. Victoria
Cheadle would like a notice (or a message) from you to approve this.
Joe
∂02-Sep-86 1200 CLT terminals
∂02-Sep-86 1037 BJORK@SU-SCORE.ARPA Home terminals
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 86 10:37:09 PDT
Date: Tue 2 Sep 86 10:34:00-PDT
From: Steven Bjork <BJORK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Home terminals
To: clt@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12235763076.13.BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Well, seems that our equipment is working fine; the next step is to
call Pacific Bell and complain. Tom D. will be doing this.
--Steve
-------
∂02-Sep-86 1305 minker@mimsy.umd.edu International Logic Meeting
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 86 13:04:50 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA04635; Tue, 2 Sep 86 16:03:54 EDT
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 86 16:03:54 EDT
From: Jack Minker <minker@mimsy.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8609022003.AA04635@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: JMC@su-ai.arpa
Subject: International Logic Meeting
I phoned Dorothy Hirsch re your request. She has not heard
of any cases where an emigree has tried to attend an international
congress. She said, however, that Joel Lebowitz, who is the
Chairman of the Committee of Concerned Scientists, was invited
by Soviet scientists to attend an international congress in
Tashkent. He was denied a visa by the Soviet government and will
not be able to attend the Workshop.
Dorothy says that Israeli's have been denied permission to attend
some international meetings, but that when a fuss is made, they
usually relent.
I phoned the State Department to determine if they had any information
on the subject. They said that it is very unlikey that they will
be given permission to attend.
I did not explore it any further with the State Department; however,
the emigrees may have problem getting out if they get in. I recall
that in the past the State Department has been leary about anyone
returning to their home country from which they emigrated.
Did you get any information from Carey?
Keep me posted on what you are doing. Let me know if I can be of help to
you.
Jack
∂02-Sep-86 1613 @SRI-IU.ARPA,@sri-candide.ARPA:pereira@sri-candide Re: tinlap3
Received: from SRI-IU.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 86 16:12:20 PDT
Received: from sri-candide.ARPA by SRI-IU.ARPA via SMTP with TCP; Tue,
2 Sep 86 16:14:20-PDT
Received: by sri-candide.ARPA (1.1/SMI-2.0) id AA07413; Tue,
2 Sep 86 16:12:06 PDT
Date: Tue 2 Sep 86 16:11:57-PDT
From: Fernando Pereira <PEREIRA@SRI-CANDIDE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: tinlap3
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-Id: <SUN-MM(193)+TOPSLIB(120) 2-Sep-86 16:11:57.SRI-CANDIDE.ARPA>
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of 02
Sep 86 1530 PDT
Reply-To: Fernando Pereira <pereira%sri-stinson@sri-iu.arpa>
Well, I'm one of the participants, so I certainly would like it to
be supported. The idea is to have a set of position papers on various
areas of NL processing distributed in advance, and panel discussions
based on the position papers at the meeting. Many of the topics are
AI topics of relevance to NLP, eg. knowledge representation and
reasoning about beliefs and intensions.
-- Fernando
-------
∂02-Sep-86 1752 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Luis Pereira and Stanford in Portugal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 86 17:51:33 PDT
Date: Tue 2 Sep 86 17:50:43-PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Luis Pereira and Stanford in Portugal
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 2 Sep 86 15:28:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12235842576.27.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John, thanks for the information. I'm primarily the one behind this
embryonic idea. It is not "taking off" naturally, and I am not pushing it.
It started with, of all things, a way of getting "free" money to do it.
Ed
-------
∂03-Sep-86 0800 JMC
waltuch, howard
∂03-Sep-86 0819 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA cs-306 reserves
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Sep 86 08:19:53 PDT
Date: Wed 3 Sep 86 08:16:49-PDT
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: cs-306 reserves
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12236000245.17.LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for the message re: FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING. Did I miss your first
message concerning the first 2 items you requested for cs-306? Your message
indicate
-------
∂03-Sep-86 0822 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA cs-306 (cont.)
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Sep 86 08:22:35 PDT
Date: Wed 3 Sep 86 08:19:31-PDT
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: cs-306 (cont.)
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12236000736.17.LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Your 9/1/86 message indicates that the Henderson book is item 3. Would you
kindly send me the first 2 items again, and also indicate number of copies
desired and loan periods. Thanks. Penny.
-------
∂03-Sep-86 1016 VAL meeting with Matt
Can we meet with him this Friday, Sep. 5, at 11am?
∂03-Sep-86 1146 RA spelling
In your letter to Dana Scott, is it "Prof. Fenstaid"? Is it "Tblisi IJCAI meeting"?
Thanks,
∂03-Sep-86 1301 VAL Attending conferences in the USSR
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, minker@MIMSY.UMD.EDU
I know one case when a former Soviet was allowed to attend a scientific
meeting in the USSR. Semyon Kheifets, a physicist from Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center, took part in a recent conference in Novosibirsk. He
emigrated from Russia about 10 years ago.
Vladimir
∂03-Sep-86 1318 RA William Aspray
Aspray returned your call. His tel. (612) 624 5050. He is usually in his
office until 2:00pm our time.
∂03-Sep-86 1702 RA tomorrow
I will have to leave early tomorrow, around 2:00, for a doctor appointment
in the city.
∂03-Sep-86 2001 JMC
prescription
∂03-Sep-86 2001 JMC
mad
∂03-Sep-86 2357 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:MRC@PANDA Re: video recorders
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Sep 86 23:57:27 PDT
Received: from PANDA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with Cafard; Wed 3 Sep 86 23:55:28-PDT
Date: Wed 3 Sep 86 23:10:49-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: video recorders
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Wed 3 Sep 86 20:36:00-PDT
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12236162993.7.MRC@PANDA>
My recommendation is to buy a Sony 8mm camcorder. Ignore the obnoxious
and mendacious JVC ads that lambast 8mm. The facts are that 8mm is an
international public standard agreed to by all the manufacturers while
VHS is JVC proprietary. JVC signed the 8mm agreement, but got all bent
out of shape when arch-rival Sony started producing 8mm units to replace
1/2 inch equipment (both VHS and Beta are 1/2 inch).
There are two basic Sony units. One is essentially a video version of
the old 8mm film cameras; aim-and-shoot, no features. I think it's
called the CCD-M8 and/or Handycam. This is a bottom-of-the-line unit.
JVC's ads compare this against their top-of-the-line unit. Get the
picture?
The other, I think it's called the CCD-V8, is the one to buy. It has
record and playback, electronic viewfinder, zoom, etc. Unlike the
Handycam it has playback so you don't need a separate deck to play the
tapes back. It does require an IQ of over 60 to operate...
You may be interested to know that 8mm can record up to 2 hours, while
the small VHS camcorders can only record 20 minutes. If you wonder how
JVC gets away with this, remember this is the same company that persuaded
people to buy VHS instead of Beta even though Beta was higher quality.
As PT Barnum said was born every minute...
What are you using for your home VCR now, or don't you have one? I
presume you want to record your child's growing up?
-- Mark --
-------
∂04-Sep-86 0143 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:MRC@PANDA re: video recorders
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 86 01:43:09 PDT
Received: from PANDA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with Cafard; Thu 4 Sep 86 01:41:09-PDT
Date: Thu 4 Sep 86 00:29:51-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: re: video recorders
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 4 Sep 86 00:01:00-PDT
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12236177381.7.MRC@PANDA>
Try: Quement Electronics (Bascom Ave. San Jose), Eber Hi-Fi (El Camino,
Menlo Park), Toyo Electronics (El Camino, Palo Alto), and Gregg's (Santa
Cruz Blvd, Menlo Park). The Sony unit is basically the standard by which
everything else is measured.
I have a lot of Sony equipment, but in all fairness I should say that
there is a definite love/hate relationship between videophiles and Sony.
There have been times when I've been mad enough at Sony to want to strangle
its president. They have the damnedest habit of coming out with a wonderful
machine that has everything you could possible want...except for one,
little, simple, basic feature. You grumble about it, but you buy it anyway.
Three days after you buy it, Sony comes out with an "A" suffix model (e.g.
XYZ-1234 vs. XYZ-1234A) which has that missing feature. Your salesman had
1,000 of them in his warehouse but he denied that any such thing could
possibly be coming out. Sony denied it... You get the picture. Some of
us have a theory that you should never buy any piece of Sony equipment
that doesn't have at least an "A" (preferably a "B" or "C") suffix after
it.
Anyway, the other side of it is that Sony's equipment is the definitive
gear. Time and time again TV stations or cable networks buy JVC, etc.
equipment to save money, only to have it sitting unused while all their
techs are lined up to use the Sony gear.
I think Canon's latest model is credible. Their older stuff was crap.
On the other hand, Canon isn't a force in video and may decide to get out
of it. I think Matsushita makes the Canon equipment. Sony does have a
long term commitment. I would look at it, but would end up buying the
Sony unit.
A few other notes. Do not, repeat not, believe anything that Consumer
Reports says about video. They don't know what they are talking about.
A great example was when they raved about a brand of videotape for its
great color response...ignoring the fact that it flakes off in your VCR
and ruins your video heads. Sure, if you put a lot of loose oxide on
the tape you will get great response...for a while.
Video magazine is a good source, and Video Review is alright. Video Review
gets obnoxious in their "family" orientation; just about every issue has
some brag about how they refuse to carry ads for adult material. After a
while it wears thin. One problem is that neither magazine is willing to
bad-mouth a bad product. You'll have something like "this machine's audio
response was 75% below the average, and had a large number of timebase
errors. Still, we would recommend this machine if you want to record TV
shows where audio and video performance is not of major importance"...
Something VERY important. Don't chinch out on videotape. The footage of
your child is too valuable to trust to a cheap tape. For really important
stuff, buy TDK Pro (it's about twice as much as anything else). Don't buy
El Cheapo's special discount brand.
Emporium robs you. From time to time I amuse myself by trying to talk them
down to sane prices for video gear. I wouldn't buy from any department
store. Macy's is on that list too. Try the places I listed above.
-------
∂04-Sep-86 0608 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 86 06:08:10 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Thu, 4 Sep 86 09:10:27 EDT
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 09:10:27 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8609041310.AA18589@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Did my airline ticket receipts arrive and get processed ok?
Is Greep making any progress on implementation?
∂04-Sep-86 0734 SIMPSON@A.ISI.EDU Re: proposal
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 86 07:34:42 PDT
Date: 4 Sep 1986 10:33-EDT
Sender: SIMPSON@A.ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: proposal
From: SIMPSON@A.ISI.EDU
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[A.ISI.EDU] 4-Sep-86 10:33:52.SIMPSON>
In-Reply-To: The message of 02 Sep 86 1403 PDT from John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
John: I believe the best course of action is for you to send a
draft of the proposal for our "unofficial" review. That way if
there are changes necessary they can be included in the
"official" proposal. The offical proposal will not be a renewal,
but will need to be submitted in response to one of DARPA's broad
agency announcements which solicited computer science research.
See for example the 17 December 1985 issue of the Commerce
Business Daily (page 63) or the 2 May 1986 CBD (page 48). Both
of these solicitations expire 30 Sept, but there will be new ones
issued for FY87. -- Bob
∂04-Sep-86 0812 MA
happy birthday!
∂04-Sep-86 0900 JMC
whaley
∂04-Sep-86 0954 SJG question
Hi John:
Can you give me a reference for the Nixon/Quaker/Republican example?
I've looked in Reiter's 1980 paper, but can't find it there (I must
confess to not looking all that hard) - he seems to be interested in
where people live and work at that point.
Thanks.
Matt
P.S. We're getting together at 11 tomorrow, right?
∂04-Sep-86 1021 RA [Reply to message sent: Thu, 4 Sep 86 09:10:27 EDT]
I got Stallman's ticket (and will send him a msg. that I did).
Are we paying him anything besides his ticket which was $720.00?
Thanks,
∂04-Sep-86 1126 RA Zohar
Zohar will be here this afternoon.
∂04-Sep-86 1346 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Models of the world for common-sense reasoning purposes
Received: from GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 86 13:45:47 PDT
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Thu, 4 Sep 86 13:46:24 pdt
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 13:46:24 pdt
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@glacier.stanford.edu>
Subject: Models of the world for common-sense reasoning purposes
To: JMC@SAIL
When would it be convenient for me to meet with you and your
research assistant to talk about the ideas I discussed with you
previously? At the moment, next week is completely open for me
with the exception of Tuesday, September 9. Please leave a
message at 415-856-0767 in reply.
John Nagle
∂04-Sep-86 1411 RA leaving
I am leaving now; I left a msg. for John Nagle on his machine.
∂04-Sep-86 1515 VAL Correction needed in the Applications of Circ'n paper
In formula (38) on p. 101, the second argument of aspect3 must be l rather than
move(x,l), I think.
∂04-Sep-86 1535 @SRI-IU.ARPA,@sri-kepler.ARPA:pcohen@sri-kepler Workshop
Received: from SRI-IU.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 86 15:35:08 PDT
Received: from sri-kepler.ARPA by SRI-IU.ARPA via SMTP with TCP; Thu,
4 Sep 86 15:37:20-PDT
Received: by sri-kepler.ARPA (1.1/SMI-2.0) id AA05340; Thu,
4 Sep 86 15:31:38 PDT
Date: Thu 4 Sep 86 15:31:33-PDT
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-KEPLER.ARPA>
Subject: Workshop
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: pollack@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA, pcohen@SRI-KEPLER.ARPA
Message-Id: <SUN-MM(193)+TOPSLIB(120) 4-Sep-86 15:31:33.SRI-KEPLER.ARPA>
Reply-To: Phil Cohen <pcohen%sri-kepler@sri-iu.arpa>
John:
Martha Pollack and I were wondering if you've had a chance to think about
our prospectus for the workshop on "Plans and Intentions in Communication
and Discourse", both the point of view of AAAI support as well as your own
attendance. We've invited a few participants, especially those contributing
papers, but are a bit nervous about doing so for the rest until our funding
has been settled.
Of course, if you have any questions about any aspect of it, please send us
a note, or give us a call (Phil - 859-4840, Martha - 859-2037).
Many Thanks,
Phil Cohen
P.S. We are thinking of holding the workshop at the Monterey Plaza
Hotel (~$100/night, double occup, incl. food, $135 for a single).
-------
∂04-Sep-86 1606 MRC hb2u
Happy Birthday, my fellow comrade in flames... Best wishes for many more!
∂05-Sep-86 0800 JMC
get prescription
∂05-Sep-86 0800 JMC
ai for hopcroft
∂05-Sep-86 1045 JMC
timothy picture
∂05-Sep-86 1241 RA Quals for Marianne Baudinet
September 30 at 2:00pm is ok with Vaughan Pratt and Zohar Manna, is the
time convient for you?
Please let me know.
I put her syllabus on your desk.
∂05-Sep-86 1636 RA leaving
I need to leave now. See you Monday.
∂08-Sep-86 0900 JMC
Timothy picture.
∂08-Sep-86 0920 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Comp reading list
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 09:19:57 PDT
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 09:17:55-PDT
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Comp reading list
To: pratt@NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU
cc: phdcom@SU-AI.ARPA, WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
The time has come to finalize the list to give it to the incoming students.
Vaughan, it really should be a Comp-committee prerogative, but of course
we're available to help. Do you want to coordinate it, and if so what
do we need to do? --t
-------
∂08-Sep-86 1045 RA Your meeting with Pucci
Your meeting with Pucci is today, Sept. 8, 2:00pm at Nils conference room.
∂08-Sep-86 1103 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Japanese LISP machines
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 11:03:55 PDT
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 11:03:30-PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Japanese LISP machines
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12237341310.51.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John,
(please forward this message to Carolyn)
(the message is for both of you but I dont know her e-mail address)
NTT has loaned my lab two TAO/ELIS lisp machines. They are installed
and running well in the sumex machine room. They are accessed by telephone
line (or perhaps ethernet, I dont remember) and are operated via the
usual dumb terminals (i.e. they are not yet "display oriented" in the
way that symbolics or xerox lisp machines are).
John had a demo of this machine in Japan, I think. It's a very
interesting machine since it has lisp,smalltalk, and prolog all
microcoded, and the tradeoffs have been done very well. It is
quite fast relative to other lisp machines (on an interpreter-vs-
interpreter comparison).
Hiroshe Okuno gave the KSL people a demo of the machine doing various
tasks last week. Would you like him to give a demo to people in your
project(s)? We should also see if there is any interest in your
project(s) in using the machine(s). [there are two machines].
Let me know what the interest is.
Ed
-------
∂08-Sep-86 1422 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA re: Japanese LISP machines
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 14:22:03 PDT
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 14:21:40-PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: re: Japanese LISP machines
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 8 Sep 86 13:11:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12237377384.10.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Thanks, John. The message was for you too--for both of you....ed
-------
∂08-Sep-86 1434 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Comp reading list
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 14:34:37 PDT
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 14:32:29-PDT
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Comp reading list
To: knuth@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: phdcom@SU-AI.ARPA, WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
Don,
Last year in order to flesh out our plans for a revised comp organization (as
part of the PHD program revision) we put together a draft of a new reading list.
We stated that the final version should be done by the comp committee. Vaughan
(who was last year's comp chair) thinks you are the chair this year. The
list should go out by the time the new students come, so the final revisions
need to be made. I can send you the draft as it stands, and the PhD committee
can help to explain our reasoning, and fill out the details. How do you
think we should proceed? --t
-------
∂08-Sep-86 1502 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Current state of comp syllabus
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 15:02:18 PDT
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 15:00:10-PDT
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Current state of comp syllabus
To: phdcom@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
The following is the current state of discussion about the new syllabus, corresponding to the way the comp will be organized. It is a starting point from which a final version will be developed by the beginning of fall quarter. It has gone through a fair amount of feedback, and at this point, the main objection is that is too long and in places redundant. The marginal comments (they follow the items they refer to) were questions addressed to various people on the committee and faculty about alternatives. Comments from everyone are welcome. The list of courses at the bottom is especially preliminary and open to change.
I. SYSTEMS
Harold Abelson and Gerald Sussman, Structure and
Interpretation of Computer Programs, MIT, 1985.
There was grumbling about this being too long and general. Are
there specific chapters that can be recommended independently, or should
we just drop it?
Alfred V. Aho, Sethi, R., and Jeffrey D. Ullman, Compilers --
Principles, Techniques, and Tools, Addison-Wesley, 1986. All
except sections 9.11-9.12, 10.9-10.13.
M. Ben-Ari, Principles of Concurrent Programming, Prentice-Hall
International, 1982. Material on concurrent programming.
What are the specific chapter/page numbers for the relevant material?
Terrence W. Pratt, Programming Languages: Design and
Implementation, Second edition, Prentice-Hall, 1984.
Whole thing?
Bell, C.G., Mudge, J.C., and McNamara, J.E., Computer Engineering
-- A DEC View of Hardware Systems Design, Digital Press, 1978. Part
III only.
Kogge, P., The Architecture of Pipelined Computers, McGraw-Hill,
1981. Chapter 1 only.
M. Morris Mano, Computer System Architecture, Second Edition,
Prentice-Hall, 1982. Basic logic design, data representation, and
computer organization. Material taught in CS 108 and CS 112.
Chapter numbers?
James L. Peterson and Abraham Silberschatz, Operating System
Concepts, Addison-Wesley, Second Edition, 1985.
Whole thing? Lantz says yes.
II. THEORY
Alfred V. Aho, John E. Hopcroft, and Jeffrey D. Ullman, Data
Structures and Algorithms, Addison-Wesley, 1983.
Whole thing?
Herbert B. Enderton, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic,
Academic Press, 1972, Chapters 1--2.
Should this be on the list or as some kind of recommended prerequisite?
Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson, Computers and
Intractability, Freeman, 1979, Chapters 1--3, 7.
John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman, Introduction to
Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, 1979,
Chapters 1--3, 4.1--4.6, 5--7, 8.1--8.5.
Donald E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1,
Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1973, Section 1.2 (except for subsections
1.2.9, 1.2.10, 1.2.11.2, and 1.2.11.3.)
Zohar Manna, Introduction to Mathematical Theory of
Computation, McGraw-Hill, 1973, Chapters 1--3.
John McCarthy and Carolyn Talcott, LISP: Programming and
Proving, (available from McCarthy's secretary) 1980, Chapters
1--3.
Leo suggested we replace this with a real book if it doesn't come out
soon.
Nils Nilsson, Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Kaufman,
1980, Chapters 4--6.
This may be supplanted in later years by the forthcoming
Nilsson/Genesereth book.
Sedgewick, Robert, Algorithms, Addison-Wesley, 1983.
Chapters/sections?
III. APPLICATIONS AND TECHNIQUES
Artificial intelligence
Elaine Rich, Artificial Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, 1983.
DATABASES
Jeffrey Ullman, {/sl Principles of Data Base Systems,Computer
Science Press, 1982
Chapters? Gio suggests including something on performance issues?
GRAPHICS
Newman and Sproull, Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics,
Chapters 1--5, and 15--18.
Is this an appropriate subset, or too large?
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Kendall E. Atkinson, An Introduction to Numerical Analysis,
Wiley, 1978, Chapters 1--3, 5, 7, 8 (except Sections 2.8, 2.10,
5.4).
NETWORKS
A.S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, Prentice-Hall, 1981.
Keith suggested this be added here. Is that a good idea? The whole
book?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The comprehensive exam is meant generally to cover the material
from the following courses:
Systems = 8 courses noty including 108 material
112, 140, 143A, 212, 242, 240 A,B, 243
Applications = 4-5 courses
237A, 225, 248, 245
Theory = 4 courses including basic AI course
223, 254, 261, 257A
-------
∂08-Sep-86 1546 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Request for information from the faculty - DRAFT
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 15:46:17 PDT
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 15:43:58-PDT
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Request for information from the faculty - DRAFT
To: cheadle@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: phdcom@SU-AI.ARPA, WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
How's this sound? --t
-------------
The assignment of new students to assistantships this year is being
handled differently, as part of our revision of the PhD program. Part of
the new requirements recently approved by the faculty included the
concept of a research mentor for all entering PhD students. The idea is
to have a more cohesive system for getting all new students involved in
some kind of research, regardless of how they are financially supported.
We want them to be associated with a research group that includes
experienced students as well as faculty and/or full-time researchers.
The connection of the student with the group may be in the form of a RA,
where a student is doing a substantial amount of research work with that
group. It may also be that the student is supported by the group, but
devoting primary effort to studying for the Comprehensive Exam. In
still other cases, there will be no money involved (e.g., the student
has a fellowship, or is being supported by departmental funds), but the
group will provide facilities and connections.
It is not assumed that the student's eventual research work will be with
the initial group or faculty member; this is considered a one-year
initial period for finding out what research here is like. On the other
hand, we expect that many students will initially select a group in
their interest area and end up doing research within it.
As part of orientation, the new students will be given a packet
describing the potential mentors and groups, and on the basis of this
will seek out positions. After an initial period of open
student-initiated matching, we will more actively help in linking up
those who are still unattached. You are of course free to take on as
few or as many new people as you want.
In order to implement this new system, we need the following
information for each potential GROUP (i.e., some faculty members may
have several distinct research groups, and the student should be
associated with a particular one). Mentors can be reserach associates
as well as regular faculty.
1. Names of faculty member(s) or research associate(s) in charge.
If several are involved, indicate which, if any, is primary.
2. What is the group called?
This does not need to be an official name, just a unique identifier.
3. What is the research?
We need more than a single sentence - a short paragraph is fine. In
the absence of better information we will include your current entry
in the departmental research summary.
4. Funding sources of the group
If you can include the actual grant/contract titles, that is better, but
just names of the granting agencies will do.
5. Structure of the group
Just a few words -- e.g., "Programming is done by small groups (2-3)
working together. The whole group meets once a week to discuss project
details, and the students participate in the weekly BAGLUNCH seminar."
6. How many (paid and unpaid) slots might you have for new students
7. Names of one or two senior students in the group to whom new
students can talk.
This is extremely useful and can save your having to spend time
answering a lot of the stray questions.
We'll compile your answers and distribute them at orientation time (just
before the quarter starts). If we don't get something from you by next
Friday (Sept. 19) the default will be that you are NOT INTERESTED in
working with any incoming students.
By the way, the folders of the incoming students are available in my
office. Feel free to drop by and peruse them at your convenience, at
which time you can give me the answers to the above, if you don't want
to type them.
Thanks for your help.
-------
∂08-Sep-86 1614 KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU ai & law
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 16:14:15 PDT
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 16:09:11-PDT
From: Abraham Kohen <KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: ai & law
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12237396958.19.KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Daniel Sagalowicz (Teknowledge, ex-SRI) mentioned that you once had a
student who was a lawyer and was studying AI. I'd be very interested
in finding out what this person is doing today.
I'm interested in AI/ES applications in the Bandit industries : Bankers,
Brokers and Barristers, and I'll be taking the Computers & Law class
in the Law School (Professor Brest).
Thanks,
kohen@sushi
-------
∂08-Sep-86 1727 lantz@gregorio.stanford.edu Re: Current state of comp syllabus
Received: from GREGORIO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 17:27:42 PDT
Received: by gregorio.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Mon, 8 Sep 86 17:27:22 pdt
Date: 8 Sep 1986 1727-PDT (Monday)
From: Keith Lantz <lantz@gregorio.stanford.edu>
To: phdcom@sail
Subject: Re: Current state of comp syllabus
In-Reply-To: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU> /
Mon 8 Sep 86 15:00:10-PDT.
Ben-Ari: Delete the sentence about "material on concurrent
programming". The entire book is about that and the entire book should
be on the list!
Peterson and Silberschatz: Yes, the whole thing.
Re networks: Certainly warrants billing equivalent to graphics and
databases, as I've said before. If pressed on the volume of the book,
could easily drop Chapters 2, 6, and 11 (which is just a bibliography
anyway). (Note: assuming networks IS covered, then CS244 should be
added to the list of courses for applications.)
