Week4 (Blocks World and Rejecting Symbolic AI)

1 Has Symbolic AI failed?
This unit has three main sections

 More on planning
 Strong and weak AI
 Failure of Symbolic AI
 Rejecting symbols
2 Symbolic AI in the world
Blocks world
The real world is an incredibly complex and chaotic place.
However, considering all of these fine details can obscure
the detail of how planning (and other tasks) is done.

One answer might be to eliminate all the messy details by
constructing a very simple world in which the planner can

operate
The attention can be focused on the core problem, the
construction of the plan.

Blocks world
 One such simplified world has played a leading part in the
development of AI systems. It is usually known as Blocks World.
 Blocks World was used as an environment for early natural
language understanding systems and robots
 Blocks World is closely linked with the problem of planning and
with the early planning system, STRIPS.
Blocks world
 Blocks World is a tiny ‘world’ comprising an (infinitely
large) flat table on which sit a set of children’s
building blocks.
 The blocks can be moved around and stacked on top
of one another by a single robot hand.
 The hand can only hold one block at a time.
 Blocks world is most often simulated inside a
computer, so all blocks are presumed to be perfectly
regular, the movements of the arm infinitely precise.
 Planning in Blocks World means deciding the steps
required to move blocks from an initial configuration
(the start state) to another configuration (the goal
state).
On(B,C) ^ OnTable(C) ^ OnTable(A) ^ HandEmpty
Blocks world
 The robot hand manipulates the world by picking up
blocks and moving them around.
 A block x may only be picked up if both of the

following are satisfied:
 The robot hand is empty (HandEmpty).
 There is no block sitting on top of the selected

block (Clear(x)).
Blocks world
 The hand can execute simple commands
 PickUp(A) picks up Block A, provided that the block is clear
and the hand is empty; whilst

 PutDown(A) places Block A on the table provided that
the hand is holding the block.
 Stack(A,B) places Block A on top of Block B provided
the hand is holding A and that the top face of B is
clear;
 UnStack(A,B) removes Block A from Block B provided
that the hand is empty and that the top of A is clear.
To describe the state Process/command

On(x,y) PickUp(x) Commands
from and to
OnTable(x) PutDown(x) the table
HandEmpty() Stack(x,y)
Clear(x) UnStack(x,y)
Planning in the Blocks world

 Describe the initial state and the goal state of the
following:
Planning in the Blocks world: divide the problem.

From the initial state we want to end up with Block A
on the table, Block C on the table and Block B on
top of Block A
Planning in the Blocks world:

 The planner knows what actions it can perform, and
the consequences of those actions.
 Actions are expressed as operators. Each operator
has four parts: its name, a set of preconditions, an
add list and a delete list.
 The world changes with the execution of the
operator, by specifying which facts are added to and
deleted from the world state.
Planning in the Blocks world:

Planning using means-end analysis STRIPS:
 First, the goal conditions are added to the agenda.
 Planning then proceeds by popping the first condition from the

agenda and, if it’s not already true, finding an operator that can
achieve it.
 The operator’s action is then pushed on the agenda, as is each of
the operator’s precondition terms.
 Achieving each of these preconditions requires its own sub-plan.
 The process continues until the only things left on the agenda are
actions.
 If these are performed, in sequence, the goals will be achieved
STRIPS: it starts with the three goals conditions being added to the agenda:
 OnTable(A)
 On(B,A)
 OnTable(C)
the topmost element, OnTable(A) is already true, so there is nothing to be done

to achieve it, it is popped from the agenda and discarded
The second term is not already true, so the system finds the Stack operator to
achieve it. Stack(B,A) is pushed onto the agenda and the operator’s
preconditions (Clear(A) and Holding(B)) are pushed on the agenda
 Clear(A)
 Holding(B)
 Stack(B,A)
 OnTable(C)
The process begins again.
Clear(A) is already true, so that goal is discarded

without action. Holding(B) will become true after
an Unstack(B,C) operation, so that operator is
pushed on the stack together with its preconditions,
at this stage the agenda is:
 Clear(B)
 On(B,C)
 UnStack(B,C)
 Stack(B,A)
 OnTable(C)
 The top two goals in the stack are true, so are

Clear(B)
popped from the agenda
On(B,C)
UnStack(B,C)
 The two operations (Unstack(B,C) and Stack(B,A))
Stack(B,A)
are performed in that order
OnTable(C)  The final goal (OnTable(C)) is already true and so
is removed.
 As the agenda is empty, all the goals have been
achieved and the planning has succeeded.
Example
Goal state: On(A,B) and

