Getting started on a new knowledge engineering project is a difficult and challenging task, even for those who have done it before. For those who haven't, the task can often prove impossible. One reason is that the requirements-oriented methods and intuitions learned in the development of other types of software do not carry over well to the knowledge engineering task. Another reason is that methodologies for developing expert systems by extracting, representing, and manipulating an expert's knowledge have been slow in coming. At Tektronix, we have been using step-by-step approach to prototyping expert systems for over two years now. The primary features of this approach are that it gives software engineers who do not know knowledge engineering an easy place to start, and that it proceeds in a step-by-step fashion from initiation to implementation without inducing conceptual bottlenecks into the development process. This methodology has helped us collect the knowledge necessary to implement several prototype knowledge-based systems, including a troubleshooting assistant for the Tektronix FG-502 function generator and an operator's assistant for a wave solder machine.

Over the past few years, the notion of a "prototype" (e.g., TYPICAL-ELEPHANT) seems to have caught on securely in knowledge representation research. Along with a way to specify default properties for instances of a description, proto-representations allow overriding, or "canceling" of properties that don't apply in particular cases. This supposedly makes representing exceptions ( three-legged elephants and the like ) easy; but, alas, it makes one crucial type of representation impossible-that of composite descriptions whose meanings are functions of the structure and interrelation of their parts. This article explores this and other ramifications of the emphasis on default properties and "typical" objects.

The fact was there were a lot of failures. There I have been assigned the role of survivalist. First I want to were overruns and systems delivered past schedule. This ask, "Has AI paid its way?"... Or to put it another way, is certainly not unique to Naval Electronic System Command. "Have we earned our keep?" I have three answers to that: The most would be systems being acquired for the Yes, yes, and yes.

The classical approach to the acquisition of knowledge and reason in artificial intelligence is to program the facts and rules into the machine. Unfortunately, the amount of time required to program the equivalent of human intelligence is prohibitively large. An alternative approach allows an automaton to learn to solve problems through iterative trial-and-error interaction with its environment, much as humans do. To solve a problem posed by the environment, the automaton generates a sequence or collection of responses based on its experience. The environment evaluates the effectiveness of this collection, and reports its evaluation to the automaton. The automaton modifies its strategy accordingly, and then generates a new collection of responses. This process is repeated until the automaton converges to the correct collection of responses. The principles underlying this paradigm, known as collective learning systems theory are explained and applied to a simple game, demonstrating robust learning and dynamic adaptivity.

Research in AI within the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles is loosely composed of three interacting and cooperating groups: (1) the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, at 3677 Boelter Hall, which is concerned mainly with natural language processing and cognitive modelling, (2) the Cognitive Systems Laboratory, at 4731 Boelter Hall, which studies the nature of search, logic programming, heuristics, and formal methods, and (3) the Robotics and Vision Laboratory, at 3532 Boelter Hall, where research concentrates on robot control in manufacturing, pattern recognition, and expert systems for real-time processing.

Tsukuba Expo '85 is huge, interesting, and fun. The Japanese pavilions are plush and well -organized and contain some impressive artificial intelligence demonstrations. The U.S. pavilion is an embarrassment.

General Electric is engaged in a broad range of research and development activities in artificial intelligence, with the dual objectives of improving the productivity of its internal operations and of enhancing future products and services in its aerospace, industrial, aircraft engine, commercial, and service sectors. Many of the applications projected for AI within GE will require significant advances in the state of the art in advanced inference, formal logic, and architectures for real-time systems. New software tools for creating expert systems are needed to expedite the construction of knowledge bases. Further, new application domains such as computer -aided design (CAD), computer- aided manufacturing (CAM), and image understanding based on formal logic require novel concepts in knowledge representation and inference beyond the capabilities of current production rule systems. Fundamental research in artificial intelligence is concentrated at Corporate Research and Development (CR&D), with advanced development and applications pursued in parallel efforts by operating departments. The fundamental research and advanced applications activities are strongly coupled, providing research teams with opportunities for field evaluations of new concepts and systems. This article summarizes current research projects at CR&D and gives an overview of applications within the company.

On October 17-19, 1984, a workshop on nonmonotonic hospitality suite-generally until late in the evenings reasoning was held at, Mohonk Mountain House, outside The workshop's only disappointment was the shortness New Paltz, New York. Speakers (and the audience) oft,en found Raymond R.eit,er and Bonnie Webbcr, and was sponsored that much more time could have been well-spent, especially by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence. The hotel is an inmense of much of the work presented. Surrounded by 2000 Preprints of the papers were distributed at the workshop, acres of private preserve, in full autumnal splcndour, participants but no proceedings will be published A limit,ed number quickly forgot the outside world. The grounds of copies of the preprints can be obtained from.

The Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Workshop has become a tradition. Meeting every year for the past nine years, it has been the forum where all the issues from basic research through applications to implementations have been discussed; it has also become a community building activity, bringing together researchers, medical practitioners, and government and industry sponsors of AIM activities. The AIM Workshop held at Fawcett Center for Tomorrow at Ohio State University, June 30 - July 3, 1984, was no exception. It brought together more than 100 active participants in AIM.

Letters to the editor on genetics and applied epistemology, a response to "The Professor's Challenge" and a response to John Malpas; knowledge and power, and update on the Autoling System, a relativistic approach, and a response to Franklin's writings in volume 6 number 1.