Keith
∂08-Sep-86 2309 coraki!pratt@Sun.COM Comp syllabus
Received: from SUN.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 86 23:09:41 PDT
Received: from sun.uucp by sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.0)
id AA21521; Mon, 8 Sep 86 23:07:47 PDT
Received: by sun.uucp (1.1/SMI-3.0)
id AA05412; Mon, 8 Sep 86 23:07:32 PDT
Received: by coraki.uucp (3.2/SMI-1.2)
id AA04347; Mon, 8 Sep 86 23:06:04 PDT
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 23:06:04 PDT
From: coraki!pratt@Sun.COM (Vaughan Pratt)
Message-Id: <8609090606.AA04347@coraki.uucp>
To: ullman@su-score.arpa, rwf@su-ai.arpa, zm@su-ai.arpa,
mayr@navajo.stanford.edu, guibas@navajo.stanford.edu,
papa@su-score.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa, nilsson@su-score.arpa
Cc: coraki!pratt@Sun.COM
Subject: Comp syllabus
I'm enclosing the theory section of the comp syllabus, as currently
envisaged by Terry Winograd's Ph.D. program committee. (I'm on both
that committee and the outgoing comp. committee.) I'd be grateful for
all feedback you can provide on it.
-v
II. THEORY
Alfred V. Aho, John E. Hopcroft, and Jeffrey D. Ullman, Data
Structures and Algorithms, Addison-Wesley, 1983.
Whole thing?
Herbert B. Enderton, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic,
Academic Press, 1972, Chapters 1--2.
Should this be on the list or as some kind of recommended prerequisite?
Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson, Computers and
Intractability, Freeman, 1979, Chapters 1--3, 7.
John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman, Introduction to
Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, 1979,
Chapters 1--3, 4.1--4.6, 5--7, 8.1--8.5.
Donald E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1,
Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1973, Section 1.2 (except for subsections
1.2.9, 1.2.10, 1.2.11.2, and 1.2.11.3.)
Zohar Manna, Introduction to Mathematical Theory of
Computation, McGraw-Hill, 1973, Chapters 1--3.
John McCarthy and Carolyn Talcott, LISP: Programming and
Proving, (available from McCarthy's secretary) 1980, Chapters
1--3.
Will this come out as a textbook soon, and if not should/can an
alternative be found?
Nils Nilsson, Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Kaufman,
1980, Chapters 4--6.
This may be supplanted in later years by the forthcoming
Nilsson/Genesereth book.
Sedgewick, Robert, Algorithms, Addison-Wesley, 1983.
Chapters/sections?
∂09-Sep-86 0236 george@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK [S.Michaelson: Gregorian chant.]
Received: from CS.UCL.AC.UK by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 86 02:35:59 PDT
Received: by vax2.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK with Delay channel id a001458;
9 Sep 86 9:58 BST
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 86 9:54:14 BST
From: George Michaelson <george@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: [S.Michaelson: Gregorian chant.]
Sidney doesn't have authorisations yet at the arpa gateway so I am forwarding
this for him. you should be able to reply direct...
George Michaelson
--- Forwarded message:
Subject: Gregorian chant.
From: S.Michaelson <ECSC03@uk.ac.edinburgh.emas-a>
Date: 26 Aug 86 12:07:54 bst
To: JMC@su-ai.arpa
Msg ID: <26 Aug 86 12:07:54 bst 070967@EMAS-A>
John,
Please tell Susie that her friend, Monica, should go to Nunraw in
the Borders to hear Gregorian chant in use. A Mr Peter Wiston is an
architect there and can help her with more information. I will get some
more also, but a direct telephone call might enable her to plan her journey
better.
Sidney.
--- End of forwarded message
∂09-Sep-86 0417 BONNIE@cis.upenn.edu Workshop proposal
Received: from LINC.CIS.UPENN.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 86 04:17:19 PDT
Posted-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 86 07:16 EDT
Message-Id: <8609091116.AA00737@linc.cis.upenn.edu>
From: Bonnie Webber <Bonnie@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Workshop proposal
To: mccarthy@su-ai
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 86 07:16 EDT
John - Shastri and I want to propose a workshop on "Parallelism in Natural
Language Processing". I vaguely remember your spec'ing out somewhere what
you'd like sent as a proposal, but I can't find the information. Can you
let me know what you like us to send you in the way of a proposal (i.e.,
length, how much of a budget you need, what can be included in that budget,
etc.)
Thanks, Bonnie
∂09-Sep-86 0800 JMC
c's
∂09-Sep-86 0901 VAL Kheifets
Kheifets took part in the last International Conference on High Energy
Accelerators which took place in Novosibirsk, August 7-11, 1986. These
conferences are held once every 3 years, the locations alternate between
America, Europe and the Soviet Union. The last one was organized by the
Institute for Nuclear Physics which has close contacts with SLAC and
considers them important. Kheifets's name was included by SLAC in the list
of the delegation, along with about 10 others. He was told unofficially by
a Soviet colleague that his visit would be undesirable. However, he received
later a personal invitation from the Soviet Organizing Committee, like
the other delegates. (Without such an invitation, the Soviet Consulate doesn't
accept visa applications from former Soviets). After that, SLAC sent a
telegram to the Organizing Committee with the list of persons who intended to
accompany the delegates; the list included Kheifets's wife and grandson.
The other delegates were told that their visas were ready; Kheifets was told
that his relatives wouldn't be given visas, and there was no reply concerning
himself. The time of the conference was approaching, SLAC sent angry
telegrams to the Organizing Committee, and some members of the delegation,
including the head of SLAC and Nobel Prize winner, Burton
Richter, said they wouldn't come without Kheifets.
Eventually the Consulate agreed to give him a visa, but only for the duration
of the conference, not for the extra week he asked for. The Consulate people
have told him that it would have been easier if he didn't ask for that extra
week. He's not sure how essential the pressure was for his success.
The next step was to receive a voucher from Inturist. Only after that was he
supposed to receive his visa from the agent in SF who handles the relations
with Inturist. The voucher never came, and on the last day the agent agreed,
contrary to the rules, give the visa to Kheifets. As a result, Kheifets didn't
deal with Inturist at all during his trip, and all the arrangements for him
were made through the Organizing Committee.
He has submitted a joint paper, and in the Proceedings his name was dropped
from the list of authors. Otherwise, there was no discrimination against him
during the conference. He believes his visit is the first of this kind and
hopes that it will be easier now, after the precedent.
∂09-Sep-86 0938 RA SE2
I have the one-way ticket to NY which you did not use and am mailing it
to Dina Bolla. I am unclear about what we are sending to SE2. Are we sending
them an invoice for a one-way trip to NY? Did they pay for the ticket back?
Thanks,
Rutie
-----
∂09-Sep-86 0945 mc%zen.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM Your paper
Received: from DECWRL.DEC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 86 09:45:08 PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.2/4.7.34)
id AA22404; Tue, 9 Sep 86 09:44:36 PDT
Message-Id: <8609091644.AA22404@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: Tuesday, 9 Sep 1986 09:42:04-PDT
From: mc%zen.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM (Miguel Calejo)
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"%ARPA.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM
Subject: Your paper
Dear John
Could you please send me your paper
"Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge" ?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Luis Moniz Pereira
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Departamento de Informatica
2825 Monte da Caparica
Portugal
∂09-Sep-86 1215 WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 86 12:15:00 PDT
Date: Tue 9 Sep 86 12:12:36-PDT
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: WINOGRAD@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 8 Sep 86 17:51:00-PDT
done. --t
-------
∂09-Sep-86 1318 VAL MCC
My visits there are out of phase with yours. Maybe we can correct that, please
tell me when you're going there next time.
∂09-Sep-86 1504 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA 306 TA
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 86 15:01:55 PDT
Date: Tue 9 Sep 86 14:03:16-PDT
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: 306 TA
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 030C, 723-9798
Message-ID: <12237636179.34.REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I have already assigned Kelly Roach as a 50% TA for your class. I am on the
lookout for another.
-------
∂09-Sep-86 1513 1F1BROWN%UKANVAX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU From Kansas.
Received: from WISCVM.WISC.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 86 15:13:15 PDT
Received: from (1F1BROWN)UKANVAX.BITNET by WISCVM.WISC.EDU on 09/09/86
at 17:12:30 CDT
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 86 17:11 CDT
From: <1F1BROWN%UKANVAX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU> (Glenn O. Veach)
Subject: From Kansas.
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
X-Original-To: jmc@su-ai.arpa, 1F1BROWN
Greetings:
I just wanted to let you know of our address.
You can readh me at the above address.
Frank XZ
∂09-Sep-86 1609 LES re: letter to Shankar
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Sep-86 00:24-PT.]
You might want to add something like: "We wish to offer you moving expenses
but must first obtain permission to do so. If obtained, this will be confirmed
to you later."
∂09-Sep-86 1641 SJG multi-valued logics
To: nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Hi Folks:
I'm giving you all a draft of a paper on multi-valued logics that
I will be sending off to the AI Journal. I apologize for its length
and for the fact that the math is hard enough for it to be tough
sledding at points, but would really appreciate anything you have
to say about it.
Thanks!
Matt
∂09-Sep-86 1635 RA Transcribing machine
Would you mind if Evelyn (Zohar's TEX person) borrows the transcribing maching
for a few days?
Thanks,
∂09-Sep-86 1703 pratt%aster@Sun.COM conflict
Received: from SUN.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 86 17:03:31 PDT
Received: from snail.sun.com (snail-ptp) by sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.0)
id AA27966; Tue, 9 Sep 86 17:00:58 PDT
Received: from aster.sun.uucp by snail.sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA07805; Tue, 9 Sep 86 17:02:44 PDT
Received: by aster.sun.uucp (3.2/SMI-3.0DEV3)
id AA09748; Tue, 9 Sep 86 17:02:19 PDT
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 86 17:02:19 PDT
From: pratt%aster@Sun.COM (Vaughan Pratt)
Message-Id: <8609100002.AA09748@aster.sun.uucp>
To: baudinet@su-sushi.arpa, jmc@su-ai.arpa
Subject: conflict
I should have been paying closer attention. Tuesday Sept. 30 is the
start of term, and needs to be kept free for that purpose (mainly
students who want to consult about registration, plus start-of-term
faculty meeting). Can we reschedule to a more suitable date?
-v
-------------- Forwarded Message
Date: Tue 9 Sep 86 15:39:03-PDT
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@su-score.arpa>
Subject: Faculty Meeting
To: faculty@su-score.arpa
There will be a general faculty meeting followed by a senior faculty meeting
on Tuesday, September 30 at 2:30 in the conference room in Bldg. 170. (Please
note the room change.) Agenda items to follow.
-Anne
-------
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂10-Sep-86 0800 JMC
Iris Brest, Bob Boyer
∂10-Sep-86 0823 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM next visit
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Sep 86 08:23:03 PDT
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1986 10:20 CDT
Message-ID: <AI.BOYER.12237835995.BABYL@MCC.COM>
From: AI.BOYER@MCC.COM
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Cc: VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: next visit
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Sep 1986 17:18-CDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Those days are fine with me, but let me quickly check with
Woody and Doug.
∂10-Sep-86 0923 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM next visit
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Sep 86 09:23:01 PDT
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1986 11:20 CDT
Message-ID: <AI.BOYER.12237846900.BABYL@MCC.COM>
From: AI.BOYER@MCC.COM
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Cc: VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, ai.woody@MCC.COM, ai.lenat@MCC.COM,
ai.ellie@MCC.COM
Subject: next visit
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Sep 1986 17:18-CDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Next Thursday and Friday are good for Doug, too. Woody's
out of town, but I'm making an educated guess that those two
days are fine with him, too. So please do come then.
Do you want Ellie to make reservations?
We are in the new building, about a mile and a half from the
old one. You'll probably want a car because there is no
hotel within a mile.
∂10-Sep-86 0930 RPG Qlisp
I put a copy of the paper which I intend as the book chapter
for Kowalick (remember that?). We have 1 month more to prepare it
for him.
-rpg-
∂10-Sep-86 0940 rwsh%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK The ELEPHANT Language
Received: from CS.UCL.AC.UK by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Sep 86 09:39:49 PDT
Received: from computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk by 44d.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
via Janet with NIFTP id a011678; 10 Sep 86 14:31 BST
Received: from cl.cam.ac.uk by Jenny.CL.Cam.AC.UK with SMTP id aa07383;
10 Sep 86 14:26 BST
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 86 14:04:56 BST
From: Roger Hale <rwsh%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Cc: clt@su-ai.arpa
Subject: The ELEPHANT Language
Message-Id: <UK.AC.Cam.CL (Steve) 86252.640.5500>
I am a PhD student at Cambridge University, where I am working with Ben
Moszkowski on Temporal Logic Programming. Your work on the Elephant language
seems to be quite relevant to this research, and I would be grateful if you
could point me to some (accessible) references on the subject.
Thanks,
Roger Hale
Arpa: rwsh%uk.ac.cam.cl@uk.ac.ucl.cs
Post: Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
Corn Exchange Street
Cambridge CB2 3QG
ENGLAND
∂10-Sep-86 1038 CLT rivin visit
he is coming monday
Lucid people are coming over at 2pm to talk to him
I thought we might all meet just briefly at 2
then leave him with the lucidites.
Could you see him in the morning - say 11ish
∂10-Sep-86 1304 RA Chernobyl
1. I put all the Chernobyl material in a Chernobyl file in the Topic section
in your filing cabinet
2. There are too many Wol(l)f(f)(e) in the telphone book, do you have Mrs.
Wolf first name?
3. Where can I find Haley's address for the haley.1 letter.
∂10-Sep-86 1324 SJG nsf proposal
To: JMC, VAL
Hi John:
After speaking to the NSF, they suggested that I include 50% of my
own time in the multi-valued logics proposal. Can I submit another
one having to do with formalization of action and planning? Should
I include some of Vladimir's time? What about yours? Or is it just
a bad idea to send two proposals for overlapping people to the NSF?
Vladimir, would you be interested in this?
Thanks --
Matt
∂10-Sep-86 1352 CLT EBOS suggestion
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
AIR@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, REG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
GRP@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
It seems to me that there are two major and somewhat independent
issues that we are tossing around
(1) editors
(2) os command language
Editors seem to get us diverted onto window systems etc.
This is important in the long run, but I don't think
its at the center of the EBOS idea.
I propose that we focus on the issue of os command language
and use GNU EMACS with its abilitiy to interact (seemingly
nicely) both with Lisp and with any Unix shell.
In particular we should
() design data structures for functions to operate on,
be applied to, and return as values
[for example AIR's point about data sets vs files
can be used here]
() specify basic functions (and actions) on the data structures
() design a command language
this would include a basic functional language
plus forms of sugaring and mechanisms for abbreviation
() specify the semantics of the language
() implement this as a shell in Lisp
We can use GNU EMACS (or whatever) both during development
and as a means of interacting with our shell
With suitable care, I expect we can get the co-operation of
rms for small modifications to GNU if needed.
[We could think of using ANDREW but I suspect one rms is easier
to deal with than the whole ANDREW crowd.]
This will give us a pass at the command language and functionality
of the underlying os without worrying about the editor.
If we succeed in getting a syntax and semantics we
are happy with we can go on to other issues --
an os kernel that nicely supports our semantics
fancy user interfaces
editors
etc.
∂10-Sep-86 1425 AIR meeting
Are we still having a meeting at 2:30?
∂10-Sep-86 1428 langley@CIP.UCI.EDU machine learning workshop
Received: from CIP.UCI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Sep 86 14:27:12 PDT
Received: from cip2.uci.edu by CIP.UCI.EDU id a008918; 10 Sep 86 14:21 PDT
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
cc: langley@CIP.UCI.EDU
Subject: machine learning workshop
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 86 14:21:55 -0800
From: Pat Langley <langley@CIP.UCI.EDU>
John - Could you tell me the status of our proposal for the 1987 Machine
Learning Workshop? We're in no rush to get funds, but it would be good
to know whether we can count on AAAI for partial support. Pat
∂10-Sep-86 1428 AIR meeting
Absolutely!
∂10-Sep-86 1852 langley@CIP.UCI.EDU Re: machine learning workshop
Received: from CIP.UCI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Sep 86 18:52:33 PDT
Received: from cip2.uci.edu by CIP.UCI.EDU id a009684; 10 Sep 86 18:48 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@su-ai.arpa>
cc: langley@CIP.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: machine learning workshop
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 86 18:48:50 -0800
From: Pat Langley <langley@CIP.UCI.EDU>
John - Thanks for the rapid response. The proposal I was referring to is for
the Fourth International Workshop on Machine Learning. This is the successor
to earlier workshops that were held at CMU, Illinois, and Rutgers. We're
planning to hold the meeting at UCI, so I was the P.I. on the proposal. The
budget included travel expenses and funds for administrative support, and
came to $9,950. (You suggested in an earlier message that we ask for the
maximum amount.)
Our contracts office sent the formal proposal to you at Stanford on July
15. The copy I have was addressed to you, with `Attention: AAAI' after
the address. The UCI contract number was UCI-10401, and the funding
period was 1/1/87 through 12/31/87. Will that help you in tracking it
down? Pat
P.S. I'd heard that Derek had been talking about a workshop on discovery.
Is that what he's organizing with Bruce?
∂11-Sep-86 0900 JMC
Texas reservations
∂11-Sep-86 0904 RA your american express card
Could you please tell me what is the expiration date on your American Express
card.
Thanks,
∂11-Sep-86 0922 VAL vacation
To: JMC
CC: RA
I'd like to take a vacation from Sep. 15 to Sep. 18.
∂11-Sep-86 1000 JMC
Richter
∂11-Sep-86 1128 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Metacritique
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Sep 86 11:28:00 PDT
Date: Thu 11 Sep 86 10:53:44-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Metacritique
To: "<nilsson.research>Principia.mailinglist": ;
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12238125962.9.NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I have a draft of a commentary on McDermott's ``A Critique
of Pure Reason'' on score in <nilsson>mcdermott.critique. Suggestions,
criticisms, etc. invited. -Nils
-------
∂11-Sep-86 1258 RA my schedule
I have to leave early on Thursdays. I will leave around 4:15.
∂11-Sep-86 1315 JMC
Drell.
∂11-Sep-86 1413 RA is 586 0499.
I could not find anything on or in your desk re your frequent flight number
for PSA, however I called PSA and got it, it is 586 0499.
∂11-Sep-86 1459 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA brown workshop
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Sep 86 14:58:49 PDT
Date: Thu 11 Sep 86 14:49:00-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: brown workshop
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: aaAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12238168792.70.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
How much are you funding this workshop?
CCM
-------
∂11-Sep-86 2037 JK meeting
I am planning on seeing GLB monday at 5pm; will you be around?
∂11-Sep-86 2200 JMC
pictures for Haley
∂12-Sep-86 0752 PETTY@RED.RUTGERS.EDU technical-report Sept. '86 mailing
Received: from RED.RUTGERS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 86 07:51:51 PDT
Date: 12 Sep 86 10:45:01 EDT
From: PETTY@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: technical-report Sept. '86 mailing
To: arpanet.mail: ;
cc: petty@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Message-ID: <12238353751.54.PETTY@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
@make(text)
@begin(description)
Below is a list of our newest technical reports.
The abstracts for these are available for access via FTP with user account
<anonymous> with any password. The file name is:
<library>tecrpts-online.doc
If you wish to order copies of any of these reports please send mail via the
ARPANET to PETTY@RUTGERS. Thank you!!
[ ] DCS-TR-186 - "CK-LOG'S PROBLEM SOLVING SYSTEM, PART I:
THE NATURAL DEDUCTION PROOF SYSTEM FOR FIRST ORDER
LOGIC", C.V. Srinivasan.
[ ] DCS-TR-188 - "PROBLEM SOLVING" - Article for 'Encyclopedia of
Artificial Intelligence', S. Amarel.
[ ] DCS-TR-190 - "CONDITIONS FOR INCREMENTAL ITERATION:
EXAMPLES AND COUNTEREXAMPLES", T. Marlowe, M.C.
Paull and B.G. Ryder.
[ ] DCS-TR-191 - "ON A CONJECTURE OF MEYNIEL", C.T. Hoang.
[ ] DCS-TR-192 - "A CLASS OF BRITTLE GRAPHS", C.T. Hoang.
and N. Khouzam.]
[ ] DCS-TR-193 - "ON BRITTLE GRAPHS II. GRAPHS WITH DILWORTH NUMBER
AT MOST THREE", C.T. Hoang.
[ ] DCS-TR-194 - "EVALUATING THE SIZE OF A VERSION SPACE", I. Nelken.
[ ] DCS-TR-195 - "LOWER BOUNDS FOR THE QUADRATIC SEMI-ASSIGNMENT
PROBLEM", G. Gallo, Tomasin, E.M. and A.M. Sorato.
[ ] DCS-TR-197 - "ADVANCED PLANNING SYSTEMS AND DEVELOPMENT
OF PLANNING CONSULTANT FOR NAVAL OPERATIONAL
PLANNING", C.V. Srinivasan.
[ ] DCS-TR-199 - "ISOMORPHISMS AND 1-L REDUCTIONS", E.W. Allender.
[ ] LCSR-TR-81 - "TOWARDS EXPLICIT INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE IN
EXPERT SYSTEMS: AN ANALYSIS OF MYCIN'S THERAPY SELECTION
ALGORITHM", J. Mostow and B. Swartout.
[ ] LCSR-TR-82 - "REAPPR - IMPROVING PLANNING EFFICIENCY VIA LOCAL
EXPERTISE AND REFORMULATION", J.L. Bresina, S.C. Marsella
and C.F. Schmidt.
[ ] LCSR-TR-83 - "THE STABILITY OF THE GAUSS-CHEBYSHEV METHOD FOR
CAUCHY SINGULAR INTEGRAL EQUATIONS", A. Gerasoulis
and R.P. Srivastav.
[ ] ML-TR-6 - "DECIDING WHAT TO LEARN", R.M. Keller.
@end(description)
-------
∂12-Sep-86 0856 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA fredkin check
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 86 08:56:32 PDT
Date: Fri 12 Sep 86 08:56:04-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: fredkin check
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: aaai-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12238366688.11.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John,
David Chudnovsky called and requested a check for $2500 to cover
his expenses for Reggia (?). He said Fredkin would be sending us
a check to cover his expenses. I'm feeling reluctant to send
David his check until we get the check from Fredkin.
Can you find out what's happening with the check so that I can
pay David?
Thanks,
Claudia
-------
∂12-Sep-86 0957 SJG
care to play charades tomorrow night?
∂12-Sep-86 1514 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 86 15:14:02 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Fri, 12 Sep 86 18:02:50 EDT
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 86 18:02:50 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8609122202.AA13172@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
What is the status of reimbursing me?
I recall that a week or more ago Rutie sent me a message
that she was mailing me an invoice to sign and mail back.
I have not received it. Is this still the situation?
Perhaps it has been lost in the mail.
∂12-Sep-86 1535 RA [Reply to message sent: Fri, 12 Sep 86 18:02:50 EDT]
As I told him, I sent him the invoice to be signed, but since he did not get
it so far I will mail him another one today.
∂12-Sep-86 1651 RA [Reply to message recvd: 12 Sep 86 16:11 Pacific Time]
Does chisum.1 go on Stanford letterhead or your home address?
Thanks,
∂12-Sep-86 1748 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Sixth (Final) Topic
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 86 17:46:25 PDT
Date: 12 Sep 1986 14:28:12 EDT
Subject: Sixth (Final) Topic
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: davis@HT.AI.MIT.EDU, tk@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, allen.newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, schank@YALE.ARPA, rhayes-roth@SRI-KL.ARPA,
ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, winograd@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, waltz@GODOT.THINK.COM,
brown.pa@XEROX.COM, kay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, hector%utai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, lenat@MCC.COM,
hollister%ti-csl@RELAY.CS.NET, herb.simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, lehnert%umass@RELAY.CS.NET,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, wilensky@DALI.BERKELEY.EDU,
jlk%gatech.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET, feldman@ROCHESTER.ARPA, norman@NPRDC.ARPA,
lederberg@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, lederberg@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA,
bkph%mit-oz@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU,
sebrecht%weslyn.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU,
hthompson%uk.ac.ed.eusip@CS.UCL.AC.UK,
aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
dts%cstvax.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, litp!jp.uucp@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
cc: ota@A.ISI.EDU, OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU
Here's the sixth topic. It's a bit more speculative than the others, and,
I hope, rather interesting to contemplate.
SIXTH DISCUSSION TOPIC
It is now 2010. Looking back on the experiences between the 1980s and
now, what would you say about 1) how productive the Federal role in artificial
intelligence has been; and 2) how the field has developed differently than
many thought in the 1980s?
We plan this to be the final discussion topic. I will be sending you
another message shortly indicating what the next step is in preparation
of our report to Congress.
If you have any responses to past questions, we're still quite interested;
they'll be most useful if you get them to us by Sept. 23.
Thanks,
Jim Dray, OTA
-------
∂14-Sep-86 1437 SJG re: nsf proposal
[In reply to message rcvd 12-Sep-86 18:29-PT.]
No, this is the first answer I've had from you on this. And no,
you didn't make it clear (assuming that clear is in the eye
of the beholder) that you wouldn't want to PI such a proposal.
But of course I won't include any of your time or Vladimir's.
John, have I upset you somehow over the past whenever? If so,
I wish that you'd explain to me; you've been busy for a lot of
charades parties and certainly seem to be less entusiastic about
my work than you used to be.
But perhaps this is all misperception on my part -- I hope so.
See you,
Matt
∂15-Sep-86 0825 CLT rivin
you are to see him at 11 today
∂15-Sep-86 0900 JMC
c
∂15-Sep-86 0950 RPG Qlisp paper
I'll be at Stanford this afternoon to talk to the
Qlisp candidate. We can go over the paper then.
