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.

It is interesting to note that there is no agreed upon definition of artificial intelligence. Why is this interesting? Because government agencies ask for it, software shops claim to provide it, popular magazines and newspapers publish articles about it, dreamers base their fantasies on it, and pragmatists criticize and denounce it. Such a state of affairs has persisted since Newell, Simon and Shaw wrote their first chess program and proclaimed that in a few years, a computer would be the world champion. Not knowing exactly what we are talking about or expecting is typical of a new field; for example, witness the chaos that centered around program verification of security related aspects of systems a few years ago. The details are too grim to recount in mixed company. However, artificial intelligence has been around for 30 years, so one might wonder why our wheels are still spinning. Below, an attempt is made to answer this question and show why, in a serious sense, artificial intelligence can never demonstrate an outright success within its own discipline. In addition, we will see why the old bromide that "as soon as we understand how to solve a problem, it's no longer artificial intelligence" is necessarily true.

The AI Group at The Ohio State University conducts a broad range of research projects in knowledge-based reasoning. The primary focus of this work is on analyzing problem solving, especially within knowledge -rich domains. In information processing or knowledge-level terms. B. Chandrasekaran has been the director of the group since its inception in the late 1970s.

The University of Michigan is the site of a variety of AI research projects involving faculty, staff and students from several departments and institutes on the Ann Arbor campus.

In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural language to make them accessible to computer processing, These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old.

In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural language to make them accessible to computer processing, These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor. But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old. First, a typical Knowledge Representation Scheme (using Semantic Nets) will be laid out, followed by an outline of the method used by the ancient Indian grammarians to analyze sentences unambiguously. Finally, the clear parallelism between the two will be demonstrated, and the theoretical implications of this equivalence will be given.

What are the powerful new ideas in knowledge based design? What important research issues require further investigation? Perhaps the key research problem in AI-based design for the 1980's is to develop better models of the design process. A comprehensive model of design should address the following aspects of the design process:the state of the design ; the goal structure of the design process;design decisions; rationales for design decisions; control of the design process; and the role of learning in design. This article presents some of the most important ideas emerging from current AI research on design especially ideas for better models design. It is organized into sections dealing with each of the aspects of design listed above.

About a year ago. I was approached by Phoebe Huang of Comtex Scientific Corporation who hoped that I would help devise a dramatically expanded index for topics in AI to aid Comtex in indexing the series of AI memos and reports that they had been gathering. Comtex had tried to get the ACM to expand and update its classification. But was told that ACM had just revised the listing two years ago or so ago, and did not intend to revise it again for a while: even if they did. The revision might require a year or more to complete. Comtex wanted the new classification within six to eight weeks. I agreed to take on the task, thinking it wouldn't be too hard. The major decision I had to make was whether to use the existing ACM index scheme and add to it, or start with a fresh sheet of paper and devise my own. I decided to stick with ACM's top two levels, only adding, not modifying, major headings.

In Proc. AAAI-85

Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol 9, No. 2, pp. 171-216, 1985