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.

It has been a gratifying experience to observe and to One major exception: I know that many members participate in the growth of our Association's Magazine. As the official publication worried about how we'd get enough material to put out the Moreover, there is no articles full, and I was concerned that it just be nonempty! We don't have that I had rejected almost nothing since I had taken over-the editorial staff to do extensive rewriting or editing. "All the news we get we print" was close to the truth. Most of the magazine published four issues, averaging a little over 40 pages each.

And even if verification to be accommodated within the SPIV paradigm. But until were possible it would not contribute very much to the such time as we find these learning algorithms (and I development of production software. Hence "verifiability don't think that many would argue that such algorithms must not be allowed to overshadow reliability. Scientists will be available in the foreseeable future) we must face should not confuse mathematical models with reality." the prospect of systems that will need to be modified, in AI is perhaps not so special, it is rather an extreme nontrivial ways, throughout their useful lives. Thus incremental and thus certain of its characteristics are more obvious development will be a constant feature of such than in conventional software applications. Thus the SPIV software and if it is not fully automatic then it will be part methodology may be inappropriate for an even larger class of the human maintenance of the system. I am, of course, of problems than those of AI. not suggesting that the products of say architectural design I have raised all these points not to try to deny the (i.e., buildings) will need a learning capability. Nevertheless, worth of Mostow's ideas and issues concerning the design a final fixed design, that remains "optimal" in a process, but to make the case that such endeavors should dynamically changing world, is a rare event.The similarity also be pursued within a fundamentally incremental and between AI system development and the design of more evolutionary framework for design. The potential of the concrete objects is still present, but it is, in some respects, RUDE paradigm is deserving of more attention than it is rather tenuous I admit.

Artificial Intelligence Research at the University of Michigan

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.

On October 17-19 1984 a workshop on non-monotonic reasoning was held at Mohonk Mountain House, outside New Paltz, New York. The workshop was organized by Raymond Reiter and Bonnie Webber, and was sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.

It is interesting to note that there is no agreed upon definition of artificial intelligence. 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.

At the start of a project looking into the development of an expert system, the knowledge engineering project team must investigate one or several possible expert system domains. To evaluate the potential of possible application domains, it has proved very useful to have a set of desired attributes for good expert domain. The attribute set was developed as part of a major expert system development project at GTE Laboratories. It was used recurrently (and modified and expanded continually) throughout an extensive application domain evaluation and selection process.

Two topics are treated here. Second, we present an inference machine. This machine treats uncertain knowledge in the form of evidence for and against the accuracy of a proposition. The connection between these two topics is established by implementation of the user model on the inference machine.

The TRW Defense Systems Group develops large man-machine networks that solve problems for government agencies. Because we have been producing first-of- a kind systems like these since the early 1950s, we consider ourselves leaders in the social art of assembling effective teams of diverse experts, and in the engineering art of conceiving and developing networks of interacting machines. Then we found that our well-worked system development techniques did not completely apply, and that our system engineering handbook needed a new chapter on communication between people and machines. We're still writing that chapter, and it won't be finished until we can add some not-yet fully developed artificial intelligence techniques.