The problem with your n! example is that the bulk of the
computation in n! is the bignum calculations, and your discussion
avoids that issue. The best way to parallelize n! is to
parallelize bignum multiplication. The second best way is to
break the calculation of n! into a set of parallel multiplications
in which the sizes of the results are about the same.
-rpg-
∂15-Sep-86 1006 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Emigre
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 86 10:05:43 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA03522; Mon, 15 Sep 86 13:04:14 EDT
Received: by jacksun.cs.umd.edu (2.0/3.14)
id AA08118; Mon, 15 Sep 86 11:51:22 edt
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 11:51:22 edt
From: minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu (Jack Minker)
Return-Path: <minker>
Message-Id: <8609151551.AA08118@jacksun.cs.umd.edu>
To: JMC@su-ai.arpa, VAL@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Emigre
Dorothy Hirsch phoned to tell me of an emigree who went
back to the Soviet Union for a meeting. He is:
Shimon Suckever
Plasma Physics Laboratory
Princeton, New Jersey
(619) 683-3000.
Jack
∂15-Sep-86 1421 1F1BROWN%UKANVAX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Re. Frame Workshop
Received: from WISCVM.WISC.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 86 14:21:46 PDT
Received: from (1F1BROWN)UKANVAX.BITNET by WISCVM.WISC.EDU on 09/15/86
at 16:21:09 CDT
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 16:20 CDT
From: <1F1BROWN%UKANVAX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU> (Glenn O. Veach)
Subject: Re. Frame Workshop
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
X-Original-To: "JMC@SU-AI.ARPA", 1F1BROWN
I just wanted to get you my address. If you have any
thoughts on the organization or content of the workshop on
the frame problem, let me know.
Frank M. Brown
∂15-Sep-86 1514 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA logical solutions to the frame problem workshop
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 86 15:14:05 PDT
Date: Mon 15 Sep 86 15:09:42-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: logical solutions to the frame problem workshop
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: aaai-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12239221137.30.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John,
Are you funding the entire request for $9,875?
Claudia
-------
∂15-Sep-86 1707 MAYR@SU-SCORE.ARPA Comp syllabus
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 86 17:07:25 PDT
Date: Mon 15 Sep 86 16:36:53-PDT
From: Ernst W. Mayr <MAYR@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Comp syllabus
To: pratt@SU-SCORE.ARPA, ullman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, floyd@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
manna@SU-SCORE.ARPA, guibas@SU-SCORE.ARPA, papa@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
McCarthy@SU-SCORE.ARPA, nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, knuth@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12239237009.10.MAYR@Score.Stanford.EDU>
It's true, it's getting bigger and bigger. Concerning section II. Theory,
I wonder whether the set {AHU, GJ, Sedgewick} in the present list couldn't
be simply replaced by {AHU (all of it), GJ (1-3,7.5)}. I don't think we
are going to lose any significant material.
One remark about chapter 7 of GJ (which is currently required as a whole):
I think it contains material we don't necessarily expect from comp takers.
I'd be happy to restrict it to the section about log-space (which is 7.5).
As far as the list of courses recommended for Theory goes, I'd like to see
cs260 added to it.
How are other people feeling?
-ernst
-------
∂15-Sep-86 2057 langley@CIP.UCI.EDU Re: machine learning workshop
Received: from CIP.UCI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 86 20:57:34 PDT
Received: from cip2.uci.edu by CIP.UCI.EDU id a001612; 15 Sep 86 20:56 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@su-ai.arpa>
cc: langley@CIP.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: machine learning workshop
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 20:56:00 -0800
From: Pat Langley <langley@CIP.UCI.EDU>
John - Have you tracked down the machine learning workshop proposal yet?
Let me know if we need to send another copy, and I'll take care of it
at this end.
Also, I understand your group has been using Kyoto Common Lisp. Have you
been satisfied with its environment and its performance? I know you're
busy, but maybe you could put me in touch with someone who could tell me
their opinions. Thanks, Pat
∂16-Sep-86 1135 CLT DARPA proposal
I thought you were going to as Shankar to write a section
on interactive theorem proving for the proposal.
Maybe you can talk to him while you are in Texas this week.
∂16-Sep-86 1254 CLT DARPA proposal
yes, I will
∂16-Sep-86 1255 RA sticker
I am going to the parking office to get you an application for a sticker.
∂16-Sep-86 1628 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Contact
Received: from WISCVM.WISC.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 86 16:28:36 PDT
Received: from (ELLIOTT)SLACVM.BITNET by WISCVM.WISC.EDU on 09/16/86 at
18:27:56 CDT
Date: 16 September 86 16:27-PST
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Contact
Date: 16 September 1986, 16:24:50 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SU-AI.ARPA, JMC at SAIL.STANFORD
Subject: Contact
Dear John,
Long time no see. Do you have time to get together? Can we meet for lunch
at the faculty club. This week or late next week will work for me.
Greetings,
Elliott
∂16-Sep-86 1701 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu Contact
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 86 17:01:31 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Tue, 16 Sep 86 17:01:54 pdt
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 86 17:02:17 PDT
From: <ELLIOTT@SLACVM.BITNET>
Reply-To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Contact
Date: 16 September 86 16:27-PST
From: ELLIOTT@SLACVM
To: JMC@SAIL
Subject: Contact
Date: 16 September 1986, 16:24:50 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SU-AI.ARPA, JMC at SAIL.STANFORD
Subject: Contact
Dear John,
Long time no see. Do you have time to get together? Can we meet for lunch
at the faculty club. This week or late next week will work for me.
Greetings,
Elliott
∂17-Sep-86 1039 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:MRC@PANDA infant mortality rate in China
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Sep 86 10:39:13 PDT
Received: from PANDA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with Cafard; Wed 17 Sep 86 10:38:21-PDT
Date: Wed 17 Sep 86 10:26:51-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: infant mortality rate in China
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12239693934.7.MRC@PANDA>
I'm surprised it's that low, considering the relatively low level of
medicine in China. In most of the Third World it is much higher.
There is no excuse for Russia's rate, though.
-------
∂17-Sep-86 1103 MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA Winter books
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Sep 86 11:02:05 PDT
Date: Wed 17 Sep 86 11:01:49-PDT
From: Gina Modica <MODICA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Winter books
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12239700299.26.MODICA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Hi.
I am working on the Winter book orders. You are listed as the instructor for
CS326 -- is this still true? If so, I need the followinf info re: books
you'd like ordered:
titles
authors
publishers
required/optional
Thanks.
-Gina
-------
∂17-Sep-86 1236 RA going our for lunch
I am going out for lunch and will pick up your sticker on my way back. I will
be back around 2:15.
∂17-Sep-86 1237 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM directions
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Sep 86 12:37:27 PDT
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1986 13:46 CDT
Message-ID: <AI.BOYER.12239708498.BABYL@MCC.COM>
From: AI.BOYER@MCC.COM
To: jmc@su-ai
CC: ai.ellie@MCC.COM
Subject: directions
Ellie has booked you at the Brook Hollow.
To get to MCC from Brook Hollow:
Drive as you would have walked towards the old MCC building
from Brook Hollow, but don't enter the parking lots of the
old MCC building. You're on Jollyville Road. Continue past
the old MCC buildings and turn right on 360, then
immediately left at the stop light, a T-intersection.
(You're now on 183.) Continue to Braker Lane, where there
is a stop light. (There are major overhead powerlines
crossing 183 very near the intersection.) Turn right on
Braker Lane. In about a mile, turn right at the MCC sign.
Parking is on the other side of the building.
If you have an old map, it may not show Braker lane connecting
183 with Burnet road. This extension of Braker is as new as
the MCC building.
∂18-Sep-86 0951 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Formalities
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Sep 86 09:50:29 PDT
Date: Thu 18 Sep 86 11:49:04-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Formalities
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12239949199.24.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
I'm all set to move to Stanford next month. I would like to
retain my student visa. One can do that on a post-doc.
I need to have the International Office at Stanford send me
an I-20 form with the details of the appointment.
Regards,
Shankar
-------
∂18-Sep-86 1008 G.BEESON@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU monkey and bananas
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Sep 86 10:08:38 PDT
Date: Thu 18 Sep 86 10:04:09-PDT
From: Michael Beeson <G.BEESON@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: monkey and bananas
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
-------
∂18-Sep-86 1011 G.BEESON@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU monkey and bananas
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Sep 86 10:11:52 PDT
Date: Thu 18 Sep 86 10:07:25-PDT
From: Michael Beeson <G.BEESON@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: monkey and bananas
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
While teaching the old monkey-and-bananas problem to my introductory
ai class yesterday I had a pleasant experience: they found two new
solutions! In addition to the old solution push-chair-to-middle,
climb-chair,grab-banana, they found:
push-chair-to-middle,lift-chair,knock-down-banana-with-chair,pick-up-banana;
and the truly amazing
move-to-location-of-chair,climb-back-of-chair,take-flying-leap,grab-banana,fall.
Note that in the latter solution move-chair-to-middle is omitted.
-------
∂18-Sep-86 1435 RA Matt, Union Bank
Matt at Union Bank returned your call (415) 859 1225.
∂18-Sep-86 1513 CLT TAO machine
To: FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I think some of us (LES, Dick, Joe Weening, myself at least)
would like to see the Demo. It would be best after the
first week of October. Should I send a msg to
Okuno to arrange a time? What is his electronic address?
Who arranges accounts in case someone (probably Joe)
would like to try it out?
Thanks for the info.
∂19-Sep-86 1137 AI.JMC@MCC.COM job
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 86 11:37:51 PDT
Date: Fri 19 Sep 86 13:36:37-CDT
From: John McCarthy <AI.JMC@MCC.COM>
Subject: job
To: air@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12240230922.50.AI.JMC@MCC.COM>
As I mentioned, I think you might find the database project John
Nafeh's company is planning of interest. I suggest you phone him,
today if possible, at 408 943-1711. I talked to him very briefly
about the possibility.
-------
∂19-Sep-86 1148 RA [Reply to message recvd: 19 Sep 86 11:44 Pacific Time]
You told me not to send the Shankar letter yet because you were waiting for
something re that letter.
Rutie
-----
∂19-Sep-86 1156 JUTTA@SU-SCORE.ARPA MSCS Committee meeting
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 86 11:56:16 PDT
Date: Fri 19 Sep 86 11:55:48-PDT
From: Jutta McCormick <JUTTA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: MSCS Committee meeting
To: csms-adm@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: zm@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, pratt@NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU
Stanford-Phone: (415) 723-0572
Message-ID: <12240234415.20.JUTTA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The MSCS Committee (outgoing, continuing, and new members) will meet on
Tuesday, September 30, at 1:15 p.m. in MJH 301. Agenda item is approval of
Summer Quarter degree candidates. Please let me know (jutta@score) whether
or not you will attend.
--Jutta
-------
-------
∂19-Sep-86 1403 LES Shankar position
To: JMC
CC: CLT, RA
I just received the attached message from Shankar requesting post-doc
status. Trouble is, Post-doctoral Affiliates are considered by Stanford
to be advanced students and are paid on a different (lower) salary scale
than Research Associates. The theory is that post-docs come here
primarily to advance their education whereas research associates are here
to work for someone else. The higest paid post-doc at Stanford is
apparently at about $32k, whereas we were offering Shankar $46k.
What do you think we should do about this? Lay it out for Shankar and
give him his choice of positions at different salaries? Try to get him an
exchange visa in time so that he can come as a Research Associate? Try to
get around the Stanford salary schedule (probably difficult)?
∂19-Sep-86 1146 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU formalities
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 86 11:46:33 PDT
Date: Fri 19 Sep 86 13:44:45-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: formalities
To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: RA@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12240232402.46.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
I will be starting work at Stanford in a month. I'd like to retain
my student visa while I am a post-doc and need to have the
Stanford International office mail me an I-20 form with the
details of my appointment. John McCarthy asked me to contact
you regarding this.
Thanks,
Shankar
-------
∂19-Sep-86 1511 RA Inference BOD
The meeting scheduled for 9/23 was postponed to 10/10 at 12:00.
∂20-Sep-86 0917 HST move to konstanz
hi john. how are you? i hope weell.
i move with the 1st of october to the university of konstanz.
i hope in a visit to the us this november.
herbert
∂20-Sep-86 1139 JJW Alliant conference
To: JMC, CLT, LES, RPG
I'm back from the Alliant users group conference and a short visit
at the Argonne Math and Computer Science lab. It was fairly
worthwhile. If you'd like to get together to hear about what I
saw, or ask me individually, please let me know.
∂21-Sep-86 1618 CLT shopping list
lamb or pork chops for supper (4 people, we have veg)
hamburger for tomorrow night if you want (just us)
milk
thomas sourdough muffins
garbage bags
kleenex - boutique and regular
barley
guiness - 6pack
hefty alligator baggies gallon and quart size
ziploc bags gallon and quart size
yellow raisins - 2 pounds
lite bulbs 60,75w
timothy juice - 6pack (6oz) kerns apricot, 6pack (6oz) treetop applej
∂22-Sep-86 1058 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU AI DISC: Douglas Hofstadter Responds to John Searle
Received: from ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 86 10:57:58 PDT
Received: by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.53/1.16)
id AA08707; Mon, 22 Sep 86 10:45:41 PDT
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 10:45:41 PDT
From: vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Vijay Ramamoorthy)
Message-Id: <8609221745.AA08707@ernie.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: AI DISC: Douglas Hofstadter Responds to John Searle
Reply to John Searle by Douglas Hofstadter
First, a nutshell-sized response. I am always amazed that John Searle
can believe that the medium, not the pattern, is what causes "experiences" --
so that a medium other than a brain could undergo identical sequences of
patterns yet without having "experiences". Only BRAINS can experience
anything, says Searle. To me, that is not only mystical, but also incredibly
chauvinistic and incomprehensible. It is a religion, pure and simple. As
for my view not being a serious scientific hypothesis, it's not up to Searle
to say. In any case, in cavalierly dismissing me, he is simultaneously
dismissing large numbers of philosophers, psychologists, AI researchers,
physicists, and cognitive scientists whose views are substantially the same
as mine.
Now let me spell my ideas out a bit more carefully. Searle is up to
his usual tricks with words and imagery. His image of a brain model made of
beer cans and ping-pong balls is cleverly deceptive, because everyone knows
that beer cans and ping-pong balls are basically inert objects, whereas the
matter inside a brain is active. Although Searle grants an isomorphic mapping,
he really is not accepting the meaning of "isomorphism", for in an isomorphism,
one has much more than just a one-to-one correspondence between objects; one
has also a one-to-one correspondence between the relations or interactions
between those objects. So one's image of the brain model has to be augmented
by making the cans and balls ACTIVE objects whose interactions mirror those
of the objects they correspond to in the brain. Once one has this image, then
there is no longer anything so funny about the idea of a gigantic structure
"having experience". Indeed, were you and I as tiny as electrons and protons,
or synapses and axons, we could probably look upon such strange, syntax-bound
objects as the most unlikely candidates to be constituents of a gigantic
"consciousness machine". It would just seem too implausible, too hard to
grasp.
Similarly, Searle just has a terrible time seeing how anything on a
different scale from us could have properties that we have. It is a kind of
"scale chauvinism", something like the chauvinism that would deny that genuine
hurricanes could take place on the surface of a neutron star, because
hurricanes by definition must occur in air, and must be of a certain size.
The notion that the essence of hurricanehood or consciousness is PATTERN, not
material substrate or temporal or spatial scale, is simply beyond Searle.
To bolster this assertion, let me quote two sentences from Searle's
most recent statement:
(1) A VAX 750 is made out of the wrong kind of stuff.
(2) If we ran a "computer simulation" of the brain using a system made
of neurons with axons, dendrites, boutons, receptors, synaptic
clefts and all the rest of it, it would cease to be a simulation
and would be the real thing.
Searle clearly assumes that any two brains have the same "causal
powers" as each other, because he is sure that brains are all made of "the
right stuff". He also clearly believes that a model made of ping-pong balls,
etc. could not have those "causal powers", being made of "the wrong kind of
stuff". It then becomes of utmost importance to be able to determine, given
an object, whether or not it is made of "the right stuff".
How, for example, could one ascertain whether an unknown object that
we have some reason to believe might have the "causal powers" of a brain --
is actually made of the "right stuff"? The object might be brain-like down
to the level of neurons, or even below that level -- but the components below
that level might turn out to be made out of some completely different
substance. So how can we test this object for "right-stuff-ness"?
Presumably first of all one needs to be convinced that it is patterned
the right way in terms of more elementary components (say, cell-like entities).
If it has a sufficiently different organization from a real brain at that
level, one may well reject the notion that it has the right "causal powers".
(Thus, a mere heap of neurons would not generally be considered to possess
the same properties as a living brain.) Secondly, one needs to assure oneself
that the subunits (the cell-like entities) of the questionable object are in
turn made of the "right stuff" (i.e., the same stuff as the corresponding
entities of a real brain). Thus one takes an alleged cell from the alleged
brain and checks whether it behaves sufficiently much like a cell from a real
brain.
Actually, I seriously doubt that Searle would be convinced by such a
behavioral test (a "Turing test") of the alleged cell. The way I read him,
right behavior ("right syntax") would convince him of nothing. Searle would
be convinced he was dealing with genuine brain-cells only if the objects in
question passed a stringent test of "right-stuff-ness" on their level. Thus:
he would want (1) to make sure that in terms of some lower-level units (e.g.,
molecules), the alleged cell is patterned in roughly the same way as a real
brain-cell is, and if so, (2) to make sure that the alleged molecules are in
turn made of "the right stuff", at THEIR level.
This is beginning to sound like a lengthy recursion. Definitely!
Indeed, any "right-stuff-ness" test leads one either into an infinite regress
on ever-finer scales, or to a bottoming-out on some specific level, where one
agrees not to look further, being satisfied with the fact that the BEHAVIOR
of the item on that level is sufficiently "right".
In short, "right-stuff-ness" at a sufficiently microscopic level is
detectable only by operational tests. (This argument against Searle might thus
be called "reductio ad operationem".) Ultimately, pattern (or behavior, or
syntax -- all synonymous terms) is all there is to rely on, in deciding what
kind of stuff anything is made of. There is simply nothing deeper to look at
than HOW SOMETHING BEHAVES, when you reach a sufficiently tiny scale. Thus
a kind of "Turing test" (i.e., an observational test of behavior from the
outside) on the micro-level is the only way we can ascertain whether we are
dealing with genuine electrons, genuine carbon atoms, genuine amino acids,
genuine DNA, genuine dendrites, genuine neurons.
The recursively-structured test of "right-stuff-ness" has to bottom
out somewhere if it is not to be an infinite regress. At that bottom level,
all that is left is FORMAL PROPERTIES -- syntax. It is the proper "syntax"
(behavioral patterns) of the quarks (or wherever Searle feels the appropriate
bottom level lies -- it doesn't matter a hoot to me) composing the alleged
brain that reassures members of the Searlian religion that that object is
really made of "the right stuff", and thus that it has the right "causal
powers", and thus that it has genuine "semantics". In short, syntax (on
a sufficiently microscopic level) is sufficient for semantics.
The following example may be useful. Suppose there were a perfect
copy of a particular human brain (Searle's, for amusement) that was made out
of antimatter -- in other words, a complete particle-by-particle isomorph,
with electrons replaced by positrons, protons by antiprotons, etc. Would
Searle feel that this object had the same "causal powers" as his brain does?
Would this anti-brain "cause" a Searlian mind? Or a Searlian anti-mind? It
is perhaps relevant to quote again from Searle's recent statement:
Are we supposed to think that if we could just get some system
that had a "syntactical" or formal structure of elements that
was isomorphic to the elements of the brain processes, that that
system would have exactly the same experiences that human beings
have when they take cocaine?
The scoffing tone of this quote would lead one to believe that Searle would
ridicule the notion that such an anti-brain might be a possible site of
"experiences" or "semantics", for clearly, if ANYTHING is made of "the wrong
stuff", such an anti-brain is. You can't get further away from genuine matter
than anti-matter!
If Searle feels this way, then not only do he and I part company, but
I would guess that he and virtually the entire scientific world would part
company at that point. Every scientist I know would agree that an anti-being
with such an anti-brain would have anti-experiences that would be totally
equivalent to our "anti-anti-experiences".
But then again, sly devil that he is, perhaps Searle would trick me
at this point, and agree that obviously, since anti-matter resembles ordinary
matter so deeply, such a perfectly isomorphic object would be every bit as
good a candidate for genuine "semantic experiences" as a real brain would.
If so, I would submit that he had thereby conceded the entire point to me
-- namely, that isomorphism of pattern, NOT "right-stuff-ness", is what tells
us when something has or lacks a given property, including the property he
variously calls "being made of the right stuff", "having the right causal
powers", "having content", "having experience", or "having semantics".
Let me suppose that Searle concedes to me some of this, but still
argues as follows. "Of course you can substitute `wrong stuff' at a
sufficiently microscopic level, and it will make no difference to causal
powers several levels higher in the system. But that is totally irrelevant.
What I'm arguing is that you can't substitute computers for brains, or for
neurons, or for dendrites and axons, etc.. You've got to have the right
chemistry and physics and so forth there. But obviously, anti-chemistry
will do just as well." Effectively, this amounts to a religious proclamation
as to what level genuine experience depends on. It would be, by Searlian
decree, below the whole-brain level, below the cellular level, below the
dendrite-and-axon level -- but above the particle level. This would amount to
a totally dogmatic assertion as to what is necessary and what is dispensable,
for the presence of genuine "experience", "semantics", or "content". This
is why I feel that Searle's position is nothing but a religion disguised as
a scientific philosophy of mind, based wholly on emotional appeals to naive
intuitions, and bolstered by cleverly worded statements carefully designed
to create highly misleading imagery.
===============================================================================
∂22-Sep-86 1053 AIR ebos
Here are my thoughts about EBOS. In case you need a printed copy, it is file
EBOS3.TXT[1,AIR]. You would probably like to look at Carolyne's comments,
they are included as Appendix III.
If this is close to what you want, I will fill some gaps and correct whatever
you think needs a correction.
I. Editor.
The user normally is in the editor editing file "History" and most of the time
just adding text to the end.
The additional features of this editor should be:
a) File consists of separate items ( or pages in E terminology)
b) Each item is one input from user to OS
or
c) One response from the system
or
d) One output from the running program
There should be editor commands to:
e) Delete the item.
f) Delete the item separator.
g) Execute the item, which should be special command
and not the standard CR, because normally CR will be used to create
multiline OS program.
h) Convert LISP notation into C notation
i) Convert C notation into LISP notation
j) Expand using available programs description
k) Complete the names
The editor should be able to do normal operations like excange pieces of
text between different files etc.
II. OS language
The OS language is subset of LISP.
The following LISP construction are permited:
a) IF test then [else]
b) WHEN test {form}*
c) UNLESS test {form}*
d) COND {(test {form}*)}*
e) CASE keyform {({({key}*)|key}{form}*)}*
f) BLOCK name {form}*
g) RETURN-FROM [result]
h) RETURN [result]
i) LOOP {form}*
j) DO ({(var [init[step]])}*)(end-test[result}*){form}*
k) DOLIST ( var listform [result]) {form}*
l) DOTIMES ( var countform [result]) {form}*
m) DEFUN ...
n) DEFMACRO
o) lambda-expession
p) mapping functions
q) SETQ {var form}*
r) LET ...
s) MAKE-FILE-LIST filename ; partially specified
Some standard functions like '+', '-', etc are permitted.
Each form is interpreted as a special form, macro, user defined function
or program.
III. Syntax sugaring in program calls
If the form is a program then the argument list could be abbreviated:
Some arguments could be omitted
For some string arguments (namely file names) parts could be omited
The OS would expand abbreviated argument list. In order to do this OS
needs some information describing particular program. This information
will be supplied to the OS by the program developer and could be modified
at later time without modifiing the program. There is even the posibility
that some user would have a customized description of particular programs.
The set of function, their syntax and internal data structure for program
description will be presented in V. and VI.
IV. Using the programs in expressions.
Using the program as a function poses a special problem. Normally program
would not return anything but probably ERROR CODE and not accept anything
but strings. Normally also the program controls the connection of streams
(internal objects) to the files (external object) giving the OS the name of
the file. The exeptions are for example some special streams in UNIX system
(STTDIN, STDOUT etc.). Connections of those streams are controled by OS; they
are normally connected to the files representing terminal, but OS could connect
these stream to different files to fulfil command line request. The fact that
the program uses those special streams leaving for OS selection of approprite
files permits arrange pipelike interface in UNIX.
It is assumed here that one of our goals is to be able to support efficient
"pipelike" data exchange between caller and callee. This assumptation leads
us to the need of generalization of the above described properties of the special
streams in UNIX. Namely we need to provide the mechanism for the program to deal
with the arbitrary number of streams in a such a way that connection of those
streams to the files would be left for OS. And this implies that OS needs some
information outside of the program to arrange these connections.
The informaton describing program input and output is the second half of the program
description.
V. Program description function.
Here the list of the program description function
Install description of the whole program
PROGDESC PROGID '({(pardesc)}*) '({(portdesc)}*) (1)
where pardesc is the description of one parameter
pardesc ::= {parfeature}*
parfeature ::= :KEY ID [flagform]
| :NAME ID
| :OPTIONAL {defform|(FILEDEF
{:FROM ID|ID|NIL} {:FROM ID|ID|NIL})
| :TYPE {NUM|INT|STR|SET ({ID}*)|FILE }
| :RESTRICT upperform lowerform
| :REST
and portdesc is the description of one input or output of the program
portdesc ::= ID {:INPUT|:OUTPUT} [PIPEABLE] [:ASSOS ID
[(FILEDEF {:FROM ID|ID|NIL} {:FROM ID|ID|NIL})]]
Retrive description of the program
GETPROGDESC PROGID (2)
Install in existing description of the program PROGID new description of
one parameter
PARMDESC PROGID key pos pardesc (3)
where key or pos could be NIL, if neither is NIL and they contradict then
an error is reported
Remove description of one parameter
REMPAR PROGID {pos|:KEY key} (4)
Retrive description of one parameter from the description of the program
GETPAR PROGID {pos|:KEY key} (5)
Install new description of one port into existing program descripton
PORTDESC PROGID portdesc (6)
Remove description of one port from description of the program
REMPORT PROGID name (7)
Retrieve port description
GETPORT PROGID name (8)
VI. Data structure of program description
The internal data structure of program description follows almost literally
the format of the PROGDESC function call with the exeption that the description
of one parameter converted into A-list.
