Those of us engaged in artificial intelligence research have the historically unique privilege of asking and answering the most profound scientific and engineering questions that people have ever set for themselves--questions about the nature of those processes that separate us humans from the rest of the universe--namely intelligence, reason, perception, self-awareness, and language. It is clear--to most of us in AI, at least--that our field, perhaps together with molecular genetics, will be society's predominant scientific endeavor for the rest of this century and well into the next...

What Do We Know about Knowledge? In this article, I will examine the first of these questions. AI has been slow to embrace this principle. Programs demonstrating research ideas in AI are often too large and not well enough documented to allow replication or sharing. What I would like to in diverse conditions. I wish to clarify the knowledge example, it was pretty clearly articulated in Biblical principle and try to increase our understanding times: "A man of knowledge increaseth of what programmers and program strength" (Proverbs 24: 5). Greek philosophers based their lives on acquiring The "knowledge is power" principle is most and transferring knowledge. In the course closely associated with Francis Bacon, from his of teaching, they sought to understand the 1597 tract on heresies: "Nam et ipsa scientia nature of knowledge and how we can establish potestas est." ("In and of itself, knowledge is knowledge of the natural world. B," along with quantification, "All A's are B's," Euclid's geometry firmly established the concept In the intervening several centuries before Plato, Socrates's pupil and Aristotle's mentor, was the first to pose the question in writing of the Middle Ages and the rise of modern science what we mean when we say that a person in the West, He was distinguishing empirical knowledge, church to make new knowledge fit with established lacking complete certainty, from the certain dogma.

In this first message to the members of AAAI, AAAI President Allen Newell answers the questions "what are we?" "why did we come into existence?" "how will AAAI conduct itself?" and ends with a few thoughts on the name "artificial intelligence." According shock to come from the womb to the world. The birth we give witness to here is that of a new society, the American Association for Artificial Intelligence--AAAI. It has not seemed to me traumatic, but rather almost wholly benign. In a world where not much is benign at the moment, such an event is devoutly to be cherished.

This article provides a personal perspective, in three stories, on the origins of AAAI. In the first story, I explain the reasons justifying AAAI's existence. In the second story. In the second story, I recount some of the controvery over the name artificial intelligence, and explain why it was chosen as the new society's moniker. In the third story, I note that AI has not suffered from the applied versus research scism that has affected other societies. Finally, in the fourth story, I mention some of the early issues of finance.

This article reprints a section of the January 1980 "Chairman's Message" of the SIGART Newsletter (No. 69). SIGART is the Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence, of the Association for Computing Machinery. At the time of AAAI's formation, SIGART, with its 3,800 members, was the principal AI organization in the United States, and its primary activity was publishing the "Newsletter.

This article provides a historical background on the origins of AAAI, recounting some of the issues discussed and requirements to be fulfilled by the new society. It provides a personal reminiscence of some of the persons who founded the association, including Raj Reddy, Donald Walker, and Woody Bledsoe, and also recounts some of my experiences as secretarytreasurer and later president of AAAI. In 1979 he was the general chair for IJCAI-79, and I was the program chair, so we were already working closely together and thinking about organization. We were not alone in being frustrated by the phoenix-like nature of IJCAI--springing to life before every biannual conference, then dying, with little continuity. Also, it was obvious that volunteers from academe and industry had numerous distractions and other obligations besides IJCAI, so important deadlines could easily be missed.

By the early 1960s there were several active research groups in AI, including those at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Stanford University, Stanford Research Institute (later SRI International), and a little later the University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI). My own involvement in AI began in 1963, when I joined Stanford as a graduate student working with John McCarthy. After completing my Ph.D. in 1966, I joined the faculty at Stanford as an assistant professor and stayed there until 1969 when I left to join Allen Newell and Herb Simon at Carnegie Mellon University

Just as email traffic has increased over the years since its in ception, so has the proportion that is unsolicited; some estimations have plac ed the proportion as high as 60%, and the average cost of this to business at arou nd $2000 per year, per employee (see [29] for a range of numbers and statis tics on spam). Unsolicited emails - commonly know as spam - have thereby become a daily feature of every email user's inbox; and regardless of advan ces in email filtering, spam continues to be a problem in a similar way to comp uter viruses which constantly reemerge in new guises. This leaves the res earch community with the task of continually investigating new approac hes to sorting the welcome emails (known as ham) from the unwelcome spam. W e present just such an approach to email classification and fi ltering based on a well studied data structure, the suffix tree (see [1 6] for a brief introduction). The approach is similar to many existing one s, in that it uses training examples to construct a model or profile of the class and its features, then uses this to make decisions as to the class of new example s; but it differs in the depth and extent of the anaysis. For a good overview of a number of text classification methods, see [26, 1, 31]. Using a suffix tree, we are able to compare not only single word s, as in most current approaches, but substrings of an arbitrary len gth.

Wasps, bees, ants and termites all make effective use of their environment and resources by displaying collective "swarm" intelligence. Termite colonies - for instance - build nests with a complexity far beyond the comprehension of the individual termite, while ant colonies dynamically allocate labor to various vital tasks such as foraging or defense without any central decision-making ability. Recent research suggests that microbial life can be even richer: highly social, intricately networked, and teeming with interactions, as found in bacteria. What strikes from these observations is that both ant colonies and bacteria have similar natural mechanisms based on Stigmergy and Self-Organization in order to emerge coherent and sophisticated patterns of global foraging behavior. Keeping in mind the above characteristics we propose a Self-Regulated Swarm (SRS) algorithm which hybridizes the advantageous characteristics of Swarm Intelligence as the emergence of a societal environmental memory or cognitive map via collective pheromone laying in the landscape (properly balancing the exploration/exploitation nature of our dynamic search strategy), with a simple Evolutionary mechanism that trough a direct reproduction procedure linked to local environmental features is able to self-regulate the above exploratory swarm population, speeding it up globally.

This paper is concerned with the reliable inference of optimal tree-approximations to the dependency structure of an unknown distribution generating data. The traditional approach to the problem measures the dependency strength between random variables by the index called mutual information. In this paper reliability is achieved by Walley's imprecise Dirichlet model, which generalizes Bayesian learning with Dirichlet priors. Adopting the imprecise Dirichlet model results in posterior interval expectation for mutual information, and in a set of plausible trees consistent with the data. Reliable inference about the actual tree is achieved by focusing on the substructure common to all the plausible trees. We develop an exact algorithm that infers the substructure in time O(m^4), m being the number of random variables. The new algorithm is applied to a set of data sampled from a known distribution. The method is shown to reliably infer edges of the actual tree even when the data are very scarce, unlike the traditional approach. Finally, we provide lower and upper credibility limits for mutual information under the imprecise Dirichlet model. These enable the previous developments to be extended to a full inferential method for trees.