John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Robinson, J.A. (1965) "A Machine Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle".

At the present stage of research in artificial intelligence , machines are stil l remote from achieving a level of intelligence comparable in complexity to human thought. As computer applications become more sophisticated, however, and thus more influential in human affairs , it becomes increasingly important to understand both the capabilities and limitations of machine Intelligence and its potential impact on society. To this end, the artificial intelligence field was ex­amined in a systematic manner. The study was divided into two parts : (1) Delineation of areas of artificial intelligence, and postulatio " of hypothetical prod­ucts resulting from progress in the field , and (2) A judgmental portion, which involved appli­cations and implications of the products to society . For the latter purpose, a Delphi study was conducted among experts in the artificial intelligence field to solicit their opinion concerning prototype and com­mercial dates for the products, and the possibility and desirability of their applications and implications .In IJCAI-73: THIRD INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 20-23 August 1973, Stanford University Stanford, California.

JOINDER OF CLAIMS, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND CROSS-COMPLAINTS: SUGGESTED REVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA PROVISIONS. Research in artificial intelligence, a branch of computer science, has illuminated our capacity to use computers to model human thought processes. In this Article we will argue that the time has come for serious interdisciplinary work between lawyers and computer scientists to explore the computer's potential in law. Interdisciplinary work between the lawyer and the computer scientist has floundered on the misconceptions that each has of the other's discipline. As a result, no one has yet attempted computer programs incorporating complex techniques of legal reasoning. Even efforts in legal information retrieval have been hampered by these misconceptions. In retrieval, lawyers have viewed the computer as, at most, a storehouse from which cases and statutes might be retrieved by skillfully designed indexing systems. But the lawyer rarely looks for, or even expects, clear answers. So far, the efforts in legal retrieval have given little consideration to the possibility that computers might operate on the legal data base the way a lawyer does. Yet the work in both fields law and computer science -,suggests that the computer modeling of legal reasoning would be a fruitful area for research. In this Article we speculate about the dimensions and possible directions of this research. Under the most promising of outcomes, interdisciplinary research could lead both to a greater understanding of the legal reasoning process and to the design of machine methods for performing parts of it. The prospect of using computers to model legal reasoning processes is likely to prompt a typically lawyer-like response: So what if we understand legal reasoning or legal argument formation better? Knowing more about the ways in which lawyers search and manipulate the legal data base might lead to improving the lawyer's skill at his work. We recognize the possibility that the work of many lawyers might actually involve little use of the legal data base for argument construction or dispute resolution.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Paper series. The paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review. This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only.

E.A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman (Eds.). Computers and Thought. McGraw-Hill, 1963. This collection includes twenty classic papers by such pioneers as A. M. Turing and Marvin Minsky who were behind the pivotal advances in artificially simulating human thought processes with computers. All Parts are available as downloadable pdf files; most individual chapters are also available separately. COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE. A. M. Turing. CHESS-PLAYING PROGRAMS AND THE PROBLEM OF COMPLEXITY. Allen Newell, J.C. Shaw and H.A. Simon. SOME STUDIES IN MACHINE LEARNING USING THE GAME OF CHECKERS. A. L. Samuel. EMPIRICAL EXPLORATIONS WITH THE LOGIC THEORY MACHINE: A CASE STUDY IN HEURISTICS. Allen Newell J.C. Shaw and H.A. Simon. REALIZATION OF A GEOMETRY-THEOREM PROVING MACHINE. H. Gelernter. EMPIRICAL EXPLORATIONS OF THE GEOMETRY-THEOREM PROVING MACHINE. H. Gelernter, J.R. Hansen, and D. W. Loveland. SUMMARY OF A HEURISTIC LINE BALANCING PROCEDURE. Fred M. Tonge. A HEURISTIC PROGRAM THAT SOLVES SYMBOLIC INTEGRATION PROBLEMS IN FRESHMAN CALCULUS. James R. Slagle. BASEBALL: AN AUTOMATIC QUESTION ANSWERER. Green, Bert F. Jr., Alice K. Wolf, Carol Chomsky, and Kenneth Laughery. INFERENTIAL MEMORY AS THE BASIS OF MACHINES WHICH UNDERSTAND NATURAL LANGUAGE. Robert K. Lindsay. PATTERN RECOGNITION BY MACHINE. Oliver G. Selfridge and Ulric Neisser. A PATTERN-RECOGNITION PROGRAM THAT GENERATES, EVALUATES, AND ADJUSTS ITS OWN OPERATORS. Leonard Uhr and Charles Vossler. GPS, A PROGRAM THAT SIMULATES HUMAN THOUGHT. Allen Newell and H.A. Simon. THE SIMULATION OF VERBAL LEARNING BEHAVIOR. Edward A. Feigenbaum. PROGRAMMING A MODEL OF HUMAN CONCEPT FORMULATION. Earl B. Hunt and Carl I. Hovland. SIMULATION OF BEHAVIOR IN THE BINARY CHOICE EXPERIMENT Julian Feldman. A MODEL OF THE TRUST INVESTMENT PROCESS. Geoffrey P. E. Clarkson. A COMPUTER MODEL OF ELEMENTARY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. John T. Gullahorn and Jeanne E. Gullahorn. TOWARD INTELLIGENT MACHINES. Paul Armer. STEPS TOWARD ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Marvin Minsky. A SELECTED DESCRIPTOR-INDEXED BIBLIOGRAPHY TO THE LITERATURE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Marvin Minsky.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Report series. The report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research. This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged.

Dr. Lucien Mehl, born 1919 in Paris, studied at the University, Paris where he obtained his degrees in Philosophy and Law, and a Diploma of Advanced Studies in Political Economy and at the National School of Administration. He is now'Maitre des Requetesi to the Council of State and Director of external training at the National School of Administration. He is a member of the International Fiscal Association, the International Cybernetics Association and the French Operational Research Society. He has published a number of articles on administrative science, law, cybernetics and operational research. LUCIEN HEEL INTRODUCTION I. It may seem an ambitious step to try to apply mechanization or automation to the legal sciences. However, a machine for processing information can be an effective aid in searching for sources of legal information, in developing legal argument, in preparing the decision of the administrator or judge, and finally in checking the coherence of solutions arrived at. In the first place, much preliminary work is needed for introducing automation in legal affairs, and so much work can only be decided upon if it is found to be of definite use. Secondly, such an undertaking is not without its risks; the jurist may lose direct contact with the sources of law and no longer have the benefit of the intellectual activity involved in searching for information. Lastly, as a result of mechanization of this kind, thought may itself become inflexible, diminishing creative power and innovative effort. Nowadays, however, machine processing of information is becoming essential; "Homo sapiens" is in fact exposed to the risk of being overwhelmed by the vast accumulation of knowledge. It is becoming increasingly difficult to gain access to the sources of ideas, and the researcher wastes valuable time and often intensive mental effort in detailed and unprofitable research, never being sure whether his investigations will be fruitful, or whether he will not bypass the essential information. Moreover, it happens that writers doing research in the same field of knowledge are unaware of one another's work; and besides this, the difficulty of finding the information required makes the researchers specialize still more. They find it hard to link up the different disciplines, because they are generally doomed to remain in ignorance of everything outside their on customary field of investigation. In legal matters, the number of laws and regulations and the scope of jurisprudence are growing on an alarming scale, and everyone is complaining about the situation - administrators and judges, as well as those dealt with under the law.