VII. Examples
Fortran compiler description could be
(PROGDESC FORTRAN
'( (:NAME SOURCE :OPTIONAL (FILENAME TEST FRT) :TYPE FILE )
(:NAME OPTMIZE :OPTIONAL SPEED :TYPE SET ( SPEED SIZE ))
(:NAME REL :OPTIONAL (FILENAME (FROM SOURCE) REL)
:TYPE FILE)
(:NAME LIST :OPTIONAL (FILENAME (FROM SOURCE) LST)
:TYPE FILE)
(:NAME LISTOPT :KEY LIST LISTYES :OPTIONAL NOLIST :TYPE SET
(LISTYES NOLIST)))
'( (REL :OUTPUT PIPEABLE)
(SOURCE :INPUT PIPEABLE)))
This will result in the following expantions
(fortran) => test.frt speed test.rel test.lst nolist
(fortran foo) => foo.frt speed foo.rel foo.lst nolist
(fortran foo :list) => foo.frt speed foo.rel foo.lst listyes
(fortran newfoo size foo) => newfoo.frt size foo.rel newfoo.
lst nolst
Link description could be
(PROGDESC LINK
'( (:NAME REL :OPTIONAL (FILENAME TEST REL) :TYPE FILE :REST)
(:NAME EXEC :OPTINAL (FILENAME (FROM REL) EXE) :KEY EXEC
:TYPE FILE)
(:NAME LIB :OPTIONAL (FILENAME LIB LIB) :KEY LIB TYPE FILE))
'( (REL :INPUT PIPEABLE)
(EXEC :OUTPUT PIPEABLE)))
If there is a call
(link(fortran foo))
these two description would result in:
a) the call to fortran
(fortran foo) => foo.frt speed foo.rel foo.lst nolist
and b) the call to link
(link foo.rel foo.exe lib.lib)
but the file foo.rel actually would not be created, instead
the OS would use description of INPUT in LINK and description
of OUTPUT in FORTRAN to arange a pipe.
Now consider what modifications we need if FORTRAN produces two files:
REL file with relocatable code
DBG file with debug information
and LINK also consumes two files
To accomodate this we need to do the following:
(PORTDESC FORTRAN '(DBG :OUTPUT :PIPEABLE :ASSOS REL
(FILENAME (FROM REL) DBG)))
(PORTDESC LINK '(DBG :INPUT :PIPEABLE :ASSOS REL
(FILENAME (FROM REL) DBG)))
These additional ports specifications would cause the creation of additional
pipe between link and fortran.
Note1: in case of more then one pipe deadlock is possible when consumer waits
for empty pipe and producer is waiting for the room in another full pipe. OS
must be prepared to provide for pipe overfill.
Note2: UNIX pipe notation assumes parallel execution and UNIX provides for
specifiing paralell or sequential execution in other cases. It is open question
how should we handle parallelism: employ some linguistic means or develope some
reasonable default rules or both.
Note3: I still do not know how to express natural desire to do a compilation with
one output (REL) going to linker and another (LIST) going to the some kind of
pretty printer program. And to do it in parallel, with pipelike file arrangement.
VIII. Top level sugaring.
Alternative C like syntax is provided. Correspondence between LISP like
notation and C like notation could be found in Appendix 1. As was mentioned
in I. the editor will be able to translate command langage between those two
notations.
If the first non blank character in top level command language expression
is '(' then LISP notation is assumed, C notation is assumed otherwise.
IX. Alternative approach to syntactic sugaring.
Appendix II contains description of alternative and more general approach to
syntactic sugaring. It seems to be overkill, but it presented here
nevertheless.
!Appendix I.
To be supplied.
!Appendix II.
I.SYNTACTIC SUGARING
What is syntactic sugaring [SYSU] in broad sense?
Let L be a language of our OS, then the SYSA is some different language L' plus
a mapping
L' => L.
How then a user could specify SYSU? For example he/she can write a special program
which would perform the mapping. We would prefer somehow a more regular and
organized approach, something less "Ad hoc". Fortunately the task of arranging
such a mapping is not a new problem. This is old and familiar problem of
a compiler. As soon as we recognize this, we have at our disposal the rich
expertise of compiler theory and practice.
One obvious proposition is to use a modified YACC, a widely used tool for
syntactic analysis and translation. Now the SYSU would be described in
YACCize, with BNF used to describe the syntax of L', and normally C to control
the semantic and building the apropriate expression in L. With some trivial modi-
fications LISP could (and I think should) be used instead of C. YACC probably
should be modified for other reasons which I will address later. After the SYSU
will be specified or modified it will be processed by YACC and as a result
a new personal version of the command parser will be created. This YACCize may
be used as the internal representation of the SYSU, accessible to the user.
Example: to be supplied.
II.OH, HOW SWEET THE SUGARED SUGAR CAN BE
Appreciating (hopefully) the power and flexibility of the above mentioned approach
we have to admit that it is still a complicated task to create some reasonably
meaningfull SYSU using it. It would be nice if we could provide some additional
tools to simplify this task in typical situations. I would call this sugar
squared. For example we would like to be able to describe the program interface
using the keywords and syntax for the parameter list of a lambda-expresion and
have it translated into the standard description of SYSU.
!Appendix III.
||||||| There are comments by CLT |||||||
I. Editor.
In the Lisp tradition items would just be printed representation
of data structures - which should include in our case
commands and the components of commands as substructures.
In addition one probably needs the option of treating this
as a character string.
This is probable consistent with what you have said.
II. OS language
I think we want all of the basic lisp data structures
- numbers, strings, pairs, arrays, ports (or whatever they call
the basic file objects) streams, -- etc.
including the operations on them. Thus
s) MAKE-FILE-LIST filename ; partially specified
would be under this category
We probably want to define some additional datastructures.
Also we probably want capability of multiple arguments and values
- i.e. `vari-ary' functions
q) SETQ {var form}*
Maybe we want a generalized assignment such as SETF
Are programs just lisp functions with additional
information declared about them so they can be used as commands?
III. Syntax shugaring in program calls
[What about command editing and completion and help?]
IV. Using the programs in expressions.
I don't see why a program ``normally only accepts strings''. Certainly
this is not the case in Lisp. It seems to me that such a restriction
is artificial and not a good idea if we are going to accept the richer Lisp
world of data structures.
V. Program description function.
Do we want to assume that file names are simple (name,extension) pairs?
This may be too restrictive.
A description of the semantics of `parfeature' and `portdesc'
(in addition to the examples) would help.
VII. Examples
What does it mean for a pipe to overfill?
∂22-Sep-86 1303 CLT boyles visit
To: JMC, LES, JJW, RPG
Jim Boyle from Argonne will visit here on Monday Oct. 6th
He has done some interesting work using program transformations
to map pure lisp programs into parallel fortran
(i.e. parallel lisp abstract machine implemented in parallel fortran)
and also work on instrumenting programs to measure shared resource
contention and the effect on (lackof) speedup.
I have arranged for a demo of the TAO/ELIS system at 11:30 in
S-101 (Sumex-Aim machine room) in the Medical School.
The demo will be given by Gitchang Okuno one of the designers
and implementors of this system. (Let me know if you want to
see the demo, too.)
There will be informal discussion of parallel lisp implementation
at 2pm (room tba).
Boyle will give a seminar at 4:15.
∂22-Sep-86 1440 VAL top[e86,jmc]
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Sep-86 11:07-PT.]
1. I don't understand the sentence:
From this it deduces that an object cannot be moved to its own top as
a general proposition.
This seems to be a part of your axioms, there is nothing to deduce.
2. To decide whether e is possible in situation s we don't have to reason
about result(e,s); but, once we know e is possible, we may allow reasoning
about the resulting situation in order to determine ALL consequences of the
action. For instance, we may have an axiom saying that x is on y after successfully
moving x onto y, and an axiom saying that x can't be at two places simultaneously,
and then we'll derive that x isn't in its former place anymore. This seems to be
compatible with the strategy you describe.
(This is what Ginsberg and Smith call the "inferred consequence problem". They
observe that STRIPS doesn't do this kind of reasoning).
∂22-Sep-86 1541 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Workshop on Foundations
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 86 15:41:31 PDT
Date: 22 Sep 1986 18:42 EDT (Mon)
Message-ID: <KIRSH.12241062075.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Kirsh <KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: kirsh%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Workshop on Foundations
John,
Thanks for granting us the funds. I'm enclosing a copy of our
suggested guidelines and a list of participants. Any suggestions how
we might ensure that people get their papers in on time?
-- David
\typesize=12pt
\vparfalse
\subsection{I/ LOGIC:}
Chair - McCarthy
Main - Nilsson
Comm - (McDermott)
\subsection{II/ MESSAGE PASSING:}
Chair - Nilsson
Main - Hewitt
Comm - McCarthy
\subsection{III/ CONNECTIONIST:}
Chair - (Rumelhart)
Main - (Hopfield or Rumelhart)
Comm - Bobrow
\subsection{IV/ HOW DEEP IS THE VISION PROBLEM:}
Chair - ()
Main - Poggio
Comm - (Kirsh)
\subsection{V/ ANALOGICAL REASONING:}
Chair - (Gentner/Mitchell/Carbonell) %% `/' means `or'
Main - Winston
Comm - (Mitchell/ Gentner/ Kirsh)
\subsection{VI/ SOCIETY OF MIND:}
Chair - (Papert)
Main - Minsky
Comm - Rumelhart
\subsection{VII/ PRODUCTIONS:}
Chair - ()
Main - Young
Comm - Norman
\subsection{VIII/ ADEQUACY OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY:}
Chair - (Davis)
Main - Feigenbaum and Lenat
Comm - Brian Smith and Seeley Brown
\end
\typesize=12pt
\section{\centerline{ SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR SPEAKERS}}
\subsection{WORKSHOP ON FOUNDATIONS OF AI}
June 23rd-27th, 1987. ENDICOTT HOUSE, MA.
\offindent
\subsection{FORMAT}
The main talk will be 45 min. long, followed by 15 min. of purely
clarificatory questions. There will be a 20 min. commentary with 10
min. clarificatory questions, then 30 min. general discussion.
The main talk will have two parts: Part A states the thesis and
illustrates it; Part B discusses the scope and limits of the approach
or method. The commentary focuses primarily on the scope and limits
of the approach or method.
\subsection{THE MAIN SPEAKER'S GUIDELINES - first draft due 1st March 1987;
Presentation Time - 45 Minutes}
\subsection{A/ THESIS}
\onindent
\ftpar{1.} State what the basic thesis is.
\ftpar{2.} Discuss the principles underpinning the method or approach.
Describe the natural type of problems and tasks in which this approach
succeeds.
\ftpar{3.} Differentiate your position from others that are
superficially like it. That is, state what your position is not to be
confused with.
\ftpar{4.} Show an exemplary application of the method or approach --
a simple example carefully chosen to highlight different aspects of
the approach.
\ftpar{5.} Explain where the power resides in the method or approach.
\subsection{B/ SCOPE AND LIMITS}
\ftpar{6.} Discuss the scope and limits of the approach.
\ftpar{7.} Identify particular difficulties and provide a concrete
problem that illustrates each.
\ftpar{8.} Analyze each difficulty. Can the approach be adapted to
overcome the difficulty.
\ftpar{9.} Are there any difficulties that you think are
insurmountable?
\subsection{THE COMMENTATOR'S GUIDELINES - first draft due 1st May 1987;
Presentation Time - 20 Minutes}
\ftpar{1.} Evaluate the source of power of the method or approach as
presented by the main speaker. State why you think the
method/approach works and why it fails. Use examples to illustrate your
points.
\ftpar{2.} Comment on the scope and limits of the method/approach.
Where does it succeed and why; where does it fail and why.
\ftpar{3.} Time permitting: discuss briefly the adequacy of the main
speaker's formulation of the thesis.
\subsection{DATES:}
\offindent
March 1st Main Speaker's first draft.
March 15th Organizer's comments (primarily on clarity).
April 1st Revised draft sent to commentator.
May 1st Draft due from commentator.
May 15 th Organizer's comments on commentator's draft.
June 1st All drafts due for conference prepublication.
June 23rd-27th WORKSHOP
August 15th Final drafts for book version of proceedings.
\end
∂22-Sep-86 1957 langley@CIP.UCI.EDU Re: machine learning workshop
Received: from CIP.UCI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 86 19:57:34 PDT
Received: from cip2.uci.edu by CIP.UCI.EDU id a001159; 22 Sep 86 17:48 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@su-ai.arpa>
cc: langley@CIP.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: machine learning workshop
In-reply-to: Your message of 22 Sep 86 1713 PDT.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 17:48:30 -0800
From: Pat Langley <langley@CIP.UCI.EDU>
I just put another copy in the mail, John. The proposed starting date
wasn't until January 1, 1987, so I doubt the delay will hurt much. Pat
P.S. Could you point me to your expert on Kyoto Common Lisp?
∂23-Sep-86 0429 BONNIE@cis.upenn.edu re: Workshop proposal
Received: from LINC.CIS.UPENN.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 86 04:29:35 PDT
Posted-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 07:26 EDT
Message-Id: <8609231128.AA29775@linc.cis.upenn.edu>
From: Bonnie Webber <Bonnie@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: re: Workshop proposal
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 07:26 EDT
Thanks John. We will send you our proposal in the next few weeks.
B.
∂23-Sep-86 0719 MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU peace week
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 86 07:19:12 PDT
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1986 08:54 EDT
Message-ID: <MINSKY.12241217257.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: peace week
In-reply-to: Msg of 22 Sep 1986 20:58-EDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
I don't know the sign. In weak moment I agreed because Hubel and
Shelley did. Turns out they don't know much about it, either.
∂23-Sep-86 0816 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Emigres
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 86 08:12:23 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA18263; Tue, 23 Sep 86 11:10:01 EDT
Received: by jacksun.cs.umd.edu (2.0/3.14)
id AA11705; Tue, 23 Sep 86 09:59:59 edt
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 09:59:59 edt
From: minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu (Jack Minker)
Return-Path: <minker>
Message-Id: <8609231359.AA11705@jacksun.cs.umd.edu>
To: JMC@su-ai.arpa, VAL@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Emigres
Dorothy Hirsch sent me the following information regarding
John's initial query:
"In addition to Shimon Suckever, a plasma physicist
at Princeton (609)683-3000, I have learned of another
Soviet emigre scientist who returned to the USSR on
a scientific visit. He is S.A. Khaeifetz of the
Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory. Khaeifetz
reportedly attended the International Conference on
Accelerators of High Energy Particles in Novosobirsk
in August 1986. We are told that he had a very good visit,
which included visits to the family he left behind."
Jack
∂23-Sep-86 0900 JMC
call bank
∂23-Sep-86 0934 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU Follow-up Queries
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 86 09:34:09 PDT
Date: 23 Sep 1986 12:01:48 EDT
Subject: Follow-up Queries
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: davis@HT.AI.MIT.EDU, tk@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, allen.newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, schank@YALE.ARPA, rhayes-roth@SRI-KL.ARPA,
ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, winograd@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, waltz@GODOT.THINK.COM,
brown.pa@XEROX.COM, kay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, hector%utai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, lenat@MCC.COM,
hollister%ti-csl@RELAY.CS.NET, herb.simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, lehnert%umass@RELAY.CS.NET,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, wilensky@DALI.BERKELEY.EDU,
jlk%gatech.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET, feldman@ROCHESTER.ARPA, norman@NPRDC.ARPA,
lederberg@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, lederberg@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA,
bkph%mit-oz@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU,
sebrecht%weslyn.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU,
hthompson%uk.ac.ed.eusip@CS.UCL.AC.UK,
aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU,
dts%cstvax.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, litp!jp.uucp@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
cc: ota@A.ISI.EDU, OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU
Our current plan is to summarize the results of the computer conference,
and put that summary together with the other research and policy analysis
we have done to make the ultimate report to Congress. We're trying to
make the whole package reasonably concise -- say, 30-40 pages.
We'll send you a copy of the report for your review, additional thoughts,
corrections, suggestions, etc., within a few weeks (we hope). If you
would like the draft sent to a different address than the one we
used for your package of material at the start of the conference (or
if for some reason you did not receive a package of material at the start
of the conference), please send us an updated address.
A related question: We've found the computer conference itself fascinating,
and would like to share excerpts of it with others who are interested
in the medium on an informal basis. We will of course send you a copy
of the excerpted version as well, if you're interested. If you have any
reservations about sharing an excerpted transcript, or would like any
particular comments of yours rendered anonymous in that version, please
let us know.
We appreciate your participation, and have enjoyed working with you.
Jim Dray, OTA
-------
∂23-Sep-86 1021 OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU [Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>: [Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>: Contribution to panel discussion]]
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 86 10:20:51 PDT
Date: 23 Sep 1986 12:36:34 EDT
Subject: [Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>: [Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>: Contribution to panel discussion]]
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: ar@ALV.UMD.EDU, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, ohlander@B.ISI.EDU,
ar@ALV.UMD.EDU, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: ota@A.ISI.EDU, OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU, chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
Messrs. Ohlander, Rosenfeld, McCarthy:
Could I get your reaction to a view expressed by Gary Chapman, enclosed?
I know it's a bit long and perhaps hard to respond to, but I think it's
important to get other views and reactions on it.
Thanks,
Jim Dray, OTA
---------------
Date: 17 Sep 1986 11:22:34 EDT
Subject: [Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>: Contribution to panel discussion]
From: Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
To: ota-cit@A.ISI.EDU
Return-Path: <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>
Received: FROM RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU BY USC-ISI.ARPA WITH TCP ; 13 Sep 86 00:51:15 EDT
Received: by russell.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Thu, 11 Sep 86 16:00:59 pdt
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 16:00:59 pdt
From: Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>
Subject: Contribution to panel discussion
To: ota@-cit@usc-isi, ota@usc-isi
Cc: BrianSmith.pa@xerox.com, WINOGRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The following is a long, single response to a number of the topics that have
been raised for discussion with the panel studying the Federal role of research
and development funding for artificial intelligence.
This response is from Gary Chapman, Executive Director of Computer Professionals
for Social Responsibility. This does not represent any official position of
CPSR, it is purely my own opinion.
My "specialty," such as it is, is the role that artificial intelligence is
playing in the development of new weapons systems, and how these weapons systems
are to be deployed and used. I am not a computer scientist, I am a political
scientist. My graduate training is in international security, arms control and
political philosophy. I also served with the United States Army Special Forces
and I was a "tester" of advanced technology systems under consideration for
procurement by the Army. I have a reasonable familiarity with the technical
bases of advanced computer technology, including AI, parallel processing, expert
systems and so on, but I am not an artificial intelligence researcher, and I
have no experience in dealing with Federal agencies that fund AI research.
Having said that, I have a lot to say on the subjects that have been raised.
DARPA, AI RESEARCH AND WEAPONS
It is clear that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been the
principal source of funding for AI research in the United States, and equally
clear that DARPA has had an outstanding record in promoting significant research
and getting a lot for its money. It has often been called a model research and
development agency. It has a track record for finding smart people and
supporting them wisely that is unmatched. Computer science in the United States
would not be where it is today without DARPA and the people who have passed
through it, people like J.C.R. Licklider, Larry Roberts, Bob Kahn, Bob Taylor,
Ivan Sutherland, et. al.
With such a reputation, it is not surprising that the computer science research
community, and particularly those involved in AI research, would feel pretty
good about working with DARPA. Computer scientists have considered DARPA
contracts to be prestigious and significant, and DARPA has had a reputation of
funding very open-ended research while at the same time avoiding frivolous or
arcane projects. My impression is that most computer scientists feel they're
lucky to have DARPA, and that the agency should continue to function as it has
for the past twenty-eight years. Even critics of DARPA admit that its record
has been outstanding. James Botkin and Dan Dimancescu, writing in the book *The
Militarization of High Technology*, state, "The progress and innovation sparked
by DARPA is truly impressive, especially in light of its relatively modest
budget."
In October 1983, DARPA announced the Strategic Computing Initiative, an
ambitious, five-year, $600 million program to put advanced computer technology
into conventional weapons systems. The SCI originally proposed three end-use
systems: an autonomous land vehicle (ALV), a pilot's associate, and a battle
management system for aircraft carrier task forces. In the winter of 1985, a
fourth program was added: the Airland Battle Management System, a corps-level
computerized command and control network for land-based military forces.
The purpose of the SCI was probably best summed up in the CPSR paper "Strategic
Computing: An Assessment," by Brian Smith, Lucy Suchman and Severo Ornstein:
Faster battles push us to rely more on computers, but
current computers cannot handle the increased uncertainty
and complexity. This means that we have to rely on
people. But without computer assistance, people can't
cope with the complexity and unpredictability either. So
we need new, more powerful computer systems.
I don't think it's necessary to repeat the arguments made in this CPSR paper on
the SCI, which is readily available since it was published in the *Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists* (December, 1984). I will refer to these arguments in the
course of my comments. They address the issue of reliability in complex
programs that are confronted with highly contingent environments. This is an
important area of discussion, but I'm going to refer to it only tangentially
since it is covered so well both in that paper and in the paper by Brian Smith,
"The Limits of Correctness" (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill
Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303).
I want to talk instead about the purpose of the Strategic Computing Initiative:
its integration into a comprehensive revision of American military doctrine, and
what this means for the nature of research and development in artificial
intelligence.
There have been many rationales attached to the SCI. Some have suggested that
the SCI is an American response to the Japanese Fifth Generation Project. The
two programs have some similarities, including a focus on AI, speech
recognition, computer vision and high-speed processing. They also have similar
budgets of about $1 billion for ten years of work. DARPA and ICOT (Institute
for New Generation Computer Technology) have roughly similar reputations,
although they are organized differently. The principal difference between the
two programs is that the Japanese Fifth Generation Project's original report
says that the program is designed to meet social needs, while the SCI is clearly
oriented to military plans. The Fifth Generation Project report explicitly
rules out any military applications of its research.
The rationale for funding the SCI because it will keep American R&D competitive
with that of Japan appeals to many members of Congress with high tech
constituencies and those concerned with the Japanese-American trade balance. It
also appeals to business leaders in the high tech fields, who, despite their
usual laissez-faire rhetoric, are very supportive of government- industry
collaboration approaching the Japanese example.
This rationale of industrial competitiveness gets a little thin when the
evidence is examined, however. The 1985 Report of the President's Commission on
Industrial Competitiveness, chaired by John Young, the president of
Hewlett-Packard, says that too much of American R&D is oriented to military
purposes at the expense of commercial applications. The Commission called for
the development of a cabinet-level Department of Science and Technology with an
R&D budget designed to promote significant technologies for the purpose of
remaining competitive in R&D. The Commission said that R&D is the *only*
industrial sector in which the United States still has a lead, and that this is
disappearing. The Commission report notes that since World War II, military
spending has accounted for approximately 40% of all U.S. R&D expenditures.
Clark Thompson of the University of Minnesota estimates that about *two-thirds*
of computer science R&D is related to military projects.
The arguments about commercial "spin-offs" from military research are
controversial and never-ending. It is clear that there are a great number of
"spin-offs" from military aircraft research, for example, while other military
technologies have probably had a negative effect on commercial development. The
metamorphosis of nuclear reactors used in ships and submarines in the Navy into
public utility power plants has produced a financial disaster, for example.
Several papers on the VHSIC (Very High-Speed Integrated Circuit) program of
DARPA indicate that military specifications for these circuits have restrained
the transfer of this technology into the commerical sector (See "Public Policy
for New Technology: The VHSIC Program of the Department of Defense," by Judith
V. Reppy, Peace Studies Program, Cornell University.)
What is most probable is that there would be a larger impact on the commercial
market if high technology R&D funding were oriented more toward that market
instead of to the military. When R&D funding is aimed principally at developing
specific military systems, commercial applications are produced only by
accident, or at best haphazardly. Moreover, as military systems become more and
more specific and expensive, commercial applications produced even haphazardly
will become increasingly rare. If it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to
produce a facility capable of advanced computer simulation of battle management
systems, and if all the people working at such a facility are dedicated to
battle management, it is highly unlikely that such an effort will produce
something as commercially useful and profitable as if the money were spent on
supporting several teams of researchers working on something more generic, such
as problems of distributed computation.
The SCI may be described as a program competitive with the Japanese Fifth
Generation Project, but if this is its primary mission it is likely to do
poorly. By orienting its goals to specific military projects, the SCI is going
to compete with the Japanese only as an afterthought, and therefore not very
successfully.
Another rationale for the SCI that has been heard is that it was a clever
"packaging" job of some very arcane technologies in order to sell an R&D program
to Congress and the rest of DoD. If this is what was on the minds of DARPA
officials they have not fared well, because DARPA has recently been subject to a
series of painful budget cuts, primarily as the Reagan administration has moved
cuts around to protect the Strategic Defense Initiative. Moreover, even DARPA's
strongest supporter in the Congress, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, is not
happy with the goals of the SCI--he thinks they are too development-oriented and
too tied to specific military procurement demands.