It is not On(B,C) and OnTable(C)
always
successful
Sub-plans goals are achieved

Plan is not achieved (sussman anomaly)
The cause of the problem is the

implementation order and the dependencies
between sub-plans
Planning using means-end analysis STRIPS partial-order

planning systems:
 The technical term for when completing one sub-plan

undoes the achievements of another is Clobbering
 Solution: partial-order planning systems. The planner in this

case commits itself to ensuring that the operations for each sub-
plan occur in order, but they can be preceded, followed or
interleaved with steps from other sub-plans.
 Once all the actions for each sub-plan have been described, the
planner attempts to combine the actions in such a way as to
minimize clobbering.
Learning, Adaptation and Heuristics
 One characteristic that we would surely associate with an
intelligent individual, natural or artificial, is the ability to learn
from its environment, whether this means widening the range
of tasks it can perform, or, performing the same tasks better.
 If we really want to understand the nature of intelligence, we
have to understand learning.
 Another reason for investigating learning is to make the
development of intelligent systems easier
 Rather than equipping a system with all the knowledge it
needs, we can develop a system that begins with adequate
behavior, but learns to become more competent.
 The ability to learn is also the ability to adapt to changing
circumstances, a vital feature of any system.
 In Symbolic AI systems, behavior is governed by the
processes defined for that system.
 If a system is to learn, it must alter these, by either
modifying existing processes or adding new ones.
 Many existing learning systems have the task of
classification: the system is presented with a set of
examples and learns to classify these into different
categories.
 The learning can be either supervised (where the correct
classifications are known to the learner) or unsupervised
(where the learner has to work out the classifications for
itself).
Other approaches to automated learning include:
 speed-up learning: In speed-up learning a system
remembers situations it has been in before and the actions it
took then. When it encounters a similar situation later, it
decides on an action by remembering what it did last time,
rather than determining it from first principles all over
again;
 inductive programming: A learning system is presented
with the inputs and desired outputs of a program or

procedure. The system has to derive the program that
satisfies these constraints.
23 Block II, Unit IV:
Has Symbolic AI failed?
Strong and weak AI

 No clear common understanding
 The main problem is that many of the questions with which AI
started in the early fifties were never properly debated and were
simply left unresolved.
 The result was that the Symbolic AI project has never had clear,
agreed goals.
Impressive inventions, it is to note that: We have now explained why AI is
exciting, but we have not said what it is. We could just say, ‘Well it has to do with
smart programs, so let’s get on and write some.’ Russel and Norvig, 2001
Strong and weak AI

 Computer researchers, then as now, are impatient with abstract
philosophical debates.
 So foundational questions were never tackled and have come
back to bedevil the AI project.
 What are these questions ?
Strong and weak AI
What are these questions?
 What is intelligence? You have been asked to consider a definition. Every
attempt falls into the trap of disagreement, abstractness, circularity and
reliance on a few key examples.
 Simulation or emulation? What are we trying to do? Are we trying to
mimic intelligence (simulation), or to create systems that, in some way,
are intelligent (emulation)?
 Strong and weak AI. If you need to, you should look back at this
important distinction.
 Again, what is AI trying to do? Create systems that do certain
recognizably intelligent things? Or create intelligence?
Failure of Symbolic AI
there are three contributing factors to Symbolic AI’s perception as a
failure:
 ‘Just programming’. Some of AI’s successes have not been seen as
successes, but are instead regarded as ‘just programming’.

 AI’s realization in some areas has often failed to live up to the
expectations.
 Concealment. Many AI techniques have become accepted within
mainstream computing and AI systems often take the form of

specialized modules within large software packages. As such, their
intelligence goes unnoticed.
Rejecting Symbolic
 Criticism: it seams that at a very high level and for

certain kinds of problem human thinking does
seem to be based on logic and mathematic.
 Debate on the original approach and call for re-
assessment
 New trend: Nouvelle AI

Week4 (Blocks World and Rejecting Symbolic AI)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Week4 (Blocks World and Rejecting Symbolic AI)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week4 (Blocks World and Rejecting Symbolic AI)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Has Symbolic AI failed?

This unit has three main sections

 Strong and weak AI

the detail of how planning (and other tasks) is done.

constructing a very simple world in which the planner can

construction of the plan.

 A block x may only be picked up if both of the

 There is no block sitting on top of the selected

and the hand is empty; whilst

To describe the state Process/command

Planning in the Blocks world

Planning in the Blocks world: divide the problem.

Planning in the Blocks world:

Planning in the Blocks world:

 Planning then proceeds by popping the first condition from the

the topmost element, OnTable(A) is already true, so there is nothing to be done

Clear(A) is already true, so that goal is discarded

 The top two goals in the stack are true, so are

Goal state: On(A,B) and

Sub-plans goals are achieved

The cause of the problem is the

Planning using means-end analysis STRIPS partial-order

 The technical term for when completing one sub-plan

 Solution: partial-order planning systems. The planner in this

with the inputs and desired outputs of a program or

Strong and weak AI

Strong and weak AI

successes, but are instead regarded as ‘just programming’.

mainstream computing and AI systems often take the form of

 Criticism: it seams that at a very high level and for

You might also like