The choice of implication as a representation for empirical associations and for deduction as a model of inference requires a mechanism extraneous to deduction to manage uncertainty associated with inference. Consequently, the interpretation of representations of uncertainty is unclear. The calculation of representativeness depends on the nature of the associations between evidence and conclusions. We discuss an expert system that uses endorsements to control the search for the most representative conclusion, given evidence.

An alternative approach allows an automaton to learn to solve problems through iterative trial-and-error interaction with its environment, much as humans do. To solve a problem posed by the environment, the automaton generates a sequence or collection of responses based on its experience. The environment evaluates the effectiveness of this collection, and reports its evaluation to the automaton. The principles underlying this paradigm, known as collective learning systems theory are explained and applied to a simple game, demonstrating robust learning and dynamic adaptivity.

The fifth Distributed Artificial Intelligence Workshop was held at the Schlumberger-Doll Research Laboratory from October 14 to 17, 1984. It was attended by 20 participants from academic and industrial institutions. As in the past, this workshop was designed as an informal meeting. It included brief research reports from individual groups along with general discussion of questions of common interest. This report summarizes the general discussion and contains summaries of group presentations that have been contributed by individual speakers.

The choice of implication as a representation for empirical associations and for deduction as a model of inference requires a mechanism extraneous to deduction to manage uncertainty associated with inference. Consequently, the interpretation of representations of uncertainty is unclear. Representativeness, or degree of fit, is proposed as an interpretation of degree of belief for classification tasks. The calculation of representativeness depends on the nature of the associations between evidence and conclusions. Patterns of associations are characterized as endorsements of conclusions. We discuss an expert system that uses endorsements to control the search for the most representative conclusion, given evidence.

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.

The founding of a new college at Rutgers in 1969 became the occasion for building a strong computer science presence in the University. Livingston College thus provided the home for the newly organized Department of Computer Science (DCS) and for the beginning of computer science research at Rutgers.

The classical approach to the acquisition of knowledge and reason in artificial intelligence is to program the facts and rules into the machine. Unfortunately, the amount of time required to program the equivalent of human intelligence is prohibitively large. An alternative approach allows an automaton to learn to solve problems through iterative trial-and-error interaction with its environment, much as humans do. To solve a problem posed by the environment, the automaton generates a sequence or collection of responses based on its experience. The environment evaluates the effectiveness of this collection, and reports its evaluation to the automaton. The automaton modifies its strategy accordingly, and then generates a new collection of responses. This process is repeated until the automaton converges to the correct collection of responses. The principles underlying this paradigm, known as collective learning systems theory are explained and applied to a simple game, demonstrating robust learning and dynamic adaptivity.

Research in AI within the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles is loosely composed of three interacting and cooperating groups: (1) the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, at 3677 Boelter Hall, which is concerned mainly with natural language processing and cognitive modelling, (2) the Cognitive Systems Laboratory, at 4731 Boelter Hall, which studies the nature of search, logic programming, heuristics, and formal methods, and (3) the Robotics and Vision Laboratory, at 3532 Boelter Hall, where research concentrates on robot control in manufacturing, pattern recognition, and expert systems for real-time processing.

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.

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 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.