Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU!jbn From: jbn@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: AIList Digest V5 #171 Message-ID: <17127@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> Date: Fri, 10-Jul-87 14:37:00 EDT Article-I.D.: glacier.17127 Posted: Fri Jul 10 14:37:00 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 23:41:30 EDT References: <8707062225.AA18518@brillig.umd.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: glacier!jbn (John B. Nagle) Distribution: world Organization: Stanford University Lines: 29 Approved: ailist@stripe.sri.com In article <8707062225.AA18518@brillig.umd.edu> hendler@BRILLIG.UMD.EDU (Jim Hendler) writes: >When I publish work on planning and >claim ``my system makes better choices thanplanning program's>'' I cannot verify this other than by showing >some examples that my system handles that 's can't. But of >course, there is no way of establishing that couldn't do >examples mine can't and etc. Instead we can end up forming camps of >beliefs (the standard proof methodology in AI) and arguing -- sometimes >for the better, sometimes for the worse. Of course there's a way of "establishing that couldn't do examples mine can't and etc." You have somebody try the same problems on both systems. That's why you need to bring the work up to the point that others can try your software and evaluate your work. Others must repeat your experiments and confirm your results. That's how science is done. I work on planning myself. But I'm not publishing yet. My planning system is connected to a robot and the plans generated are carried out in the physical world. This keeps me honest. I have simple demos running now; the first videotaping session was last month, and I expect to have more interesting demos later this year. Then I'll publish. I'll also distribute the code and the video. So shut up until you can demo. John Nagle