Yet another rationale for the SCI has been that AI, robotics and other computer
science research need "goals" and a structured program of "technology pull" to
get the best results. I am not qualified to assess this assertion, but in any
case it begs the question of why DARPA should choose the particular goals the
SCI now has. A case would have to be made that for basic research in AI and
other fields, orienting the research to an autonomous vehicle, a pilot's
associate and two battle management systems is the best way to produce results
with *general* utility.
Despite the remaining wisps of such rationales, what is clear is that the real
purpose of the Strategic Computing Initiative is to build military systems,
particularly advanced weapons. This has been clear from the beginning of the
program and so it is somewhat remarkable that other rationales have even
appeared. The various rationales that do not refer to weapons or military
doctrine are curious evidence of denial on the part of many researchers that
they are participating in the military-industrial sector. Many of these
researchers maintain that they are only doing DARPA business as usual, even
after the appearance of the SCI.
But it is more and more apparent that the SCI and the new style it has brought
to DARPA are not DARPA business as usual. The announcement of the Airland
Battle Management project in November 1985 clinched this: the Strategic
Computing Initiative is integrated into a radical new version of American
military doctrine and strategy called Airland Battle or Army 20. The
researchers working on Strategic Computing are part of a national effort to
increase the lethality and efficiency of conventional weapons systems, and
perhaps even of strategic systems like the SDI.
So I tell AI workers that if they want to understand what AI is being used for
in the United States, they need to study military doctrine. A great many of
them are disturbed by this suggestion.
It is probably unnecessary for me to go into a dissertation on Airland Battle
doctrine and why it's so dependent on the SCI. I've written about this in my
article, "Airland Battle Doctrine and the Strategic Computing Initiative" (CPSR
Newsletter, Fall 1985 and Winter 1986), an article published in West Germany in
German and now being anthologized in a book to be published by Sierra Club
Books. I will try to summarize the key principles of Airland Battle very
briefly:
Airland Battle doctrine is an attempt by the United States
to use high technology and a radical offensive doctrine to
counter the perceived numerical superiority of the forces
of the Warsaw Pact.
Airland Battle is an overtly offensive doctrine which
emphasizes most of the key elements of the German
blitzkrieg--high mobility, massive firepower, effective
and reliable communications and air superiority. It plans
on "deep strikes" and "follow-on forces attacks" within
Eastern Europe and even the Soviet Union itself.
The U.S. military feels it cannot match the Soviet Union
man for man, tank for tank, and so must use its advantage
in high technology, particularly computer technology, to
build so-called "force multipliers," meaning autonomous
tanks and anti-tank weapons, autonomous reconnaissance
vehicles and intelligence sensors, command and control
expert systems, remotely piloted vehicles, and other
hardware.
A highly mobile, deep strike unit must rely on a "teeth to
tail" ratio that is heavily weighted to the "teeth." The
military is committing a lot of resources to fast-moving
vehicles that can operate in combat environments without
human direction, supervision or support for long periods
of time. Airland Battle also relies on "firepower and
maneuver" as its operating principles, instead of
"firepower and attrition." Airland Battle units are
trained in tactics that stress speed, surprise,
demoralization of the enemy, and total destruction of an
opponent, as opposed to the attrition of defensive
tactics.
While Airland Battle doctrine absolutely depends on the
development of highly sophisticated computer-based
weapons, the doctrine itself stresses individual
initiative and creative responses to unpredictable events.
There is a contradiction in the doctrine (expressed as
divergent priorities between civilian technology managers
and line officers) when it includes an emphasis on the
German concept of "Auftragstaktik" and the use of
centralized (corps-level) command and control expert
systems like Airland Battle Management.
The nature of Airland Battle doctrine and its
characteristic force composition (small, highly mobile
units) gives commanders a strong motivation to strike
first. The Airland Battle manual (Field Manual 100-5,
Operations) says, "the attacker's single greatest
asset--the initiative--is the greatest advantage in war."
Airland Battle doctrine can be considered the conventional
equivalent of a first strike policy, and this is one of
the reasons it has been condemned by the Military
Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly and assailed in
Western European political circles. (This radically new
doctrine has received almost no attention in the national
press in the United States.)
Airland Battle doctrine, despite its rationale as the
"conventionalization" of Western Europe, works with the
"integrated battlefield" concept, which assumes that
nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons will be
used at the outset. Autonomous vehicles and stations are
planned that can operate in such "NBC environments."
What objections do I have for this direction in artificial intelligence research
in the United States?
First, I consider Airland Battle doctrine to be a dangerous policy, and one that
is made even more so by the use of computers in decision-making roles. In a
paper entitled "Concepts for Army Use of Robotic-Artificial Intelligence in the
21st Century,"(U.S. Army TRADOC, June 1982) Lieutenant Dennis V. Crumley writes:
[the] battlefield environment will be densely populated
with sophisticated combat systems whose range, lethality
and employment capabilities surpass anything known today.
The airspace over that battlefield also will be saturated
with aerial and space surveillance, reconaissance and
target acquisition systems. Conflicts will be intense and
devastating, particularly at any point of a decisive
battle. The potential for confusion in such an
environment will be greatly magnified compared to that in
which the Army now trains. Command and control will be
complicated to a much greater degree than it has in the
past.
Having been in the Army and trained troops, it is hard for me to imagine a
greater "potential for confusion" than what exists now, yet I don't doubt Lt.
Colonel Crumley's point. A West Point Cadet, Stephen W. Richey, said in an
issue of *Military Review* that "the chaos of the battlefield will make
centralized control of subordinates always difficult, sometimes impossible," and
that the Airland Battle plan calls for "senior commanders who have absolute
trust in their subordinates to do the right thing when imperfect information,
broken-down communications and the rush of events make it impossible for the
senior to issue detailed orders that will have any bearing on reality." All of
these points are well known and have been for a long time. Adolf von Schell, a
German Army captain in World War I, wrote in a book widely used in the education
of the German military leaders of World War II, "Every soldier should know that
war is kaleidoscopic, replete with constantly changing, unexpected, confusing
situations. Its problems cannot be solved by mathematical formulae or set
rules."
All of this reasoning contrasts very strongly with the pandemic military
enthusiasm for using artificial intelligence systems for everything from robot
tanks to command decision-making (Lieutenant Colonel Crumley even suggests an
autonomous vehicle designed to pick up the dead). AI systems are not good at
handling unforeseen events, let alone events that are characterized by pure
chaos, such as is likely to happen with an all-out conventional war with the
Warsaw Pact in Europe. Nor are AI systems likely to become better at this.
All computer programs have to operate with some human-conceived description of
the task they are supposed to peform. Computers can outperform humans in some
tasks because they operate with vast quanitities of information and at
processing speeds far beyond those of people. They also do things no human even
*would* do, even if he or she had the capability--like memorize all the airline
schedules every single day. Artificial intelligence programs also have to be
constructed by people who have a fairly clear idea of what they want the program
to accomplish. As Professor Alan Perlis has put it, "Good work in AI depends
on automating what we know how to do, not what we would like to know how to do."
It would be nearly impossible to "automate" how we manage a battle now, let
alone in the future, when, according to so many sources, things will be
significantly more confusing. We used computers to do bombing sortie planning
in Vietnam and wound up dropping three times more bombs on Southeast Asia than
all the bombs dropped by all the powers in World War II. The computers seemed
to have very little effect except to identify more targets and recommend more
raids (and hence kill a lot more people, 80% of them civilian). Computers were
used to analyze troop strengths and other intelligence data in Vietnam, with no
significant impact on the success of the war. Computers were used extensively
in Lebanon by the Marines, but no computer predicted that a fanatic would be
able to break through the barracks barricade and kill over 300 men. Our forces
in Grenada had the most sophisticated military technology in the world, and yet
command foul-ups forced one commander on the ground to call in air cover on a
pay telephone using his stateside credit card.
The use of AI in command and control systems will put rules and algorithms
before common sense, and it will increase the confusion and danger (to both
sides) on the battlefield. Competent commanders don't need expert systems, and
incompetent commanders will be even more dangerous with them. No soldier wants
to believe that he's being sent into battle by a computer program. Despite the
traditional antipathy of the grunt for the general, all fighting men implicitly
believe that the commander has something at stake in how they perform their job.
If things go wrong, even the general could be killed. No infantryman would
believe that a computer could hold that idea in its chips.
AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS AND THE CRISIS OF SCIENTIFIC ETHICS
The most alarming trend in the military's plans for using AI is for giving
computers the capability to identify targets and destroy them without human
direction or supervision. This is the real meaning of the term "autonomous
weapon." It is a euphemism for a weapon which kills human beings on its own,
without human assistance, a "killer robot."
There are two kinds of moral theory about war: "jus ad bello" and "jus in
bello," corresponding to whether it's right to go to war in the first place, and
to how the war is conducted once it's started. Both principles have a body of
opinion surrounding them that goes back centuries. Much of this opinion is
currently codified in international law in the Geneva Convention and the
Nuremberg Principles, each of which the United States has signed. The Uniform
Code of Military Justice in the United States explicitly says that all
international law regarding the concept of war crime embodied in treaties which
the United States has signed is binding on every individual soldier in the U.S.
military.
There are three solid principles of "jus in bello" that are part of
international law and which conflict with the use of robot weapons in combat.
First, in what some (such as Michael Walzer) refer to as the "war convention"
(meaning the entire body of laws applicable to the determination of war crime),
there is the principle that war should not be waged beyond the scope of
"military necessity." This is admittedly highly ambiguous, but what is
important is that we have always held that it is the responsibility of
commanders (including the commander-in-chief) to be aware of this restraint and
to use judgment and experience in an attempt to limit the damage of a war to
that which is considered unavoidable. We have in the past used this principle
to try commanders on charges of war crime, such as in the trials of Japanese
high command officials after World War II for their actions in the Phillipines
and in China.
The concept of "military neccessity" cannot be coded into artificial
intelligence and run on a machine for the simple reason that the whole concept
itself is one that implies responsibility and consequences that a machine can
never be subject to. If a robot weapon kills a human being without a human
having identified that particular target but only a class of targets, is the
machine responsible for its actions, or are the programmers responsible for the
person's death? If that person's particular death is deemed by legal
authorities to have been outside the scope of military necessity, then my
contention is that the programmers are potentially guilty of war crime. If the
programmers are not guilty, then this ancient concept of moral restraint in
warfare is obsolete, and we are guilty as a society for making it so.
The second principle of relevance is that killing civilians in war, when it can
be avoided, is a war crime. Again this is almost universally ignored these
days, but the principle stands and we are bound to it by law. Lieutenant Calley
and his colleagues were convicted of killing civilians during the Vietnam war,
as were others. The charge is actually "murder," since the United States laws
in the UCMJ specify that soldiers killing civilians without orders and without
the excuse of unavoidability (as in Calley's case) are guilty of murder.
It is impossible to specify in an artificial intelligence system what
constitutes a civilian and what constitutes a combatant. This is again a matter
of judgment "on the spot" and is tied to responsibility and culpability for
murder. AI systems are incapable of being punished, but they are not incapable
of murder if they are in fact integrated with weapons. Never before in human
history has there been a demon capable of murder but incapable of being
punished. And yet AI weapons systems, "autonomous" systems, are exactly that.
The last principle of "jus in bello" that I will discuss is that it is
considered a war crime to wage war in a way that does not allow the opponent a
chance to surrender. It is difficult to imagine what surrendering to a robot
would entail. Robots could conceivably be programmed to stop fighting if they
"saw" a white flag (and then with some future generation to distinguish white
flags of surrender from underwear hanging on a line to dry), but the enemy would
then be expected to wave a white flag with one hand and carry a satchel charge
in the other. It is ridiculous to imagine "surrendering" to a robot. Yet this
capability is essential if robot weapons are to be considered legal in warfare.
The conclusion is that the use of "autonomous weapons" could be considered a de
facto war crime, on par with the use of chemical or biological weapons. We
still produce chemical and biological weapons, despite the protests of many, but
the people who work on these projects understand that they are doing work that
is considered abhorrent by many people around the world. People working on
"autonomous weapons" do not yet have this perspective on their own work.
The Federal government, to my knowledge, has spent no money or time looking into
the issue of whether or not the use of "autonomous weapons" might be considered
a war crime. These weapons are taken as unproblematic, and even by some as the
answer to the alleged numerical imbalance of forces in Europe. Even in the face
of the really abominable record of safety and performance of many high tech
weapons systems such as the Divad, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the Abrams tank
and so on, legislators, civilian Pentagon managers, military procurement
officers and artificial intelligence researchers have clearly not examined the
question of whether "autonomous weapons" are socially desirable and morally
acceptable.
Moreover, the development of "autonomous weapons" is perhaps the most alarming
example of a trend in the use of science that must some day, somewhere, have an
end. We cannot continue to develop promising technologies for the alleviation
of human toil and inconvenience, only to have them turned into more efficient
ways to kill other human beings. Time and time again a group of researchers
with an interesting idea is turned into a laboratory of death. This must stop.
The development of "autonomous weapons" is a Pandora's box that, when opened,
will produce a predictably nightmarish world. Machines given the capability of
killing humans on their own "decision" is barbaric, pure and simple. It can
only end in attaching such a capability to our strategic arsenal, and then
annihilating tens of millions of people--starting history all over again--by a
"computer error." Such a trend is madness, but this is the trend being funded
by the United States government. By the end of this process we will see that it
was the series of decisions to fund this trend that was the error, not the
cataclysmic bug that ends it all.
AI, PHILOSOPHY AND THE ROLE OF FEDERAL FUNDING
The very possibility of artificial intelligence has been the point of a great
deal of debate between computer scientists and philosophers, and among
philosophers themselves. The idea of AI may have even awakened philosophy to a
new attention to the philosophy of mind, although most of the tools philosophers
use to think about such a subject have been available for a long time. Hubert
Dreyfus' important book, *What Computers Can't Do*, was published in 1962, and
in a new edition Dreyfus asserts that there has been no technological
breakthrough that disproves his original thesis that it is impossible for
machines to think like human beings.
Most AI researchers have paid relatively little attention to their philosophical
critics, and even fewer AI researchers have taken the time to investigate
philosophical schools like phenomenology, critical theory, or speech act theory
to understand what the critics are talking about. Now that private industry and
the government have targetted AI as one of the key technologies for economic
development, the objections of the philosophers to the hype and potential
dangers of AI seem increasingly distant and ineffective.
As computers have become more powerful, AI has started to find a commercial
niche. We now hear of AI market projections in the billions of dollars
annually, and the military is obviously infatuated with what can be done with
intelligent machines. There is thus a really powerful motivation for AI
developers, both competent and incompetent, to ignore any philosophical caveats
about the nature of AI and to promote their work as the answer to a large number
of social ills and technological dilemmas.
Recently, for example, someone suggested using AI in a system designed to "catch
spies." That is, an "expert system" might be developed to "watch" the
electronic communications of workers with access to sensitive data, and to be
able to pattern-match any suspicious activity with programmed knowledge about
the tradecraft of espionage. This is an almost Kafkaesque illustration of what
some people believe AI might be good for. One can imagine being falsely accused
of treason by a machine, and confronted with the "evidence," masterfully
arranged by a highly sophisticated database manager, and sent to jail, leaving
behind a lot of self-satisfied AI programmers believing they had actually
"nailed" you with their unequivocally prescient programming skills.
The magazine *High Technology* reported last year that there will be a 4 to 5
billion dollar annual market in "security robots" using sophisticated artificial
intelligence. These robots will be aimed at the burgeoning "private prison," or
a prison run by a private corporation instead of the state. The robots allow
the corporation to cut costs and make a profit out of housing criminals. The
magazine article suggested that some robots may even be equipped with Mace, so
that when in the corridors of prisons they may be used to get an inmate back
into his or her cell.
There is a serious issue of public policy and political philosophy at stake when
we contemplate using machines to guard prisoners, as if they were dogs in a
kennel or chickens in a coop. But because of the tremendous momentum behind the
use of AI in all settings, this is hardly given a thought. The article in *High
Technology* featured a picture of some corporate representatives of the company
making security robots; they looked harmless and proud of their work, earnestly
ushering in one more component of an increasingly Orwellian world.
There must be something seriously wrong with a society that funds work and
publishes papers on both how to avoid nuclear annihilation and how to build a
robot designed to pick up the radioactive dead after a nuclear war. There is
some kind of engine at work that allows us to think in such macabre terms about
the role of technology in our lives. The American people are hardly ever
consulted about the specific uses of technology, or even its general trend. I
imagine if taxpayers were asked if they would put up the money to fund research
on a robot for picking up their dead radioactive neighbors, they would demand
that the people asking get psychiatric help. But we are almost never asked, and
so the technology just appears.
Researchers, on the other hand, are asked about what they can build and what it
might be good for. And the standard response is that the government should fund
"general" and "basic" research, and should not impose moral or political
judgments on what should be done and what should not be done, and that the
researchers should not either. The vehement response from researchers is
usually that government should not attempt to "direct" technology.
This standard response from researchers usually strikes me as astonishingly
naive, or at best totally abstract. Technology is always "directed" by
something, usually by social forces such as military requirements, job
restructuring, international competition, the politics of government spending,
and so on. Researchers in technology don't live in a vacuum, they live in
society like the rest of us. It is obvious that there is such a thing as "pure
research," but this category of work usually doesn't have much importance to
anyone but the researchers until it becomes something that the world can use, or
something that changes things around us.
If our government were systematically gassing large numbers of people to death,
it would be ludicrous to argue that "pure research" on poisonous gases could
still be carried out without any political or moral implications. It would be
obvious to everyone that such research would be highly "directed" no matter what
the researchers themselves believed. And it would not be surprising if there
were considerable government money available for such research, and
correspondingly little money available for people doing research and writing on
how abhorrent such "pure research" is.
Given such an example, it is surprising to me how many AI researchers continue
to insist that work on autonomous weapons, security robots and "battle
management systems" is completely unattached to any moral or political
implications or to any vision of what the future might hold. Too many
researchers cling to the myth about technology that is the result of the rapid
advances made in this century, and embodied in the question, "Well, who could
have predicted that?" They refuse to believe that we might have predicted that
if large numbers of people hurtle around in large steel cans weighing a few
thousand pounds at 70 miles per hour plus, that a fair proportion of them would
be killed or seriously injured; or that if we don't put money and commitment
behind public transportation and light rail technologies and so on that more
people will need cars, etc. Too many engineers believe that technology is
produced almost mystically--someone gets an idea, and next thing you know you
have something that is forevermore considered just a part of the way things are.
This is especially true--and particularly alarming--in the case of technologies
like autonomous weapons. My experience is that many, many computer
professionals simply assume that these are part of a future they have no control
over. It is the result of a chain of causation: AI researchers tell the
government funders what they can do, the government and principally the military
figures out what they can do with that, the money appears, the researchers tell
themselves if I don't work for these people I don't get the money--ergo,
autonomous weapons are necessary and inevitable.
It used to be that one would be considered a really obnoxious cynic--a terrrible
party guest--if you believed that human beings would eventually build a machine
that could destroy everything on a mechanical whim, simply because it was "an
interesting research project." But now we have the Strategic Defense Initiative
and the trend in increasing automation of the command authority for strategic
nuclear missiles. A few nights ago I saw a TV movie--a bad one--in which a
television news reporter interviews a bank's computer expert. The expert shows
her how to run a magnetic tape on a mainframe, and as she pushes the button she
says impishly, "I didn't just start World War III, did I?" The ultimate madness
has become so much a part of our culture that it's a limp and overused TV joke.
That lame but frightening joke has its source in the way the Federal government
has chosen to use computers, and in the funding of computer research in the
United States. It is clear that computer technology is *already* highly
directed, and increasingly so, and it is astonishing to hear researchers deny
this. A question from OTA about whether the government should play a larger
role in directing AI research is almost comical to me, since the government has
played such a large role in directing research and applications in computers
that it is a tired old joke how we can start World War III by pushing the button
on a computer, as if this is a fact of life we are all by now accustomed to.
The Federal government should be supporting more research and speculation on how
we can use computers to make life better for people in all walks of life,
instead of how we can kill them or watch them or eliminate their jobs or make
them get back to their cells. But this would mean a really radical
reorientation of research funding, principally away from the military. It would
mean changing the direction of the last thirty years in the steady development
of the national security state. And it would somehow mean getting us on a path
where the best and brightest minds were engaged in improving the human condition
with computer technology, instead of in wild juvenile schemes like "catching
spies."
Most importantly and most urgently, the Federal government should be
investigating whether or not the development of proposed weapons systems such as
autonomous tanks and killer robots are more than just engineering problems but
in fact might be considered "crimes against humanity." It seems to me that such
an investigation is no less the responsibility of the government than is the
development of effective defenses in the first place. The United States
government should bear the responsibility of telling the public and policymakers
the deepest implications of its current funding of artificial intelligence
research: that we are building the means for machines to kill people on their
own.
This response to OTA is doubtlessly unorthodox, and doubtlessly different from
most of the other responses. But I feel what I have addressed here is of the
utmost importance for our future, and I strongly urge that some semblance of
these opinions be included in the final report.
Thanks for your time and patience, and for the opportunity to address these
issues.
Gary Chapman
Executive Director
Computer Professionals
for Social Responsibility
P.O. Box 717
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(415) 322-3778
-------
-------
∂23-Sep-86 1136 RA TEX-ing
In order for me to practice TEX beyond what I have done so far, do you
have any files which need TEXing?
∂23-Sep-86 1358 VAL DARPA proposal
We may propose to create a database of facts about moving solid objects. It will
use situation calculus to formalize a model of the world which includes:
(a) Solid objects, which may change their internal states and their positions in
space. We consider these objects "small", i.e., we are not interested in their
sizes and shapes. (We may know that things cannot be placed on an object with a
rounded top, but roundedness will be considered merely as some abstract
property, not necessarily of geometric nature). We may be able to simulate
creating and destroying objects as changing their states.
(b) Some of the objects are agents. They may be able to perform actions affecting
their positions and states and the positions and states of other objects. To
some extent, we may be able to describe knowledge aad desire as internal states
of the agent.
(c) Physical space, not necessarily Euclidean or 3-dimensional, but at least
with a special direction, vertical, so that objects can be on each other. Also,
they can be next to each other. Space may have regions, separated by boundaries.
There is a large horizontal solid surface in space, the ground (table, floor,
chessboard).
(d) Discrete time. No concurrent events.
Examples of facts to be included in the database:
1. Normally, objects do not change their positions and states unless the change
is caused by an action of an agent.
2. Normally, two objects cannot be located at the same place.
3. Normally, x is next to y if x is on y.
4. Normally, there is a clear location next to a given object.
5. Normally, there is a clear location on the ground.
6. Normally, moving an object affects the positions of the object and the agent.
7. Normally, performing an action affecting an object requires that the agent be
located next to the object.
8. Normally, objects located in different regions are not next to each other.
9. Normally, moving from one region to another involves crossing the boundary which
separates them.
10. Normally, objects are on (supported by) something.
We may decide to include properties of existence (see (a) above) and knowledge
(see (b) above) in the database. For instance, an agent cannot affect an object
unless he knows where it is.
We may also wish to include facts which are linguistic conventions rather than
assumptions about the model, for instance:
(i) An object is assumed to be on the ground unless specified otherwise.
(ii) The converse of 8: objects not known to be in different regions are
assumed to be next to each other.
(iii) By default, everybody is assumed to know everything.
We can get descriptions of various toy worlds by extending this general database
in various ways. Examples:
A. Missionaries and Cannibals. They are agents, the boat is an object, the banks
are regions, and the river is a boundary. Converting a cannibal is changing his
internal state. Fixing a leak is changing the state of the boat. You need
a boat or a bridge to cross the river because, by 10, you have to be supported by
something while crossing it. By 7, you cannot row unless you are next to the boat,
which can be achieved, by 3, by being in it. By 7, you cannot convert a cannibal
unless you are next to him; hence, by 8, he is safe if he is on the other bank.
B. The Monkey and the Bananas. Grasping a banana is changing its state.
The monkey cannot grasp the banana without moving next to it, cannot move next to
it without being supported by something, cannot move a box to the right place
without first approaching the box: all this will follow from the general facts.
We may be able to describe preconditions such as knowing where the box is and
being hungry (see (b) above).
C. The blocks world. Painting is changing the state.
D. Robot actions, like in the Fikes-Nilsson STRIPS paper. Rooms are regions.
E. Chess. There are two agents, each can be in one of two states, depending on
whose move it is. Different kinds of pieces must be treated as states, because a
pawn may become a queen. We should be able to give a neat modular description of
the rules, which treats exceptional situations, like castling, as abnormalities.
Also, we will prove that, normally, you have to be next to the board to keep
playing.
F. The chess example can be perhaps developed into a model of military actions.
I'd like to include a little bit of programming in our plans: implement the
separable case of circumscription, the STRIPS strategy, and use a general-purpose
theorem prover inside a fixed situation. One reason is that being able to give a
demonstration may be sometimes useful, but there are also other reasons:
I. We'll learn how good the algorithm for the separable case is. (I believe
now stronger than before that this is an important case. Before, I wasn't sure
for two reasons: I thought we would need far-reaching generalizations of
circumscription, and I knew that the law of inertia isn't separable. But in my
latest formulation we don't use any fancy forms of circumscription, and the law
of inertia can be provable disregarded in doing circumscription.)
II. We'll learn how much the STRIPS strategy does for restricting the search.
III. It will help in debugging the database. (But the main emphasis will be on
studying its properties mathematically).
∂23-Sep-86 1830 LES re: Laser printer info for Chudnovskys
[In reply to message rcvd 22-Sep-86 21:06-PT.]
Two important questions:
(1) What systems and software must the printer work with?
(2) Is it to be used just for listings or documentation with assorted
fonts?
∂24-Sep-86 0042 rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from PREP.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Sep 86 00:42:46 PDT
Received: by PREP.AI.MIT.EDU; Wed, 24 Sep 86 03:45:44 EDT
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 03:45:44 EDT
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman)
Message-Id: <8609240745.AA07139@prep.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Did my invoice arrive ok? I have a copy and can send another
if it did not arrive.
