5 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. The neats: logic and symbolic reasoning[edit source] Logic was introduced into AI research as early as 1958, by John McCarthy in his Advice Taker proposal.[100] In 1963, J. Alan Robinson had discovered a simple method to implement deduction on computers, the resolution and unification algorithm. However, straightforward implementations, like those attempted by McCarthy and his students in the late 1960s, were especially intractable: the programs required astronomical numbers of steps to prove simple theorems.[101] A more fruitful approach to logic was developed in the 1970s by Robert Kowalski at the University of Edinburgh, and soon this led to the collaboration with French researchers Alain Colmerauer and Philippe Roussel who created the successful logic programming language Prolog.[102] Prolog uses a subset of logic (Horn clauses, closely related to "rules" and "production rules") that permit tractable computation. Rules would continue to be influential, providing a foundation for Edward Feigenbaum's expert systems and the continuing work by Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon that would lead to Soar and their unified theories of cognition.[103] Critics of the logical approach noted, as Dreyfus had, that human beings rarely used logic when they solved problems. Experiments by psychologists like Peter Wason, Eleanor Rosch, Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman and others provided proof.[104] McCarthy responded that what people do is irrelevant. He argued that what is really needed are machines that can solve problems—not machines that think as people do.[105] The scruffies: frames and scripts[edit source] Among the critics of McCarthy's approach were his colleagues across the country at MIT. Marvin Minsky, Seymour Papert and Roger Schank were trying to solve problems like "story understanding" and "object recognition" that required a machine to think like a person. In order to use ordinary concepts like "chair" or "restaurant" they had to make all the same illogical assumptions that people normally made. Unfortunately, imprecise concepts like these are hard to represent in logic. Gerald Sussman observed that "using precise language to describe essentially imprecise concepts doesn't make them any more precise."[106] Schank described their "anti-logic" approaches as "scruffy", as opposed to the "neat" paradigms used by McCarthy, Kowalski, Feigenbaum, Newell and Simon.[107] In 1975, in a seminal paper, Minsky noted that many of his fellow "scruffy" researchers were using the same kind of tool: a framework that captures all our common sense assumptions about something. For example, if we use the concept of a bird, there is a constellation of facts that immediately come to mind: we might assume that it flies, eats worms and so on. We know these facts are not always true and that deductions using these facts will not be "logical", but these structured sets of assumptions are part of the context of everything we say and think. He called these structures "frames". Schank used a version of frames he called "scripts" to successfully answer questions about short stories in English.[108] Many years later object-oriented programming would adopt the essential idea of "inheritance" from AI research on frames.
  2. Apr 2018
    1. Her words reveal the conflict between allegiance to hercultural background and her adopted culture.

      conflict between both of her cultures. her cultural background is one of patrice lumbaba who was killed. meaning her only identity were two european royaltyis and a horribly alteres portrayal, embodiment of Jesus

    2. Trying new approaches is a strategy in which some womenbegan to understand and interact within their worlds insomewhat different ways, taking advantage of new optionsthat became apparent.

      I argue that the entire play is in this stage, the last stage. her way of trying new apporaches is making up different realities and people who each see this situation as something much different and far more dramatic/tramautic

  3. Jun 2016
    1. Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)

      Schinske, Jeffrey, and Kimberly Tanner. 2014. “Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently).” CBE Life Sciences Education 13 (2): 159–66. doi:10.1187/cbe.CBE-14-03-0054.

      Has a good brief history of grading.

  4. Feb 2015