Among the difficulties in evaluating AI-type medical diagnosis systems are: the intermediate conclusions of the AI system need to be looked at in addition to the "final " answer ; the "superhuman human" fallacy must be guarded against ; and methods for estimating how the approach will scale upwards to larger domains are needed. We propose to measure both the accuracy of diagnosis and the structure of reasoning, the latter with a view to gauging how well the system will scale up.

This article describes a theory of reasoning about uncertainly, based on a representation of states of certainly called endorsements. The theory of endorsements is an alternative to numerical methods for reasoning about uncertainly, such as subjective Bayesian methods (Shortliffe and Buchanan, 1975; Duda hart, and Nilsson, 1976) and Shafer-dempster theory (Shafer, 1976). The fundamental concern with numerical representations of certainty is that they hide the reasoning about uncertainty. While numbers are easy to propagate over inferences, what the numbers mean is unclear. The theory of endorsements provide a richer representation of the factors that affect certainty and supports multiple strategies for dealing with uncertainty.

Various groups of ascertainable individuals have been granted the status of "persons" under American law, while that status has been denied to other groups. This article examines various analogies that might be drawn by courts in deciding whether to extend "person" status to intelligent machines, and the limitations that might be placed upon such recognition. As an alternative analysis, this article questions the legal status of various human/machine interfaces, and notes the difficulty in establishing an absolute point beyond which legal recognition will not extend.

The third national conference promotes research in the field of AI by bringing together individuals from government, industry, and academia and by providing a published record of the conference as proceedings.

Our group's work in medical decision making has led us to formulate a framework for expert system design, in particular about how the domain knowledge may be decomposed into substructures. We propose that there exist different problem-solving types, i.e., uses of knowledge, and corresponding to each is a separate substructure specializing in that type of problem-solving. This is in contrast to the currently dominant expert system paradigm which proposes a common knowledge base accessed by knowledge-free problem-solvers of various kinds. In novice, these expert structures are often incomplete, and other knowledge structures and learning processes are needed to construct and complete them.

Our group's work in medical decision making has led us to formulate a framework for expert system design, in particular about how the domain knowledge may be decomposed into substructures. We propose that there exist different problem-solving types, i.e., uses of knowledge, and corresponding to each is a separate substructure specializing in that type of problem-solving. Each substructure is in turn further decomposed into a hierarchy of specialist which differ from each other not in the type of problem-solving, but in the conceptual content of their knowledge; e.g.; one of them may specialize in "heart disease," while another may do so in "liver," though both of them are doing the same type of problem solving. Thus ultimately all the knowledge in the system is distributed among problem-solvers which know how to use that knowledge. This is in contrast to the currently dominant expert system paradigm which proposes a common knowledge base accessed by knowledge-free problem-solvers of various kinds. In our framework there is no distinction between knowledge bases and problem-solvers: each knowledge source is a problem-solver. We have so far had occasion to deal with three generic problem-solving types in expert clinical reasoning: diagnosis (classification), data retrieval and organization, and reasoning about consequences of actions. In novice, these expert structures are often incomplete, and other knowledge structures and learning processes are needed to construct and complete them.

The Fairchild Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research (FLAIR) was inaugurated in October, 1980, with the purposes of introduction AI Technology into Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation, and of broadening the AI base of its parent company, Schlumberger Ltd. The charter of the laboratory includes basic and applied research in all AI disciplines. Currently, we have significant efforts underway in several areas of computational perception, knowledge representation and reasoning, and AI-related architectures. We also engage in various tool-building activities to support our research program. The current computational environment includes several large mainframes dedicated to AI research, a number of high-performance personal scientific machines, and extensive graphics capabilities.

THE COGNITION AND PROGRAMMING PROJECT (CAPP) to use such constructs effectively. Dr. Elliot Soloway, Assistant Professor; Dr. Kate which people bring to programming and that computing Ehrlich, Research Associate Lewis Johnson; Jeff Bonar; Valerie Abbott which arise due to cognztively poor programming language constructs. Work is currently in progress on the following projects: What do experts/novices know about programming. 'This project is currently being funded by NSF RISE, under grant'This project is currently being funded by NSF IST, under grant number TIIE AI MAGAZINE Winter/Spring 1083 17 then many individuals will not be able to acquire such languages; Soloway, E., Woolf, B., Rubin, E., Bonar, J. (1982) Overview moreover, it appears beneficial from a problem solving Vancouver, B.C. the empirical projects, we are actively engaged in building an Bonar, J., Ehrlich, K., Soloway, E., Rubin, E. (1982) Collecting AIbased tutoring system, PROUST, which can assist novice Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, this system is to identify non-syntactic bugs in a student's Recent CAPP publications are listed below. What Do Novices Know About Programming?

In this article I wish to address some of the problems that confront AI. I am giving, no doubt, what amounts to no more than one man's opinion. It is my hope, in expressing these opinions, that the issues begin to be discussed in some public forum. I will attempt to start this debate by answering some questions about the field that have been posed to me over time. In some cases, what follows are questions that I have simply posed to myself.

IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-32 (9), 785–798