I am leaving for a month a week from Friday
and my bank account is running low. It would
help me if I could have the check and deposit it before
I leave. If it is going to be mailed in time,
it would be good to send it special delivery
(not very expensive) to make sure it is not delayed
in the mail as the invoice was.
∂24-Sep-86 0835 RA [Reply to message sent: Wed, 24 Sep 86 03:45:44 EDT]
In order to rush Stellman's check I will charge it to your unrestricted until
we get the ok from ARPA and then transfer it, is it ok with you?
∂24-Sep-86 1007 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [walker@mouton.bellcore.com (Don Walker): Re: More prizes]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Sep 86 10:07:22 PDT
Date: Wed 24 Sep 86 09:58:39-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: [walker@mouton.bellcore.com (Don Walker): Re: More prizes]
To: genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, reddy@A.CS.CMU.EDU, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12241523809.61.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
FYI
Claudia
---------------
Return-Path: <walker@mouton.bellcore.com>
Received: from mouton.bellcore.com by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Wed 24 Sep 86 06:58:58-PDT
Received: by mouton.bellcore.com (4.12/4.7)
id AA05968; Wed, 24 Sep 86 10:03:44 edt
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 10:03:44 edt
From: walker@mouton.bellcore.com (Don Walker)
Message-Id: <8609241403.AA05968@mouton.bellcore.com>
To: mack%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Re: More prizes
Cc: aaai-office@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, amarel@red.rutgers.edu,
bibel%germany.csnet@relay.cs.net, bundy%uk.ac.ed.aiva@cs.ucl.ac.uk,
feindler@mouton.bellcore.com, mack%ubc.csnet@relay.cs.net,
mcdermott@a.cs.cmu.edu, mck%mit-oz@mc.lcs.mit.edu, phayes@sri-kl.arpa,
phw%mit-oz@mc.lcs.mit.edu, raj.reddy@a.cs.cmu.edu,
rasmussen.ijcai@red.rutgers.edu, sridharan@g.bbn.com,
walker@mouton.bellcore.com
With regard to IJCAII's support of an effort to capture the AI literature
and to elaborate further on my last message. In fact, I am a most
appropriate person to coordinate IJCAII's support of a literature enterprise.
My major focus at Bellcore is dealing with massive amounts of text:
AI and Information Science Research. While my colleague Bob Amsler and
I were at SRI, we met with John McCarthy, Bruce Buchanan, Mike
Genesereth, Claudia Mazzetti, and Jake Feindler (the ARPA Network
Information Center coordinator at SRI) to try to set up some system that
would make AI bibliographies available online. There were some
differences in approach; Buchanan and Genesereth wanted to turn the
job over to a commercial company; McCarthy simply wanted the AI literature
in a form that he could read (without much concern for the more general
problems of mass accessibility); Amsler and I wanted to work gradually
toward a sophisticated system that would begin with bibliographies but
move toward full text (a long long run!) and argued for a research environment
as a necessary contextual feature; Feindler and the NIC are working
closely with Dialog (which may be on the ARPANET soon) and were willing
to argue for DARPA money to support the effort. I am not sure whether
anything is happening internally at AAAI at the moment, but Amsler and
I are still pursuing the NIC connection. I would be interested in
Saul's reaction to the possibility of DARPA support. There was talk
at one time of Bellcore contributing a VAX to the NIC in support of
this venture. Amsler and I have actually done a fair amount of work
on identifying the vocabulary of AI, based on lexical analyses of the
AI Handbook, and on building a dictionary of AI essentially out of
those those analyses. This whole effort is an appropriate testbed
for our work at Bellcore. Community support from IJCAII and AAAI
could be used constructively.
Don
-------
∂24-Sep-86 1039 RA [Reply to message recvd: 24 Sep 86 10:27 Pacific Time]
The extended part of the zip code for CSD is 2140.
∂24-Sep-86 1047 chapman@russell.stanford.edu Reply to Professor McCarthy
Received: from RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Sep 86 10:47:40 PDT
Received: by russell.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Wed, 24 Sep 86 10:47:10 pdt
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 10:47:10 pdt
From: Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>
Subject: Reply to Professor McCarthy
To: BrianSmith.pa@xerox.com, Gould.pa@xerox.com, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
Ornstein.pa@xerox.com, Suchman.pa@xerox.com, WINOGRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Dear Professor McCarthy,
I want to thank you for responding to my contribution to OTA, and for sending me
your comments. I'm sure that you did not plan on this producing some kind of
dialogue, but I do want to respond to some of your points, if you will allow me.
First, I do not consider myself a "pacifist," and I don't believe any of my
arguments are based on pacifism. As I said in the first paragraph of my
contribution, I am a former Green Beret with service in Vietnam, Panama, Turkey
and Iran. I am quite proud of my military service, and I have a great deal of
respect for many military officers. I actually do believe in having a "strong"
military, although what I mean by that and what others mean are probably very
different.
The argument about autonomous weapons being a potential war crime is not a
pacifist argument, since one does not have to be a pacifist to believe in
certain standards of war crime. In fact, the place that war crime is taken most
seriously is in the military. Professional soldiers believe in a standard of
conduct even in combat, the breach of which is considered not only
"unprofessional," but criminal.
I have been thinking about this issue for some time now. I communicated my
concern about autonomous weapons to General Telford Taylor (ret.), who was the
chief American prosecutor at Nuremburg and then professor of law at Columbia
University for some thirty years after that. He is perhaps the world's leading
authority on war crime. General Taylor agreed with me that there is sufficient
ground to believe that autonomous weapons such as combat robots are in fact a
war crime. (General Taylor, by the way, is not a pacifist either.)
You are correct that there is a problem in defining what an "autonomous" weapon
is. Mines may indeed be considered a sort of "stupid" autonomous weapon. No
one is advocating making mines illegal, since mines are often a very useful
defensive device. What is ominous about the Pentagon's plans for "killer
robots" is that they are designed to actually go out and *look* for targets.
They are not meant to be "passive" devices like mines. So the idea of machines
actually "hunting down" humans is unprecedented and morally alarming. But it is
true that a great deal of work needs to be done on what kind of line needs to be
drawn over which we should not cross. (Some basic discussions on this are going
on now in the Arms-D conference.)
Personally I have no quarrel with the idea that we can often (not always) avert
war by preparing for war in peacetime. I believe in a quality military force
with high standards of training and leadership and the best and most reliable
equipment available.
What I object to is the constant technological refinement of killing people, an
enterprise that goes far beyond "preparing for war" and instead becomes an end
in itself. When we consider that the United States' second largest export is
weapons, that as many as half of our engineers and scientists are working on
military projects, and when the budgets for research and development for the
military are far and away more substantial than those for non-military projects,
then something is amiss. We have instituted a "second military" in the civilian
populace with the vast numbers of people who are dependent upon this refinement
of the means of death.
It should not be a standard of patriotism that one should be expected to support
such a policy without question or risk being labelled a "pacifist." Things were
not always this way, and they need not be this way forever. In fact, I do not
support a *complete* halt to military research and development, only a
reordering of our social priorities. I do not, for example, advocate cutting
the SDI's budget to zero, even though I am opposed to the SDI. And I do not
propose stopping all research on autonomous vehicles, just on certain
applications of them. I have reached these opinions because of my experience in
warfare, my training in politics, whatever predispositions of personality I
might have, and because of a general prudence regarding technological solutions.
But I deny that these are "knee-jerk" opinions of an unschooled and unworldly
person with nothing but pacifism and utopian idealism to sustain him.
You say that I may be "bluffing" about my desire to have computer science serve
human needs because CPSR has not taken up your idea of putting the entire
Library of Congress on line and available to every citizen. I heard your
description of this proposal at the CPSR meeting you spoke at. I think it's a
fine idea, by the way, and I sincerely hope it comes to pass.
But your apparent dismay that this has not become part of CPSR's program reveals
some misunderstanding, I think, about CPSR's role. You may see our work as
being "negative." We see it as being an attempt at countering the immense power
of the national security state, the military-industrial sector and the Pentagon.
We are truly a David against the biggest Goliath of all time. We may sound to
you like a wailing "Chicken Little," but to many people CPSR is long overdue and
absolutely essential for informed public debate about the use of computer
technology. We feel that there is little chance for projects such as your
admirable idea as long as the military is eating up such a disproportionate
share of resources available for computer science. And we are of course
concerned about the danger of nuclear war, which would make all projects
obsolete.
We have a difference of opinion, I think, on the nature of political activity.
I see political engagement as a "positive" thing, even when it's criticizing the
status quo. You seem to think that politics is a regrettable feature of modern
life, and if "political resources" are to be used, they should be used for
something constructive, like making the Library of Congress available for anyone
with a home terminal. While I don't have any problem with that use of political
power, I don't see opposing something that is in my opinion wrong-headed as
"negative." Opposition to a bad idea can be a positive good for society--as
Burke said, "Evil flourishes where good men do nothing."
CPSR is not out to "politicize" the computer science field, as some have
charged. We really try to stick close to technical issues, and we have a wide
array of political opinions within the membership. But we are united by a
concern about the direction of computer use in society, and I don't think that
voicing that concern is something that can be considered "negative." Americans
are duly proud of their tradition of supporting such "informed dissent."
Your attitude about CPSR's work apparently results in your dismissal of me as a
"political scientist" for whom "such blasts are a full time activity." It is
true that my full time job is calling these issues to the attention of the
profession, the public and to policymakers. I have this job because a lot of
computer scientists want this done. I am proud of this job--I think it's
something socially necessary. If--God forbid--we have a nuclear war, or we
plunge ourselves into some modern version of Orwell's nightmare, I do not want
to have to say that I didn't do anything to avert this, that I was nonchalant
about such prospects. This is not to say that I have a prejudice against people
who do other work. We all face similar dangers in modern society, and we cope
with them as best we can. I have been lucky to be able to combine my livelihood
with my deepest personal convictions and sense of purpose. I don't think the
message in my contribution to OTA should be dismissed simply because I get paid
to say such things.
I hope that we may have a chance to talk about such important issues again in
the future. Thank you once again for your comments about my original message.
-- Gary Chapman
∂24-Sep-86 1102 AIR John Nafeh
I am having a meeting with John Nafeh today.
I would like to talk it over with you if you have a couple of minutes.
∂24-Sep-86 1117 RA leaving
I need to leave now; will be back around 1:15.
∂24-Sep-86 1449 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA 306 TAs
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Sep 86 14:49:21 PDT
Date: Wed 24 Sep 86 14:41:40-PDT
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: 306 TAs
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 030C, 723-9798
Message-ID: <12241575328.31.REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I told you earlier that Kelly Roach will be a 50% TA in 306. I have just
appointed your second TA, Yung-jen Hsu. She is a CS PhD student whose
concentration is AI.
-------
∂25-Sep-86 1152 CLT
dinner at sophies at 7:30
∂25-Sep-86 1309 RLG advice requested
i have one free elective in my schedule for my MATH B.S. degree.
Any advanced math course could fill this spot.
Do you have any suggestions as to what areas i might want to cover
in more depth?
---there are NO suitable logic courses offered this year, to my knowledge,
apart from those i've taken (math 160a, 160b, 161, 290a)---
thanx!
∂25-Sep-86 1608 RA leaving early
It is Thursday and I am leaving early. See you tomorrow.
∂25-Sep-86 1609 RA Thelma Inference
Thelma said she wants to have a conference with board members tomorrow at
6:45am. Is this ok with you?
∂25-Sep-86 2000 JMC
Put Staggs material in car.
∂25-Sep-86 2220 KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: California Supreme Court
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Sep 86 22:20:45 PDT
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 22:18:56-PDT
From: Abraham Kohen <KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: California Supreme Court
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 25 Sep 86 11:07:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12241920716.9.KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Three months ago, I would have voted against Rose Bird.
But compared to Rehnquist, Scalia, and Manion, Rose Bird
is an angel.
Abe
-------
∂25-Sep-86 2339 POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU Re: California Supreme Court
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Sep 86 23:39:19 PDT
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 23:39:07-PDT
From: Bill Poser <POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: California Supreme Court
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: su-etc@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 25 Sep 86 11:07:00-PDT
I haven't yet read the American Spectator article and so can't comment
on it. Thus far I haven't seen anything about Rose Bird that would make me
want her off the court, but perhaps Sowell has an argument that I don't know
about. The arguments that I have seen were all nonsense about the death
penalty. (Nonsense because they incorrectly argue that the Bird court has
struck down death sentences purely out of ideological prejudice. Just for the
record, I am not opposed to the death penalty.) But I think that there is a
much more serious issue at stake in this election than whether or not one
agrees with Rose Bird. This is the question of judicial independence from
politics. It is my belief that it is very important for judges to feel free
from political influence. The framers of the federal constitution felt the
same way; that is why federal judges are appointed for life. Consequently,
I disapprove of the California reconfirmation system since it subjects
judges to precisely such political pressure. Even if I did not like Rose
Bird's views I would vote to reconfirm her on this basis alone.
I suggest that there are only three grounds on which one could
legitimately vote not to confirm Rose Bird: (1) malfeasance
(e.g. taking bribes); (2) gross incompetence or failure to perform
duties; (3) extreme ideological prejudice. The first two are approximately
the grounds for impeachment. By "extreme ideological prejudice" I mean
adherence to a political ideology grossly at variance with the law. In Rose
Bird's case I have not heard any arguments of types (1) and (2). The
arguments that I have heard could conceivably fall under (3), but I
do not think that a distaste for the death penalty can be characterized
as the sort of sweeping ideology that I have in mind. Compare this with
Justice Rehnquist's virtually exceptionless pattern of coming down on
the side of the state or the corporation against the individual. That
is the sort of broad and extreme ideological prejudice that I find
disabling. For this reason (as well as because of the evidence of
harassment of voters and perjury about it) I would vote against
confirming Rehnquist's nomination
to be Chief Justice but would vote for confirmation of Scalia, who,
though also conservative, does not seem to be so at variance with
American legal tradition.
The question I would like to put to JMC and other opponents of
Rose Bird is whether they believe that judges (especially appellate
judges) should be subject to evaluation on purely political grounds,
and if not, whether they are prepared to argue that Rose Bird should
be denied reconfirmation on other grounds.
-------
∂25-Sep-86 2345 KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: California Supreme Court
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Sep 86 23:45:20 PDT
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 23:43:13-PDT
From: Abraham Kohen <KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: California Supreme Court
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 25 Sep 86 22:48:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12241936058.8.KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, I've read Sowell's article and I find it childish and immature.
I find his grouping of "criminals, welfare recipients, homosexuals,"
quite amusing. (Others may find it rather distasteful.)
He laments about no one having been executed in California in 18 years.
How many years has Rose Bird been a judge, anyway? (Sowell would like
some blood.)
I don't want to belabor the point, but Sowell's main argument against
Rose Bird is that she has "voted with the liberal activist majority."
Some moderate Republicans, including myself, don't see that as a sin.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I suppose his biggest sin is voting
with the activist conservatives, carrying out a political agenda,
and INTERPRETING the law.
(I've tried to paraphrase and turn around Sowell's criticism of Rose
Bird.)
It's reassuring that JMC has not tried to defend Rehnquist and Manion.
(I know, I'm baiting him.)
Abe
-------
∂26-Sep-86 0857 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: California Supreme Court
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 86 08:57:30 PDT
Date: Fri 26 Sep 86 08:56:28-PDT
From: Oren Patashnik <PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: California Supreme Court
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 25 Sep 86 11:07:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12242036774.8.PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
I try very hard to not get involved in bboard discussions, since
they're so time-consuming, and I'm limiting myself to ten minutes in
this reply. But I felt pretty disgusted with Sowell's article. He
makes some good points, and I'm sure that, after studying many of her
court's decisions (which I'm sure he hasn't done other than
superficially) I would disagree with some of them too. However, he
has made no convincing arguments to me that it's other than a liberal
v. conservative issue here. He hasn't shown that there's more
"judicial activism" under her court than under others, and he hasn't
shown that judicial activism is wrong; in fact constitutions were
meant to be interpreted. I don't think he knows what he's talking
about: he says "the fact that everyone has a constitutional right to
privacy . . ."; this is dead wrong. There is no such thing in the
constitution (US, at least; I don't know about California). It is one
of the "penumbral" rights that have been read into it by the courts.
Presumably he's not against this "right", but it's precisely reading
in rights this way that he seems to be arguing against---so it comes
down to a matter of degree---liberal v. conservative. (In fact, he
uses the word penumbral later, making me suspect some intentional
twisting; this, along with some other explicit twistings in his
article, really got me pissed off (as opposed to, say, most of what
George Will writes, which I often disagree with, but which usually
doesn't get me pissed off because they're intellectually honest)).
Anyway, I'd be happy to point out these twistings and discuss this
article at length if you want to some time in October. (oops,
fourteen minutes).
--Oren
-------
∂26-Sep-86 0900 JMC
van Campen
∂26-Sep-86 0937 md@alv.umd.edu Reply to Chapman's letter
Received: from ALV.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 86 09:37:47 PDT
Received: by alv.umd.edu (5.9/4.7)
id AA18288; Fri, 26 Sep 86 11:48:21 EDT
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 11:48:21 EDT
From: Margaret Mary Doerner <md@alv.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8609261548.AA18288@alv.umd.edu>
To: ota-cit@a.isi.edu
Subject: Reply to Chapman's letter
Cc: OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU, chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU, hope@alv.umd.edu,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, ohlander@B.ISI.EDU, ota@A.ISI.EDU
Gary Chapman's lengthy diatribe can be rebutted on many levels.
Fortunately John McCarthy has saved me a lot of the trouble; I
will add only a few remarks.
Irrespective of the military goals of SCI, it is serving to accelerate
AI research. Nonmilitarily oriented projects could perhaps do the same,
but it seems unlikely, in the foreseeable future, that any agency but DOD
could fund projects on a comparable scale. AI has had enormous spinoffs,
both direct and indirect, in the private sector (industrial machine vision,
to name just one), and accelerating AI will accelerate the spinoff rate.
The existence of the military projects that haven't achieved expected
spinoff levels is hardly an argument against this.
As to the military goals, to argue on Chapman's own level, won't a lot
of lives be saved when both sides have developed autonomous weapons, so
that robots can fight other robots?
Azriel Rosenfeld
∂26-Sep-86 0958 RA new tutor for CS306
Edith Gilbertson called re your request for a new tutor. She would like
you to call her at 3-3618. She will be at a meeting from 10:30 but is
going to leave a msg. with the receptionist to be interrupted when you
call. She only works until 1:00 and would like to talk to you today.
Thanks,
∂26-Sep-86 1042 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Vladimir
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 86 10:41:59 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 26 SEP 86 10:17:35 PDT
Date: 26 Sep 86 10:17 PDT
Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Vladimir
In-reply-to: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>'s message of 25 Sep
86 17:57 PDT
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: bobrow.PA@Xerox.COM
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
Message-ID: <860926-101735-5275@Xerox>
Thanks, and apologies to Vladimir.
-- danny
∂26-Sep-86 1252 ROACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 86 12:52:00 PDT
Date: Fri 26 Sep 86 11:54:19-PDT
From: Kelly Roach <ROACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 22 Sep 86 21:16:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12242069152.44.ROACH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Hi,
I was told last month that the Department wasn't going to let me TA
this term. I was really eager to do it because of interest in the subject
matter and some thoughts about putting my own theorem prover on exhibition,
but the Department wants me to study for the Comprehensive exam instead.
The people who know most about this are Terry Winograd and Victoria Cheadle.
Kelly
-------
∂26-Sep-86 1420 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu Lunch next week
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 86 14:18:07 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Fri, 26 Sep 86 14:18:39 pdt
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 14:17:34 PDT
From: <ELLIOTT@SLACVM.BITNET>
Reply-To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Lunch next week
Date: 26 September 86 14:16-PST
From: ELLIOTT@SLACVM
To: JMC@SAIL
Subject: Lunch next week
Date: 26 September 1986, 14:14:46 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SU-AI.ARPA, JMC at SAIL.STANFORD
Subject: Lunch next week
I am available for lunch on Wed or Friday of next week. 12:05 is a good
time for me due to the SLAC-campus shuttle schedule.
∂26-Sep-86 1422 LES Proposal part
∂26-Sep-86 1258 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Proposal part
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 86 12:58:23 PDT
Date: Fri 26 Sep 86 14:56:59-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Proposal part
To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12242080559.43.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Here is my contribution to the proposal. Please let me know if it
needs changes, and feel free to modify it while incorporating it into
the bigger proposal.
EXPERIMENTS IN AUTOMATIC PROOF-CHECKING
Automatic proof-checkers are useful for mathematics, program verification,
computer-aided instruction, and in artificial intelligence [5, 1, 3, 2]. While
present-day proof-checkers can be used to check fairly complex proofs, we are
still far away from a system which can check proofs at the level of exposition
of a journal article.
Our research will be focussed on a careful analysis of the difference between
rigorous, informal proofs and their mechanizations using currently available
proof-checking systems. It will be necessary to develop sensible metrics in
order to facilitate such a comparison. Based on this analysis, we intend to
design and implement a proof-checking system which narrows the gap between
informal and mechanical proofs.
Initially, the proof-checker will consist of a small, believable core that is
sufficient to carry out certain metamathematical proofs [6]. The proof-checker
will then be extended by having it prove the soundness of extensions to itself.
Such extensions can be used to raise the level of exposition of a
machine-checked proof. The proof-checker will be used to check several proofs
in a variety of formal theories including set theory, graph theory,
combinatorics, number theory, etc., and in the areas of non-monotonic
reasoning, program and hardware verification, etc. These proofs will be used
to develop a large database of useful, general mathematical facts and provably
sound decision-procedures.
The tangible outcome of the project will be a proof-checking system which can
serve as a mathematician/programmer's workbench [4]. The experiments will also
lead to a better insight into the process by which humans understand
mathematical explanation, and the extent to which a similar process can be
programmed into a computer.
REFERENCES
1. R. S. Boyer and J S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, New
York, 1979.
2. R. L. Constable, et.al.. Implementing Mathematics. Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 1986.
3. M. J. Gordon, A. J. Milner and C. P. Wadsworth. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. Volume 78: Edinburgh LCF. Spring-Verlag, Berlin, 1979.
4. Knuth, D. E. "Literate Programming". The Computer Journal 27, 2 (1984),
97-111.
5. J. McCarthy. Computer Programs for Checking Mathematical Proofs.
Recursive Function Theory, Proceedings of a Symposium in Pure Mathematics,
Providence, Rhode Island, 1962, pp. 219-227.
6. N. Shankar. "Towards Mechanical Metamathematics". Journal of Automated
Reasoning 1, 4 (1985), 407-434.
-------
∂26-Sep-86 1526 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu TEST
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 86 15:26:10 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Fri, 26 Sep 86 15:26:45 pdt
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 15:25:35 PDT
From: <ELLIOTT@SLACVM.BITNET>
Reply-To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: TEST
Date: 26 September 86 15:10-PST
From: ELLIOTT@SLACVM
To: JMC@SAIL
Subject: TEST
Date: 26 September 1986, 15:09:40 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD
Subject: TEST
CHANGED MY NAMES FILE, DID MESSAGE GET TO YOU, AND ONLY ONCE.
∂26-Sep-86 1759 OHLANDER@B.ISI.EDU Re: [Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>: [Gary Chapman <chapman@ru...
Received: from B.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 86 17:58:59 PDT
Date: 26 Sep 1986 17:57-PDT
Sender: OHLANDER@B.ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: [Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>: [Gary Chapman <chapman@ru...
From: OHLANDER@B.ISI.EDU
To: OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU
Cc: ar@ALV.UMD.EDU, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, ota@A.ISI.EDU
Cc: chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <[B.ISI.EDU]26-Sep-86 17:57:00.OHLANDER>
In-Reply-To: The message of 23 Sep 1986 12:36:34 EDT from Jim Dray <OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU>
I always have difficulty in responding to an argument like
Chapman's because such positions always seem to assume that the
U.S. has no obligation to defend itself. Therefore, I won't say
much about the issue of using AI technology to meet military
objectives (Johm McCarthy covered this quite well) except to say
that many of us feel that we are in a dangerous position
vis-a-vis the strength of the Russians and that high technology
does give us some edge.
Aside from the philosophical points that Chapman makes in regard
to the use of AI in combat operations, there are a number of
other items that I take issue with. First of all, DARPA is a DoD
agency and, although one may disagree with the emphasis of the
Federal Government on funding priorities, one can hardly find
fault with DARPA for pursuing its charter. Even so, DARPA's
track record (by Chapman's own admission) is impressive when it
is measured in terms of advancement of the computer sciences and
the impact that AI has had on the commercial world. In fact, the
very success that AI has had in commercial applications served,
in part, to motivate the Strategic Computing (SC) program. It
was natural for DARPA to want to see some of that same commercial
success in AI duplicated in military arenas. After all, if DARPA
doesn't successfully transition the results of technology to
defense application they cannot continue to gain the wherewithal
to continue to fund worthy research efforts.
The next point that I want to make is that the SC program did not
impair DARPA's basic research funding for the information
sciences. The same basic research program remains in place,
focused on the very frontiers of scientific endeavor. The SC
program exploits and augments that effort in a particular way.
Chapman has made much of the SC program's orientation and
objectives by focusing on the application projects within SC. In
fact, he equates the SC program with the applications. He has
made the claim that the Airland Battle project has set the final
seal on SC as an agressive military program, concentrated on the
development of autonomous weapon systems. This position is
erroneous from two standpoints. First, the application programs
are demonstration efforts which pull on technology. They are
very far from being anywhere near to developing full-scale
systems. Second, Chapman has failed to state, or perhaps doesn't
know, that the most substantial portion of SC funds are targeted
towards basic technologies, such as massively parallel
architectures, software environments; and vision, speech, natural
language, and expert system research. These technological
subprograms are oriented towards producing results that can be
exploited in the applications, but they are also generic in
nature and will produce results that can be readily exploited for
social and commercial good. For example, results in vision
research will be widely applicable in robotic environments.
