Jack Park wrote:
> So, why not let's enumerate the problems of knowledge representation
> we want to solve, then start from there.
Thinking more about this.
The goal at this stage of computational development is to *augment*
human reasoning, not replace it. So, while I applaud efforts aimed at
teaching machines to understand "tree" and "apple", there are simply too
many nouns in the world to make that approach useful any time soon. Even
if we *do* reach the point where machines can understanding everything,
I'm not sure I care. If the machine doesn't make *me* smarter, then I am
fundamentally dependent on it in ways I don't like it.
So fundamentally, I want the machinery to act as a tool, as an enabler
that helps make me smarter -- one that relieves me of much of the
repetitive labor. Along those lines, it doesn't much matter to me if the
machines understand the nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs
themselves. The most I will ever want to ask of it is that it
understands when a word is a noun, and when it is an adjective. At that
point I may be able to get
it to help identify redundancies and contradictions.
Even before we get to grammatical reasoning, I think there is a layer of
machine-assisted reasoning that we can implement in the near term.
When I think about what I do in the design process, it really looks very
much like a logical system. There are alternatives (or), aggregations
(and), implications (therefore), and negations (not). There may also be
syllogistic inferences (a->b & b->c & a => c), as well as contradictions
(a & ~a).
There is also a lot of reasoning by analogy, as one of the speakers in
Saturday's seminar mentioned. I'm not sure if the system can help us
with that, but it would be nice if it could. To reason by analogy now,
for a moment, I recall that most people hated outlines in school. The
reason? Writing them on paper made them difficult to change. That meant
you had to get it all organized in your head first, and most people
don't do that.
On the other hand, when people try outlines on a computer, they quickly
come to realize that they can easily rearrange things to *build* the
organization as they go along. The difference is like night and day. The
outline becomes a tool that helps them get organized, instead of an
I am thinking that a tool that assists us with our own reasoning can
have a similar kind of benefit. Although we are not much used to dealing
with assertions, negations, and implications in our usual discourse,
perhaps a tool that really helped us in that area would change our way
In the design process, for example, we start with a problem we are
trying to solve -- or possibly several. We go from there to a collection
(and) of features -- and we often revise our problem statement in the
process. Each feature suggests a set (or) of alternative
implementations. Individual implementations and combinations of them
imply additional implementation details -- which may in turn suggest new
features that are easily derived from the implementation, which may once
again cause a reformulation or refinement of the problem statement.
The multiple feedback loops and the need to track implications from one
document to the next are tasks we leave up to individual designers.
Their numbers are limited, due to the difficulty of integrating large
volumes of information and maintaining all the "mental links" necessary
to do the job properly. But what if there were a tool that assisted us
in that process? Might it be possible for average programmer-jock to
perform like super-designer?
Now, for the design process, the "documents" consist of problem
statements, functional requirements, functional specs, data structures,
design specs, help systems, user guides, and other documentation. When
engaged in the reasoning process, though, the mind does not stay rigidly
fixed within a single document space -- it happily jumps to the nearest
logical node, regardless of the space it is in. So, while thinking about
part of the functional spec, the mind may leap to related ideas in the
design space, the data structure space, or the requirements space.
That observation imposes several requirements on the system:
1) It must be possible to capture associated ideas easily and
naturally, without having to "change context" to another
document to do so.
2) It must be possible to tag the ideas as "design" "functional
spec", or whatever -- and it must be possible to do so after
the fact, rather than requiring the author to accurately
predict the correct category in advance.
3) It must be possible to collect all ideas (nodes) of a single
type to create a "document". Collect all of the data structure
notes, for example, produces at least the initial version of
the data structure document.
4) Since design decisions will typically allow for multiple
possibilities, it must be possible to limit the collection
of nodes to those that correspond to some other document.
For example, it must be possible to collect the data structure
notes corresponding to version 12 of Jim's proposed functional
spec, which selects some set of the proposed features for
In summary, I'm seeing mental processes that can be abstracted, and
tools that can be constructed to improve them, without any sense of
"knowledge processing" on the part of the machine. If the machine is
simply a tool for manipulating symbols, and the humans are responsible
for interpreting the meaning, that is fine with me. (In fact, I find
Part of the mental process consists of asking questions, adducing
alternatives, evaluating the alternatives, and choosing an answer. Those
are the kinds of functions that IBIS provides.
But I'm also seeing a need for making strategic proposals that combine a
number of alternatives. For example, the question "how do we solve the
energy problem" has multiple "alternatives" like "raise prices, use
public transportation, improve insulation, make everybody walk, build
smaller cars, and catch the wind. Clearly, no one alternative is
sufficient. A policy proposal will select several of them, and show how
they work together to address the problem at many levels.
I'm also seeing the need to categorize information, as mentioned above.
But most importantly, we need to improve our conflict, collision, and
contradiction detection. For example, I believe we are *still*
subsidizing the tobacco industry, while at the same time suing them and
spending millions of dollars on non-smoking campaigns. Is that nuts, or
Similarly, we may set up functional requirements for a system such
a) It is small.
b) It is fast.
c) It does everything.
But a+b=>~c, and a+c=>~b, while b+c=>~a. So this design is nuts! We need
systems that will help us figure these things out sooner in the design
process. [Note: Here I've indulged my personal taste for "+" as "and".
Unfortunately, that means "^" or "," has to mean "or", and there isn't a
lot of wide spread agreement about that. I know that "*" is usually
"and" and "+" is usually "or", but I detest that convention. Sorry.)
At some point, too, the system probably has to allow for quantitative
thinking, as well as the qualitative thinking outlined so far. So it
should be possible to say "smaller than x", "faster than y", "with
features a, b, c, d, and e." "Contradictions" then come in shades of
gray, with options of relaxing requirements or eliminating features.
Similarly, policy proposals often revolve around quantitative issues.
One proposal may be "n billion for anti-smoking ads, m billion for
research, x billion for hospitalization, and a nickel nintey-eight for
tobacco subsidies". Another proposal might be: "Improve the omega-3
fatty acids in our national diet, since rats who get them high doses
can't be given cancer by any means we've been able to find, regardless
of the amounts of carcinogens we administer". (Sorry. Wrong soapbox.)
The final comment I'll make is that reduction is an important component
of the system. It has to be. When the same question comes into a email
list for the 400th time, it must be joined at the hip to other variants
question, all of which are answered by a set of responses, in the order
in which they were found to be most helpful by readers.
'nuff said, for now.
LOW RATE, NO WAIT!
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates
as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
Learn more at:
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 18:40:44 PDT