Keith A. Pray - Professional and Academic Site
About Me
·
·
·
LinkedIn Profile Facebook Profile GoodReads Profile
Professional
Academic
Teaching
                                          
Printer Friendly Version

Intro ] [ 24-Algorithm Design ] [ 25-AM ] [ 26-Edison ]

Up: AI in Design ]

Critique: The Ubiquity of Discovery
Douglas B. Lenat *

      From the very beginning of this article I knew I was in for a treat. Most things were explained very clearly and with humor that not only made the reading enjoyable (not that it usually isn't) but that also helped to understand the particular point or issue at hand. One complaint I have, although minor and specific, is the example of finding the genetic component of IQ. I attribute this mostly to my opinion that all measures of IQ that I know of seem inadequate and often give misleading measures of intelligence. This is easily made up for by the inclusion of actually meaningful pictures, diagrams and the like. Cheese cutting is an often neglected domain in AI in Design research. I could have done with less examples of rules and run traces of AM though.

      I was surprised when Lenat presents the paradigm of AI research and uses the term "information processing" rather than "symbol processing" given his previous summary of different scientific views of people. Does he mean to use these terms interchangeably or is he saying there a fundamental difference between representations machines and people can work with? It would seem that information is explicit in representation while a symbol is not. Symbols seem more open to interpretation.

      It was interesting to see statements about automatic language translation and other such things that didn't seem very possible or to work well back in 1978 but seem to be common and generally accepted these days. Despite all the advances made over the last 23 years, we still have a ways to go though. Lenat says that it seems that it should be possible for a computer to provide driving directions for example, maybe even in Boston, but a quick look at the services available on the web shows there is still some work to be done.

      I was very happy when Lenat addresses the limitations imposed upon AM by not taking advantage of the knowledge it discovers to control its search. By treating the control knowledge (heuristics) and the concepts it seems very possible to improve the system. From the examples of rules and AM execution it doesn't seem like a trivial change to make though. Also, it seems limiting to think of all control knowledge as heuristics.

      "AI programs make explicit, in a very usable form, the knowledge necessary to perform some complicated activity, thereby de-mystifying it." What about neural networks?


* D. B. Lenat, The Ubiquity of Discovery. Proc. Nat. Computer Conf., Vol. 47, 1978, pp. 65-80.

Intro
01-DPMED
02-Dominic
03-DSPL Air-Cyl
04-Pride
05-COSSACK
06-MICOM-M1
07-Configuration Survey
08-Dynamic CSP
09-MOLGEN
10-Failure Handling
11-VT
12-Conflict Resolution
13-Cooperative Negotiation
14-Negotiated Search
15-Multiagent Design
16-Prototypes
17-CBR Survey
18-PROMPT
19-A Design
20-Bogart
21-Cadet
22-Argo
23-Analogy Creativity Survey
24-Algorithm Design
25-AM
26-Edison
27-LEAP
28-Plan Compilation
29-ML Survey
30-Strain Gauge
31-Grammar
32-Config GA
33-Functional First
34-Functional CBR
35-Functional Survey
36-Models
37-First Principles
38-Config Spaces
39-Task Analysis

by: Keith A. Pray
Last Modified: August 13, 2004 7:59 PM
© 2004 - 1975 Keith A. Pray.
All rights reserved.

Current Theme: 

Kapowee Hosted | Kapow Generated in 0.009 second | XHTML | CSS