Similarly, work in expert systems is concentrated on providing
breakthroughs in tool technology. It is true that these tools
can be used in battle management applications. It is also true
that they can be used in diverse commercial applications. In
fact, the two firms that are developing new systems are
Teknowledge and Intellicorp who both have a vital interest in
commercial application and who have no role in building defense
weapon systems. The work in architectures is fundamental and
will make major breathroughs in understanding how to use
massively parallel machines in basic ways. All of this work is
expected to set new standards in their respective fields.
Already many scientific papers have resulted from the research.
How do I know all this? I played a major role in putting the SC
program together. How can I be sure there will be commercial
spin-offs? I point to DARPA's past record of achievement and
ability to support fundamental research and implement major
scientific breakthroughs. The SC program uses the same model,
while at the same time, it extends it to achieve military
transition of results (still allowing commercial exploitation).
Chapman seems to imply that most of the scientists working on SC
efforts are developing autonomous weapons. This simply isn't
true. As I pointed out above, the bulk of work under the program
is technologically oriented. Most of the work in AI is placed at
universities. The people working on architectures come more from
industry, although there is heavy university participation.
These people are not developing autonomous weapons. The major
applications that Chapman cites are all with military industrial
contractors. It is their proper business to work on such
endeavors and scientists who work for them have made deliberate
choices to participate in such projects. Thus, the people who
state that they are not working on autonomous weapons are not
deluding themselves. They are simply stating the truth, although
it is true that it is expected that the applications contractors
will exploit the technological results. Potential for eventual
exploitation of technical results in military systems has always
been existed when working with DARPA, but the same is true for a
good portion of the research produced, no matter who funds it.
I want to make if very clear that I am not acting as an apologist
for DARPA. It is their business to be concerned with the
national defense of the country and the SC program does
address military needs. I am, however, very concerned with
setting the record straight in pointing out that Chapman's
characterization of the SC program is distorted and that much of
work under the program is of commercial and social value.
One area where I do agree with Chapman is in the need for more
funding to apply AI to social needs. This issue has been
addressed in previous responses so I won't belabor it here,
except to reiterate that additional funding is necessary to make
this happen.
Ron Ohlander
∂27-Sep-86 1341 RPG
∂26-Sep-86 1911 JMC
What happened in Washington?
Not too much. There was some discussion about whether to
standardize `Lisp' rather than `Common Lisp.' I was able to
invoke your comments to keep that from happening. There was
discussion of CommonLoops (object-oriented programming).
Hewitt made a motion to try to force Digital Press release the
copyright of the Steele book. Next meeting is set for Decemeber
in Dallas. Some committees set up to write reports on various
clarification issues.
-rpg-
∂27-Sep-86 1343 cramer@Sun.COM (Neo)-Con activity in the Palo Alto area
Received: from [10.7.0.2] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 86 13:43:15 PDT
Received: from snail.sun.com by sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.0)
id AA02660; Sat, 27 Sep 86 13:42:32 PDT
Received: from clem.sun.uucp by snail.sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA06262; Sat, 27 Sep 86 13:43:27 PDT
Received: by clem.sun.uucp (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA01147; Sat, 27 Sep 86 13:41:36 PDT
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 13:41:36 PDT
From: cramer@Sun.COM (Sam Cramer)
Message-Id: <8609272041.AA01147@clem.sun.uucp>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: (Neo)-Con activity in the Palo Alto area
Johh,
I have been reading your remarks on the Stanford bboard with pleasure (they
are gatewayed to Sun). They lead me to wonder if there is any organized
activity of a "right-thinking" nature in the PA area. I have formed a small
club with some friends which we call the "Palo Alto Jewish Political Forum";
we are trying to promote neo-con ideas in the local Jewish community (quite
a struggle: many Jews seem to think that Moses handed off the Torah to FDR!).
We are on the lookout for ideological allies. I know that there are lots of
good folks at Hoover; any circles of local activists there?
All the best,
Sam Cramer
---
Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer
arpanet: cramer@sun.com
∂27-Sep-86 1408 cramer@Sun.COM re: (Neo)-Con activity in the Palo Alto area
Received: from [10.7.0.2] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 86 14:08:14 PDT
Received: from snail.sun.com by sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.0)
id AA02709; Sat, 27 Sep 86 14:07:30 PDT
Received: from clem.sun.uucp by snail.sun.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA06302; Sat, 27 Sep 86 14:08:24 PDT
Received: by clem.sun.uucp (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA01182; Sat, 27 Sep 86 14:06:37 PDT
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 14:06:37 PDT
From: cramer@Sun.COM (Sam Cramer)
Message-Id: <8609272106.AA01182@clem.sun.uucp>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: (Neo)-Con activity in the Palo Alto area
Be happy to have you. Would you be interested in giving some sort of informal
talk? We have done some "home study group" type discussions regarding Central
America and arms control; we also hosted Phil Spiegelman, with whom you
may be acquainted - he spoke on his activities on behalf of Soviet dissidents.
I know your field is AI - perhaps something related to the anti-SDI efforts
of CPSR?
Sam
∂27-Sep-86 1659 SIEGMAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: "Suppression of Priors"?
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 86 16:59:06 PDT
Date: Sat 27 Sep 86 16:58:42-PDT
From: Tony Siegman <SIEGMAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: "Suppression of Priors"?
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Sat 27 Sep 86 14:19:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12242386707.22.SIEGMAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Couldn't say I was *sure* -- it was some time ago I read about it -- but I
think the context was sentencing, and judicial options in sentencing.
In fact, it may have been a MADD mailing piece or discussion, and they were
calling for an end to suppression of priors.
-------
∂27-Sep-86 2119 KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: California Supreme Court
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 86 21:19:36 PDT
Date: Sat 27 Sep 86 21:18:29-PDT
From: Abraham Kohen <KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: California Supreme Court
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Fri 26 Sep 86 22:59:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12242433998.12.KOHEN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
We could argue about Sowell's article for quite some time.
We could battle point/counter-point. But I find it very
difficult to argue with Professor McCarthy - not because he
is "right" on this issue, but rather because he is truly an
excellent debater and because, for me, Professor McCarthy is
"larger than life," and he is the Einstein of AI. (And had I
been born earlier and had a chance to learn from Einstein at
Princeton, I would not have debated him on his political
views either.)
So this will be my last comment on this matter, hopefully to
clarify my viewpoint and not to argue with JMC.
Mark Crispin's opinions re Scalia and Rehnquist reflect my own
thinking. I was against Rose Bird in the past precisely because
of her almost extremist liberal leanings. And she hasn't changed.
Yet our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, created a
system of checks and balances. Within the judicial branch, I
believe, we must have these same balances between the idealogues
of the left and of the right. With a federal judiciary that
seems to be tilting strongly to the right, we, as citizens, need
a California state judiciary with a tilt to the left to protect
our individual rights. In this way, maybe - and only maybe, we
can have a more balanced judiciary.
In closing, let me state, for JMC's benefit, that as a refugee
from Communist Hungary, I am virulently anti-communist, but I
am a strong advocate of individual freedom (which I know, JMC
is also) and I believe that Rose Bird is also.
Abe
-------
∂28-Sep-86 0059 @MIRO.SNETC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Yefim Shukin (sp?)
Received: from [128.81.2.8] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 86 00:59:42 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by MIRO.SNETC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 10758; Sun 28-Sep-86 03:59:19 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 412; Sun 28-Sep-86 00:57:45 PDT
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 86 00:52 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Yefim Shukin (sp?)
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <860928005237.4.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
say Hi from Pasand.
∂28-Sep-86 0746 ZAUDERER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Where's the New Student Brunch?
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 86 07:46:18 PDT
Date: Sun 28 Sep 86 07:45:10-PDT
From: Marvin Zauderer <ZAUDERER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Where's the New Student Brunch?
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Sat 27 Sep 86 19:29:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12242548084.10.ZAUDERER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks!
-- Marvin
-------
∂28-Sep-86 0800 JMC
golub brunch 11
∂28-Sep-86 1022 vardi@navajo.stanford.edu re: Skydiving
Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 86 10:22:30 PDT
Received: by navajo.stanford.edu; Sun, 28 Sep 86 10:21:44 PDT
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 86 10:21:44 PDT
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@navajo.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: Skydiving
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Thanks.
Moshe
∂28-Sep-86 1255 JOSEPHSON%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA [B. Chandrasekaran <Chandra@OSU-20>: The Program as it stands]
Received: from OHIO-STATE.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 86 12:54:52 PDT
Return-Path: <JOSEPHSON%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Received: from OSU-20 (osu-20.ARPA) by ohio-state.ARPA (4.12/6.1.OSU-CIS)
id AA00408; Sun, 28 Sep 86 15:54:36 edt
Message-Id: <8609281954.AA00408@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sun 28 Sep 86 14:26:50-EDT
From: john <Josephson%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: [B. Chandrasekaran <Chandra@OSU-20>: The Program as it stands]
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, SEARS@A.ISI.EDU
For your information, here is how the workshop is shaping up.
john
---------------
Mail-From: CHANDRA created at 11-Sep-86 22:31:26
Date: Thu 11 Sep 86 22:31:26-EDT
From: B. Chandrasekaran <Chandra@OSU-20>
Subject: The Program as it stands
To: Clancey%Sumex-aim.arpa@OSU-EDDIE, Lerman%SRI-KL.arpa@OSU-EDDIE,
Fikes%USC-ECL.arpa@OSU-EDDIE
cc: Josephson@OSU-20
I am enclosing the current version of the program for the workshop.
The preprints should be arriving in your mailboxes sometime in the
middle of next week.
--------------------
WORKSHOP ON HIGH LEVEL TOOLS
FOR KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
October 6-8, 1986
TENTATIVE PROGRAM
October 6, 1986
5 -- 8 PM: Reception at the Thurber Room at Columbus Airport
8 -- 10 PM: Bus ride to Shawnee
October 7, 1986
8:15 -- 9:00 Chandrasekaran: welcome, logistics/organization information
Overview of the Workshop, the Issues
9:00 -- 10:45 Session on Design and Planning Tools
9:00 -- 9:45 Josephson: Overview of papers and the issues
papers by Bennet, Brown, Rychener, Tong, Linden, Dean
9:45 -- 10:45 Discussion
10:45 -- 11:00 Break
11:00 -- 12:00 Session on Blackboards & Environments
11:00 -- 11:30 Erman: Overview of papers and the issues
papers by B. Hayes-Roth, Baum, Gallagher and Draper
11:30 -- 12:00 Discussion
12:00 -- 1:30 Lunch
1:30 -- 3:00 Session on Tools for Classification Problem Solving
1:30 -- 2:00 Cohen: Overview of papers and the issues
papers by Clancey, Bylander, Puppe and Hannan
2:00 -- 3:00 Discussion
3:00 -- 3:30 Break
3:30 -- 5:00 Session on Tools and Environments for
Knowledge Acquisition
3:30 -- 4:15 Bylander: Overview of papers and the issues
papers by Becker, Boose, Burstein, di Piazza and Coombs
4:15 -- 5:00 Discussion
7:00 --- Either a talk by Saul Amarel or informal demo/discussion
sessions. We are trying to have a Symbolics and a
Dandelion there, but no guarantees.
October 8, 1986
8:30 -- 9:45 Session on Tools for Domain Models/ Qualitative Reasoning
8:30 -- 9:05 Chandrasekaran: Overview of papers and the issues
papers by Nardi and Throop
9:05 -- 9:45 Discussion
9:45 -- 10:00 Break
10:00 -- 11:30 Session on Tools for Application Domains
10:00 -- 10:40 Fikes: Overview of papers and the issues
papers by Friedman, Reitman, Smoliar et al, Hart et al,
and Yun
10:40 -- 11:30 Discussion
11:30 -- 1:00 Lunch
1:00 -- 2:30 Session on Tool Kits
1:00 -- 1:35 Clancey: Overview of papers and the issues
papers by Chandra/Josephson, Cohen/Gruber, Gallanti
1:35 -- 2:30 Discussion
2:30 -- 2:45 Break
2:45 -- 4:00 Summary Discussion
Workshop Closes
-------
-------
∂28-Sep-86 1512 CLT EBOS
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, REG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, AIR@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
GRP@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
We will have a meeting Tuesday at 4pm to
discuss recent progress on ideas and what to
do next.
I will send a list of files containing
relevant material.
∂28-Sep-86 2026 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: AI Workshop
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 86 20:26:23 PDT
Date: Sun 28 Sep 86 20:25:08-PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: AI Workshop
To: KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
cc: lenat@MCC.COM, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <KIRSH.12237855867.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
Message-ID: <12242686430.32.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
David,
the situation has crystallized as follows:
we'll take the responsibility for a 45 minute "main paper".
The "we" is Doug Lenat and myself, perhaps joined by Mark Stefik of Xerox PARC.
The tentative title will be "The Knowledge Principle".
We applaud the idea of getting John Seely Brown as a discussant of this paper.
I hope this concludes the various iterations on this subject.
Best wishes,
Ed
-------
∂28-Sep-86 2036 PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU [John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>: re: Collection Program / Archives ]
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 86 20:36:30 PDT
Date: Sun 28 Sep 86 20:35:59-PDT
From: Henry E. Lowood <PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>: re: Collection Program / Archives ]
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12242688408.16.PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
TO: John McCarthy
FR: Henry Lowood
SU: Collection Program in History of AI / Archives
I doubt you will remember the message attached below. It was in response
to a brochure we sent out regarding our efforts in the library to preserve
important source material in the recent history of science--our "Stanford
and the Silicon Valley Project."
Somehow, I never saw the message until today, and I apologize for not
responding as a result. (That it was even saved is an accident, I suppose)
Anyway, I wonder if we could initiate the delayed discussion soon. We
(Roxanne Nilan, the University Archivist, and myself) were about to mail
you a letter soon about your own papers, and I am hoping you will be
amenable to a discussion both of your own material and of other collections
relating to the history of AI.
Henry Lowood
Bibliographer, History of Science Collections
P.S. Again, apologies for the mysterious ways.
---------------
Return-Path: <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SIERRA.ARPA with TCP; Wed 29 Jan 86 22:26:53-PST
Date: 29 Jan 86 2227 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: re: Collection Program / Archives
To: PHYSICSLIB@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 29 Jan 86 13:32:39-PST.]
I'd be glad to talk with you. How about Friday afternoon? You name the time.
-------
∂28-Sep-86 2218 langley@cip.UCI.EDU Re: workshop
Received: from ICS.UCI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 86 22:18:13 PDT
Received: from cip2.uci.edu by ICS.UCI.EDU id a012408; 28 Sep 86 22:14 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@su-ai.arpa>
cc: langley@cip.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: workshop
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 86 22:14:49 -0800
From: Pat Langley <langley@cip.UCI.EDU>
John - Thanks for the good news. I'll get in touch with Claudia to work
out the details. Pat
∂29-Sep-86 0814 nttlab!NTT-20!GOTO@shasta.stanford.edu Common Business Communication Language
Received: from SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 86 08:14:51 PDT
Received: by shasta.stanford.edu; Mon, 29 Sep 86 08:13:58 PDT
Received: from NTT-20.NTT.JUNET (ntt-20) by nttlab.ntt.junet (4.12/5.0M) with TCP; Mon, 29 Sep 86 23:10:28 jst
Date: Mon 29 Sep 86 23:09:30
From: Shigeki Goto <nttlab!NTT-20!Goto@shasta.stanford.edu>
Subject: Common Business Communication Language
To: Shasta!JMC%Sail.Stanford.EDU@nttlab.ntt
Cc: Shasta!RA%Sail.Stanford.EDU@nttlab.ntt, goto@ntt-20.ntt
Message-Id: <12242792811.10.GOTO@NTT-20.NTT.JUNET>
John,
One of my friends at NTT, Nobuo Kawashima, wants me to forward his message
to you. He would be happy if you could send him a copy of your paper on
Common Business Communication Language.
Thanks in advance.
** Shigeki **
P.S. Thanks to ME, sg@sail forwards mails to "nttlab!goto"@Shasta.Stanford.EDU
---------------------
Dear Prof. McCarthy:
Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your paper:
"Application of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge."
I have read it and got much interested in your Common Business Communication
Language.
I would like to read your paper, "Common Business Communication Language",
in Textverarbeitung und Burosysteme, Albert Endres and Jurgen Reetz eds.
R. Oldenboug Verlag, Munich and Vienna 1982.
Since I could not find it in our library, I would appreciate it if you
could send me a copy of your paper.
Regards,
N. Kawashima
Communication Processing Programs Section
NTT Communications and Information Processing Laboratories
1-2356, Take
Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Japan 238-03
------------------
-------
∂29-Sep-86 0945 CLT EBOS
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU,
LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, AIR@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
GRP@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
The `reading list' for our Tuesday meeting is
FILSYS.TXT[1,GRP] ;; files as active objects
EBOS3.TXT[1,AIR] ;; ideas about syntactic sugar
EBOS[1,VAL] ;; semantic sugar based on editing sessions
∂29-Sep-86 1030 PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>: re: Collection Program / Archives ]
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 86 10:26:08 PDT
Date: Mon 29 Sep 86 10:25:42-PDT
From: Henry E. Lowood <PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>: re: Collection Program / Archives ]
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Sun 28 Sep 86 22:03:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12242839451.26.PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
TO: John McCarthy
FR: Henry Lowood
Friday the 3rd won't work, but Friday the 10th would be great, say at 2 pm?
Roxanne and I can come to your office (in MJH?).
Henry
-------
∂29-Sep-86 1110 KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU AI Workshop
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 86 11:09:18 PDT
Date: 29 Sep 1986 14:08 EDT (Mon)
Message-ID: <KIRSH.12242847332.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Kirsh <KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, lenat@MCC.COM, hewitt%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU,
kirsh%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: AI Workshop
In-reply-to: Msg of 28 Sep 1986 23:25-EDT from Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM at SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Ed,
We look forward to your paper "The Knowledge Principle". The
commentators will be Brian Smith and John Seeley Brown. Here are some
deadlines to keep in mind:
March 1st Main Speaker's first draft.
March 15th Organizer's comments (primarily on clarity).
April 1st Revised draft sent to commentator.
May 1st Draft due from commentator.
May 15 th Organizer's comments on commentator's draft.
June 1st All drafts due for conference prepublication.
June 23rd-27th WORKSHOP
August 15th Final drafts for book version of proceedings.
-- David
∂29-Sep-86 1220 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA FYI
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 86 12:20:50 PDT
Date: Mon 29 Sep 86 12:20:21-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: FYI
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: aaaI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12242860323.41.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
for 1986-1987 period, $72K has been approved for workshops.
Claudia
-------
∂29-Sep-86 1302 VAL Moscow deadline approaching
The deadline for submitting abstracts is November 1, and it may take up to a
month for a letter from here to reach the addressee in Moscow. Can we find
out about the required format of abstracts from someone in the West instead of
waiting for Frolov's reply to your letter? I think we should try to send the
abstract sometime this week.
∂29-Sep-86 1404 RA
New tutor CS306
Edith Gilbertson called re the new tutor and wanted to know whether you
talked to him.
She would like me to call her and let her know, so please let me know
Thanks
∂29-Sep-86 1712 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU AI DISC: Hofstadter to Searle: New Version!
Received: from ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 86 17:11:48 PDT
Received: by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.53/1.16)
id AA02431; Mon, 29 Sep 86 15:48:29 PDT
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 15:48:29 PDT
From: vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Vijay Ramamoorthy)
Message-Id: <8609292248.AA02431@ernie.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: AI DISC: Hofstadter to Searle: New Version!
===============================================================================
Reply to John Searle by Douglas Hofstadter
First, a nutshell-sized response. I am always amazed that John Searle
can believe that the medium, not the pattern, is what causes "experiences" --
so that a medium other than a brain could undergo identical sequences of
patterns yet without having "experiences". Only BRAINS can experience
anything, says Searle. To me, that is not only mystical, but also incredibly
chauvinistic and incomprehensible. It is a religion, pure and simple.
Now let me make a capsule presentation of what Searle describes as
"Hofstadter's extraordinary view". My view is that thinking, like dancing, is
an activity that various objects -- and various KINDS of objects -- can engage
in, provided only that they are sufficiently flexible. I would feel quite
happy saying, of two autonomous objects, that both were doing "the same dance"
(say the cha-cha) if I observed that both objects had limb-like extremities
going through sufficiently similar sequences of actions. I would have no fear
that one or the other of the objects was merely doing "simulated dancing". I
wouldn't feel any need to do a biopsy to find out whether the limbs of either
object possessed special, covert "causal powers" in order to be confident of
my judgment; the overt patterns being followed by those limbs would clearly
reveal whether genuine cha-cha-ing was taking place or not. If it LOOKS like
the cha-cha, it IS the cha-cha! Thought, also being an activity characterized
by certain types of fairly regular and observable macro-patterns, can likewise,
without any biopsy, be recognized in an object, although the test for its
presence would have to be much longer and much subtler.
This is the view Searle calls "not a serious scientific hypothesis".
Well, in so cavalierly dismissing me, he is simultaneously dismissing large
numbers of philosophers, psychologists, AI researchers, physicists, and
cognitive scientists whose views are substantially the same as mine.
Now let me spell out my objections to Searle's statement a bit more
carefully. Professor Searle is up to his usual tricks with words and imagery.
His image of a brain model made of beer cans and ping-pong balls is wonderfully
deceptive, because everyone's image of beer cans and ping-pong balls is that
of basically inert, isolated, non-interacting objects, whereas the components
of a brain are self-energizing, highly connected, and interactive entities.
Although Searle grants an isomorphic mapping, he really is not accepting
the meaning of "isomorphism", for in an isomorphism, one has much more than
just a one-to-one correspondence between objects; one has also a one-to-one
correspondence between the relations or interactions between those objects.
So one's initial visual image of the brain model has to be corrected by turning
the beer cans and ping-pong balls into ACTIVE, CONNECTED, and INTERACTIVE
objects whose interactions mirror those of the objects they correspond to
in the brain. This violates the standard image of ping-pong balls and beer
cans, which is of course why they are such a good choice for Searle's purposes.
He can claim to have stipulated an isomorphism while at the same time subtly
but deeply prejudicing his readers against visualizing a true isomorphism.
This technique is akin to arguing for the impossibility of building
skyscrapers out of anything but steel, by saying, "Okay, I admit somebody
could build a full-sized replica of the Empire State Building out of jello
-- 102 floors, TV antenna on top -- anything you want. An isomorphic model!
But no matter how good a copy it might be, it's patently obvious that such a
replica wouldn't have the sky-scraping powers of the Empire State, because
it wouldn't be made of the right stuff." The REAL point, though, is that
the image of an Empire State Building made of jello is laughably absurd, so
the posited isomorphism doesn't make any sense -- and yet that's the genius
of the ploy; the hope is that many listeners will uncritically transfer the
blatant laughability of jello to ALL alternatives to steel, reasonable or
not, thereby reinforcing the equally absurd preconception that steel is the
only possible material for building structures having "sky-scraping powers"
(whatever they might be). A very slippery and smoothly executed trick, this
amounts to a rhetorical analogue of the classical stage technique magicians
call "misdirection".
Why, I wonder, did Searle not suggest a brain model made of Tinkertoys?
I would guess that it is because he was aware that anyone can easily imagine
a vast structure made of Tinkertoys, and with a bit of fantasy, can even
conjure up an image of a huge rickety brain-isomorph made of such a substrate
-- whereas to imagine such a thing made out of bare, unconnected ping-pong
balls and beer cans (he doesn't even suggest string!) is much harder, simply
because of standard, ingrained associations with those objects. It serves
Searle's purposes excellently to subliminally plant associations of inertness
and so on, without explicitly implying any such limitations (since, of course,
they are blatantly false, and he knows it). It is interesting to note,
incidentally, that a working Tinkertoy tic-tac-toe player has actually been
put together, using some 50,000 Tinkertoys.
Once one has the proper type of image (namely, of a network made of
self-energizing, interactive elements), then there is no longer anything so
weird about the idea of that gigantic structure "having experience". Indeed,
were you and I as tiny as electrons and protons, or synapses and axons, we
could probably look upon such strange, syntax-bound objects as the most
unlikely candidates to be constituents of a gigantic "consciousness machine".
It would just seem too implausible, too hard to grasp.
Similarly, Searle just has a terrible time seeing how anything on
a different scale from us could have properties that we have. It is a kind
of "scale chauvinism", something like the chauvinism that would deny that
genuine hurricanes could take place on the surface of a neutron star, because
hurricanes by definition must occur in air, and must be of a certain size.
The notion that the essence of hurricanehood or consciousness is PATTERN,
not material substrate or temporal or spatial scale, is simply beyond Searle.
To bolster this assertion, let me quote two sentences from Searle's
statement:
(1) A VAX 750 is made out of the wrong kind of stuff.
(2) If we ran a "computer simulation" of the brain using a system made
of neurons with axons, dendrites, boutons, receptors, synaptic
clefts and all the rest of it, it would cease to be a simulation
and would be the real thing.
Searle clearly assumes that any two brains have the same "causal
powers" as each other, because he is sure that brains are all made of "the
right stuff". He also clearly believes that a model made of ping-pong balls,
etc. could not have those "causal powers", being made of "the wrong kind of
stuff". It then becomes of utmost importance to be able to determine, given
an object, whether or not it is made of "the right stuff".
How, for example, could one ascertain whether an unknown object that
we have some reason to believe might have the "causal powers" of a brain is
actually made of the "right stuff"? The object might be brain-like down to
the level of neurons, or even below that level -- but the components below
that level might turn out to be made out of some completely different
substance. So how can we test this object for "right-stuff-ness"?
Presumably first of all one needs to be convinced that it is patterned
the right way in terms of more elementary components (say, cell-like entities).
If it has a sufficiently different organization from a real brain at that
level, one may well reject the notion that it has the right "causal powers".
(Thus, a mere heap of neurons would not generally be considered to possess
the same properties as a living brain.) Secondly, one needs to assure oneself
that the subunits (the cell-like entities) of the questionable object are in
turn made of the "right stuff" (i.e., the same stuff as the corresponding
entities of a real brain). Thus one takes an alleged cell from the alleged
brain and checks whether it behaves sufficiently much like a cell from a real
brain.
Actually, I seriously doubt that Searle would be convinced by such a
behavioral test (a "Turing test") of the alleged cell. The way I read him,
right behavior ("right syntax") would convince him of nothing. Searle would
be convinced he was dealing with genuine brain-cells only if the objects in
question passed a stringent test of "right-stuff-ness" on their own level.
Thus: he would want (1) to make sure that in terms of some lower-level units
(e.g., molecules), the alleged cell is patterned in roughly the same way as
a real brain-cell is, and if so, (2) to make sure that the alleged molecules
are in turn made of "the right stuff", at THEIR level.
This is beginning to sound like a lengthy recursion. Definitely!
Indeed, any "right-stuff-ness" test leads one either into an infinite regress
on ever-finer scales, or to a bottoming-out on some specific level, where one
agrees not to look further, being satisfied with the fact that the BEHAVIOR
of the item on that level is sufficiently "right".
In short, "right-stuff-ness" at a sufficiently microscopic level is
detectable only by operational tests. (This argument against Searle might
thus be called "reductio ad operationem".) Ultimately, pattern (or behavior,
or syntax -- all synonymous terms) is all there is to rely on, in deciding
what kind of stuff anything is made of. There is simply nothing deeper to
look at than HOW SOMETHING BEHAVES, when you reach a sufficiently tiny scale.
Thus a kind of "Turing test" (i.e., an observational test of behavior from
the outside) on the micro-level is the only way we can ascertain whether
we are dealing with genuine electrons, genuine carbon atoms, genuine amino
acids, genuine DNA, genuine dendrites, genuine neurons.
The recursively-structured test of "right-stuff-ness" has to bottom
out somewhere if it is not to be an infinite regress. At that bottom level,
all that is left is FORMAL PROPERTIES -- syntax. It is the proper "syntax"
(behavioral patterns) of the quarks (or wherever Searle feels the appropriate
bottom level lies -- it doesn't matter a hoot to me) composing the alleged
brain that reassures members of the Searlian religion that that object is
really made of "the right stuff", and thus that it has the right "causal
powers", and thus that it has genuine "semantics". In short, syntax (on
a sufficiently microscopic level) is sufficient for semantics.
The following example may be useful. Suppose there were a perfect
copy of a particular human brain (Searle's, for amusement) that was made out
of antimatter -- in other words, a complete particle-by-particle isomorph,
with electrons replaced by positrons, protons by antiprotons, etc. Would
Searle feel that this object had the same "causal powers" as his brain does?
Would this anti-brain "cause" a Searlian mind? Or a Searlian anti-mind? It
is perhaps relevant to quote again from Searle's recent statement:
Are we supposed to think that if we could just get some system
that had a "syntactical" or formal structure of elements that
was isomorphic to the elements of the brain processes, that that
system would have exactly the same experiences that human beings
have when they take cocaine?
The scoffing tone of this quote would lead one to believe that Searle would
ridicule the notion that such an anti-brain might be a possible site of
"experiences" or "semantics", for clearly, if ANYTHING is made of "the wrong
stuff", such an anti-brain is. You can't get further away from genuine matter
than anti-matter!
If Searle feels this way, then not only do he and I part company, but
I would guess that he and virtually the entire scientific world would part
company at that point. Every scientist I know would agree that an anti-being
with such an anti-brain would have anti-experiences that would be totally
equivalent to our "anti-anti-experiences".
But then again, sly devil that he is, perhaps Searle would trick me
at this point, and agree that obviously, since anti-matter resembles ordinary
matter so deeply, such a perfectly isomorphic object would be every bit as
good a candidate for genuine "semantic experiences" as a real brain would.
If so, I would submit that he had thereby conceded the entire point to me
-- namely, that isomorphism of pattern, NOT "right-stuff-ness", is what tells
us when something has or lacks a given property, including the property he
variously calls "being made of the right stuff", "having the right causal
powers", "having content", "having experience", or "having semantics".
Let me suppose that Searle concedes to me some of this, but still
argues as follows. "Of course you can substitute `wrong stuff' at a
sufficiently microscopic level, and it will make no difference to causal
powers several levels higher in the system. But that is totally irrelevant.
What I'm arguing is that you can't substitute computers for brains, or for
neurons, or for dendrites and axons, etc.. You've got to have the right
chemistry and physics and so forth there. But obviously, anti-chemistry
will do just as well."
I would then ask, "If anti-chemistry will do just as well as genuine
chemistry, why wouldn't any old `wrong-stuff chemistry' (e.g., Tinkertoy
chemistry, ping-pong-ball-and-beer-can chemistry, you name it) do just as well
as genuine chemistry? Provided that the `wrong stuff' were arranged in such a
way that every last detail of the syntax of chemical interactions is mirrored
in it, how would this case differ from that of anti-chemistry?" The crucial
property that might make Searle accept the interchangeability of anti-chemistry
and real chemistry is not anti-chemistry's "right stuff", but its special
syntax, so perfectly isomorphic to that of real chemistry. Perfect isomorphism
is what makes THAT kind of "wrong stuff" seem so very much like "right stuff".
But perfect isomorphism with real chemistry would hold equally for any
"wrong-stuff" chemistry worthy of the name "chemistry". The only difference
between such a case and the case of anti-chemistry would be one of temporal
and spatial scale. Still, I am pretty sure that Searle would instantly reject
any other type of "wrong-stuff chemistry" as having "the wrong causal powers".
Effectively, Searle's hypothetical retort to me amounts to a religious
proclamation as to what level genuine experience depends on. It would be,
by Searlian decree, below the whole-brain level, below the cellular level,
below the dendrite-and-axon level -- but above the particle level. Moreover,
it would allow certain kinds, and only those kinds, of substitutions to take
place at the level of chemical reactions (or below). This would amount to a
totally dogmatic assertion as to what is necessary and what is dispensable,
for the presence of genuine "experience", "semantics", or "content".
Bypassing all evidence from behavior, such as perfect passing of a
full-fledged real-time Turing Test, Searle would cheerfully pronounce certain
systems worthy of consideration as "content-bearing" and others as totally
unworthy, because of their material constitution. No matter how many pleas
such a system might utter before being destroyed, no matter what kinds of
beautiful music or prose or art had issued forth from it, no matter how
eloquent or convincing its arguments, Searle would feel no qualms in destroying
any object made of "the wrong stuff". It is for reasons like this that I feel
that Searle's position is nothing but an anthropocentric religion disguised
as a scientific philosophy of mind, based wholly on emotional appeals to naive
intuitions, and bolstered by cleverly worded statements carefully designed to
create highly misleading imagery.
∂29-Sep-86 2149 chapman@russell.stanford.edu Reply to Ohlander
Received: from RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 86 21:49:40 PDT
Received: by russell.stanford.edu with Sendmail; Mon, 29 Sep 86 21:49:40 pdt
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 21:49:40 pdt
From: Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>
Subject: Reply to Ohlander
To: JMC@Sail, OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU, ohlander@B.ISI.EDU
I have to say that I was content to have Jim Dray distribute my contribution to
the OTA report to whoever he wanted to show it to, and I was open to the idea of
some dialogue on the important issues I think I addressed in my long message.
But I haven't been happy to see some of the abuse that I have taken in the
responses from McCarthy, Ohlander, et. al.
Commander Ohlander, I do take some offense at your suggestion that my report is
based on a desire to undermine the defense of the United States. I said in the
opening paragraph of my contribution to OTA that I served as a Green Beret in
the United States Army. I am proud of my military service. I graduated first
in my class in the Special Forces Qualification Course, which is no piece of
cake. I rose through the ranks of the Army as fast as anyone could go. I
served in Vietnam, Iran, Panama and Turkey. I was an advisor to the First
Marine Division at Camp Lejeune. I was an instructor at the U.S. Army Special
Forces School of Underwater Operations. You surely know that Special Forces is
a volunteer unit, and that the entrance requirements are rather stiff.
I also said in my contribution that I served as a "tester" for a number of high
tech military systems that were under consideration for procurement by the Army.
I tested an underwater vehicle delivery system, a night jump drop zone
identification system and a modern closed-circuit SCUBA pack using heli-ox and a
computerized monitor, among other things. I had a "secret" security clearance,
I was HALO qualified, SCUBA qualified and I flew on test operations for
clandestine insertions using Spectre/Blackbird C-130 aircraft.
I was on a C-141 headed for Egypt in October 1973 until President Nixon called
us back.
So I take some offense at your suggestion that I can't face up to the need for a
defense of the country. I am not a wet-behind-the-ears draft dodger.
During my Special Forces Phase 1 training, I was given a "mission" of rescuing a
downed pilot who had crashed behind enemy lines with secret documents. The
"enemy" (this was a war game) had called one of their intelligence units to come
and get the papers and interrogate the pilot. My mission was to get there
first. I was given the entire mission at about noon. The intelligence unit was
to arrive at about two, and the farmhouse where the pilot was being held was
about 12 kilometers away. Fortunately, I was given two helicopters to get my
men over there.
We did a combat landing on the field just outside the farmhouse and came under
"fire" immediately. I assumed this was the unit that had captured the pilot, so
we returned fire. Eventually the firing stopped and we took the farmhouse. But
there was no pilot, no papers. We searched everywhere for over an hour. I sent
out squad patrols in all directions to look for someone who might have escaped
with the pilot or the papers. They all came back empty-handed.
Seeing my distress, the course grader came over to talk to me. He said, "You've
got a problem, and it's not your fault." I said, "What happened?" And he
replied, "Those guys you killed over there were a whole platoon of U.S.
Marines." I just scoffed. He said, "Your intelligence was bad. Things got
screwed up. The farmhouse you wanted is about 10 clicks away. Somebody got the
coordinates messed up, and you just killed 40 American G.I.s." I thought he was
just joking, trying to crank up my stress level. I said, "Well, come on . . .
That doesn't really happen." He said, "Happened to me . . ." And the way he
said it I knew he wasn't joking. He was teaching me a lesson. Don't ever
expect things to go as planned in a war.
In Vietnam I had a friend named Gary in the 173rd Brigade, the "Third Herd."
Gary's platoon was called into a bad firefight that needed reinforcement. They
took a dry creek bed to the fight, and they were running hard. Gary was "slack
man," or the guy behind point. The guy on point was big. He went under a tree
that had fallen over the creek bed. Gary was just coming up from under the tree
when the point hit a trip wire and a Claymore blew him in half. The right side
of Gary's face was blown off by shrapnel. The unit found out later it was an
automatic ambush they themselves had put down and then forgot about.
I sat through an artillery briefing in which a young artillery corps major told
us that his spotting and firing techniques had become so sophisticated that we
no longer needed forward observers. In fact, the major said, we didn't need to
call in artillery strikes at all! Apparently he would just fire at will. We
all looked at him as if he was crazy, which he may have been. An old Special
Forces master sergeant in the back of the room got up and said, "Sir, with all
due respect to an officer, if I ever find out you are in charge of the artillery
in my A.O., I will personally come to the rear and shoot you right between the
eyes." He said what we were all thinking.
When I hear about autonomous weapons, command and control expert systems,
"battle management" (that great oxymoron), I just get dizzy. I figure that
major was promoted to some powerful position in the Pentagon where the master
sergeant can't get at him, but in which he's doing an even bigger job of
screwing things up. When I hear that in Grenada a line officer had to use his
stateside credit card to call in air support on a pay telephone because of the
stupid complexities and interservice rivalry of the command structure, I want to
scream.
Even conservatives have had enough of the services' technical whiz-kid solutions
to basic leadership and organizational problems. The most stinging indictment
of the current infatuation with high tech weapons comes from Edward Luttwak, a
dyed-in-the-wool right winger, in his recent book, *The Pentagon and the Art of
War.* Today's issue of Advanced Military Computing says that one Don Willis,
vice president and general manager of Magnavox Command Systems Operation,
reported that "one of the military services may be considering moving away from
sophisticated computer command and control systems and back to traditional
battle management methods with no automation. . .[the] top officers believe
'command and control systems are too complex, and we should not have them.'" I
nearly cheered.
When you read the story of the procurement of the M-16 in James Fallows' book,
*National Defense,* you figure someone should hang. When you hear the story
about the Army actually remotely demolishing an aircraft with explosives on
board in order to make it *look* like it was hit by the utterly worthless Divad
system, you must conclude that someone has lost his mind. And when I see some
of the descriptions of contracts and RFP's that come out of all the services and
the Pentagon I am occasionally stunned into silence. A portable expert system
to teach soldiers how to speak the language of the country they're in? A
"terminal homing munition" that will be able to "distinguish between friendly
and enemy forces through the use of VHSIC processors on board the warhead"?
This is madness.
The responses I've received to my contribution to the OTA have been nearly
identical: if he criticizes the plans of the Pentagon, he doesn't want to
defend the country. And if he criticizes the goals of the Strategic Computing
Initiative, he doesn't understand how DARPA works or the commercial potential of
the technologies being developed. This is hogwash.
The Pentagon should not be immune from criticism because it has produced some
bad ideas of colossal proportions. In my opinion, one of those ideas is
producing "autonomous" weapons, which in my opinion are not only dangerous to
both sides, but potentially a war crime. You think the concept of war crime is
something that is only pondered by pacifists? Autonomous weapons are an insult
to the American soldier because they equate the conduct of war with total
destruction, simple slaughter. There is a difference. Call it romantic if you
like, but war is supposed to be a contest of wills backed by the power of
political conviction, not a shooting gallery where people are popped off with
all the deliberation of an alarm clock going off in the morning. Professional
soldiers, or at least the ones we'd all want to be with if we had to be in
combat, understand this.
I'm all for a strong military, and I had enough experience in the military to
know what to spend our money on to make it stronger: personnel. We need
leadership skills, good officers and NCOs, decent pay, reliable weapons that do
what they're supposed to do and clear, rational organizational design. We had
enough of commanders in Vietnam who lived in air-conditioned trailers and ate
stateside steaks and watched the war from LOCHes while the line troops sweated
and died. We had a commander in XVIIIth Airborne who said just as we were
leaving for the Middle East, "Boys, just dig a hole, get down in it and stay
there. I will blow them to hell." Is that the kind of person you want to serve
with? Hell no. We should be training officers like one of my closest friends,
an infantry company commander in the Marines in Vietnam who prides himself on
having never drawn even a sidearm nor fired a shot, even though he was in some
of the worst fighting of the war. That pride is the mark of a good soldier.
I don't trust any computer programmer to know any of this, or even believe it if
you told it to him. In Vietnam, officers were "fragged," a disgrace to the
whole history of the military. Next war the soldiers will probably be fragging
computers. Who would want a commander who was hunched over his computer
terminal, trying to figure out what to do? I want a commander who *knows* what
to do and gets all the glory. I'd take a Patton over a Cray any day of the
week.
I think I could say this to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and get a standing
ovation. So I don't need to hear any of this stuff about not wanting to defend
our country.
Now, about commercial spin-offs. This also burns me up. Defending the country
is not a jobs program nor an industrial policy. At least it's not supposed to
be. But in fact the way things work with so much money involved is that clients
of the Pentagon will cook up almost any reason why their product is absolutely
essential for the defense of the country, even when everyone can see it's a
piece of junk, like the Divad. If we want commercial development in artificial
intelligence, which I strongly endorse, then we should fund it, not through the
back door of military spending, but through the front door of some other source
of commercial R&D expenditure. No hare-brained scheme for national defense
should be justified because it has "spin-off potential." That's irresponsible
and bad policy to boot. Military commanders are guilty of this irresponsiblity
too. They should tell the civilian Pentagon managers to take back their
crackerjacks toys and give them more money for officers, NCOs, training,
education and reliable weapons.
This is an angry diatribe, I'll admit. But I have been provoked by the
armchair, knee-jerk reactions of the people who have responded to my original
contribution. I think the goals of the Strategic Computing Initiative are the
triumph of the desk jockeys, gentlemen. I think anyone who is arrogant enough
to think that we ought to run a war with pre-coded software instead of real
leadership is playing with half a deck. I think it's dangerous, short-sighted
and potentially criminal.
Gary Chapman
Executive Director
Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility
∂30-Sep-86 1134 VAL re: Moscow deadline approaching
[In reply to message rcvd 29-Sep-86 20:40-PT.]
I just learned that the deadline is changed to March 1.
∂30-Sep-86 1254 SITN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Fall class handouts
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 86 12:54:13 PDT
Date: Tue 30 Sep 86 12:52:54-PDT
From: SITN Networking <SITN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Fall class handouts
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: RA@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12243128393.27.SITN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
From: Judith Lemon, David Francis, Sol Lederman
Re: Electronic Delivery of class handouts
Dear Sir:
As you know, the Stanford Instructional Television Network is
currently exploring and implementing new ways for quicker handout
delivery to television students. The system is initially designed to
operate in parallel with the existing courier system. Your willingness
to cooperate with the electronic system is greatly appreciated. We wish
to make the transfer of handout files as easy as possible for you.
Currently we see two methods of file transfer.
1. You send handout source files to the SITN account
(SITN@Sushi) via electronic mail.
2. You provide access to handout source files and SITN
retrieves them via some file transfer program.
We hope to set up a file transfer schedule which will help to simplify
and smooth the process of handout file transfer. I would like to
schedule a meeting with you to discuss the details of your
participation in the electronic system. Secretaries, teaching
assistants, and any other people involved in the handout creation
process are encouraged to attend. If meeting isn't convenient for
you or others, other arrangements (e.g. telephone, electronic mail)
can be made.
Sol Lederman and I are the coordinators of the electronic handout
delivery project. Sol is responsible for company coordination and I am
responsible for the coordination of the Stanford participants. Feel
free to contact Sol or I at (415) 723-3618 or via electronic mail at
SITN@Sushi if you have any questions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
David Francis
-------
∂30-Sep-86 1255 VAL Commonsense and Non-Monotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
The Yale Shooting: Non-Monotonic Formalisms Not Guilty
Vladimir Lifschitz (VAL@SU-AI)
Stanford University
Thursday, October 9, 4pm
MJH 252
John McCarthy has proposed to use circumscription for solving two problems
encountered in attempts to formalize reasoning about action, the "qualification
problem" and the "frame problem". His formulation was found to be inadequate. A
simple illustration was given by Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott, who considered
the sequence of 3 actions: LOAD (a gun), WAIT, and SHOOT (an individual named
Fred). They wrote axioms which describe properties of these actions in the style
of McCarthy's approach and showed that the expected result, Fred's death, cannot
be derived from the axioms using circumscription. This difficulty is mentioned by
McDermott, among others, in his paper, "Critique of Pure Reason", as an argument
against the "logicist" approach to AI.
Three papers presented at AAAI-86 (Kautz, Shoham and Lifschitz) met this
challenge by formalizing, in different contexts, the idea of "chronological
minimization": selecting models in which abnormal events occur as late as possible.
All these formulations had to modify or generalize McCarthy's definition of
circumscription.
In this talk I propose a solution not based on chronological minimization.
With a somewhat different choice of primitive predicates, the effects of actions
can be characterized by simple axioms in the language of situation calculus plus
traditional circumscription. Moreover, in these applications circumscription is
usually "tractable": its result can be determined by predicate completion and
similar methods.
∂30-Sep-86 1434 OHLANDER@B.ISI.EDU Re: Reply to Ohlander
Received: from B.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 86 14:34:28 PDT
Date: 30 Sep 1986 14:33-PDT
Sender: OHLANDER@B.ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Reply to Ohlander
From: OHLANDER@B.ISI.EDU
To: chapman@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, OTA-CIT@A.ISI.EDU, ar@ALV.UMD.EDU
Message-ID: <[B.ISI.EDU]30-Sep-86 14:33:21.OHLANDER>
In-Reply-To: The message of Mon, 29 Sep 86 21:49:40 pdt from Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>
I am sorry that you seem to take my response personally. I was certainly not
impugning your loyalty or integrity. You have a right to be proud of your
service to the U.S. and I am sure that you know more about warfare in the
trenches than the rest of us. However, your position has to be judged on the
basis of what was placed in front of me, and I stand by my statement that your
original position appears to assume that the U.S. does not have the right to
defend itself by exploiting AI technology for defense. You deplore the role
that intelligent computers might play in warfare without offering alternative
technological solutions. You do not address issues of overpowering manpower
and equipment advantages on the part of the Russians. I merely pointed out
that some of us are concerned about that problem and believe high technology
can overcome some of these discrepancies. If you will recall, the bulk of my
message was addressed towards setting the record straight on the SC program.
Ron Ohlander
∂30-Sep-86 1546 AMEHTA@Sushi.Stanford.EDU 306 TA
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 86 15:46:35 PDT
Date: Tue 30 Sep 86 15:45:16-PDT
From: Abhay Mehta <AMEHTA@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: 306 TA
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: AMEHTA@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12243159770.23.AMEHTA@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
I have been speaking with Carolyn about the QLISP project and also
about being a TA for 306. She just told me that I can be a TA for
306 this quarter and then a RA in the subsequent quarters. Would you
like to meet and go over the TA duties with me?
Abhay Mehta
-------
∂30-Sep-86 1612 RA TA
The TA's name is Yun-Jen Hsu. I forwarded your msg. to her.
∂30-Sep-86 1639 RA CS306 class notes
The notes for the class--EKL manual and LISP programming and proving came
back from the printer. The students can buy them from me for $9.50 for both.
∂30-Sep-86 1725 CLT shopping list
unscented tide
gerber rice cereal
pepperidge farm hearty wheat crackers
raisins -- dark 2lbs
ritz crackers
sugar - 10lb bag
supper - meat and veg
∂30-Sep-86 1812 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU AI DISC: A Comment from the Outside
Received: from ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 86 18:10:38 PDT
Received: by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.53/1.16)
id AA10052; Tue, 30 Sep 86 18:10:09 PDT
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 18:10:09 PDT
From: vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Vijay Ramamoorthy)
Message-Id: <8610010110.AA10052@ernie.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: AI DISC: A Comment from the Outside
I am Seymour Papert's editorial assistant, and have been reading these
interchanges and feeling somewhat of a voyeur. The recent exchange between
Searle and Hofstadter (I hope I got both your names right, fellas) has set
off a few synapses of my own. Their argument is almost identical to one
that has been raging for decades among psychologists -- the behavioral vs.
clinical variety -- a field I used to have some affiliations with.
In summary, the behaviorists believe that we can treat human beings as
black boxes -- that it doesn't matter what goes on inside the black box, or
what the black box is made of, or how the black box operates. All that
matters is that we can observe stimuli going in and responses coming out.
Their position is, in essence, that's all we "really need to know" about
human behavior.
The clinicians believe that what goes on "inside the black box" is crucial,
central, and the whole point of efforts to understand human beings. They
argue that two "identical" symptoms -- agoraphobia [fear of markets!] for
example -- can have completely different causations, and that one needs to
know the cause in order to deal effectively with the symptom.
Both camps present various forms of evidence that their view is the correct
one, and argue that the other's evidence isn't worth a hill of beans. I
suspect that the issue between Searle and Hofstadter, like the issue
between the behaviorists and the clinicians, is a profound difference of
perspective and of assumptions about the nature of reality, abstraction,
thought, consciousness, scientific evidence, and so on. Surely neither of
them is really arguing about ping-pong balls.
I dunno if this observation is of any practical use to any of you who are
involved in this discussion. I nonetheless offer it in the hopes that it
may prod new ideas about the nature of your impasse. I'm also scooting
quickly back to the sidelines and keeping my mouth henceforward shut.
-------
∂30-Sep-86 2041 PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>: re: Collection Program / Archives ]
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 86 20:41:00 PDT
Date: Tue 30 Sep 86 20:40:24-PDT
From: Henry E. Lowood <PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: [John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>: re: Collection Program / Archives ]
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 29 Sep 86 20:39:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12243213500.10.PHYSICSLIB@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
TO: John McCarthy
Just to confirm: Roxanne Nilan and I will by on the 10th at 2 p.m.
Henry Lowood
-------
∂30-Sep-86 2330 ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: California Supreme Court
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 86 23:30:45 PDT
Date: Tue 30 Sep 86 23:29:23-PDT
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: California Supreme Court
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Tue 30 Sep 86 22:09:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12243244261.11.ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
JMC (John McCarthy) wrote:
There is no Einstein of AI; AI has hardly reached the scientific level
of Galileo.
One could argue that AI is the least scientific CS specialty. Have there
been Einsteins in other CS areas?
-andy
-------
∂01-Oct-86 0902 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA help
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 86 09:01:59 PDT
Date: Wed 1 Oct 86 09:01:33-PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: help
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: aaai-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12243348422.31.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John,
The AAAI office's computer systems are becoming pretty outdated. Currently,
we have a personal computer local area network with a membership database
of well over 4 Mbytes. What we need is a multiuser database system and
speed.
I thought you might be able to direct me to someone who could give us
some advice on new hardware and software for these pretty simple office
functions.
ANy help will be appreciated.
Claudia
-------
∂01-Oct-86 1437 RA David Teich
He is one of your advisees and wanted to make an appointment with you. His
tel. (408) 743 7540
∂01-Oct-86 1456 RA Brik Hubregs
Brik called you re TA-ing CS306, his tel. (206) 335 2491. He is there 8:00am
to 6:00pm.