Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T00:29:51.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design is intelligent behaviour, but what’s the formalism?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Tim Smithers  and
Wade Troxell
Tim Smithers
Affiliation:
Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh EH1 2QL, U.K.
Wade Troxell
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A methodology for studying and understanding the process of design, and ultimately for developing a computational theory of design is presented. In particular, the role of formalization in such an investigation is set out. This is done by first presenting the background to and development of computational search as a widely adopted problem solving paradigm in artificial intelligence research. It is then suggested why computational search provides an inadequate characterization of the design process and an alternative, that design is an exploration process is proposed. By developing certain ideas first put forward by Simon the authors seek to explain why this view is taken and how it forms a central part of their Artificial Intelligence in Design research programme. It is hoped to (eventually) develop a computational theory of design. The radically incomplete nature of this work necessarily prevents the authors from answering the question posed by the title of the paper but the title does provide a good focus for their efforts.

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 1990 , pp. 89 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brown, D. C. and Chandrasekaran, B. 1989. Design problem solving knowledge structures and control strategies. Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence. London: Pilman.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. 1989. Microcognition: Philosophy, Cognitive Science, and Parallel Distributed Processing. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J. 1987. Prototypes: A new schema for knowledge-based design, Working paper, Architectural Computing Unit, Department of Architectural Science, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. & Rosenman, M. A. 1990. A conceptual framework for knowledge-based design research at Sydney University's design computing unit. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 5, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J. S., Maher, M. L. and Zhang, W. 1988. Chunking structural design knowledge as prototypes. In Artificial Intelligence in Engineering: Design (Gero, J. S., Ed.) pp. 3–21. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Laird, J. E., Newell, A. and Rosenbloom, P. S.SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence Artificial Intelligence, 33(1), 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, P. 1979. Rediscovering physics with BACON 3. Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificiai Intelligence Vol 1, pp. 505–508.Google Scholar
Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. and Zytkow, J. 1987. Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Process. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, B. and Smithers, T. 1989. The role of prototypes in creative design. International Round Table Conference on Modelling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design, Heron Island, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Newell, A. 1980. Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: The problem space as a fundamental category. In Attention and Performance VIII (Nickerson, R., Ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. 1963. GPS, a program that simulates human thought. In Computers and Thought (Feigenbaum, E. and Fieldman, J. eds). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. 1972. Human Problem Solving, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. 1976. Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), New York: Association of Computing Machinery.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxman, R. and Gero, J. S. 1988. Designing by prototype refinement in architecture. In Artificial Intelligence in Engineering: Design (Gero, J. S., Ed.), pp. 395–412, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Reitman, W. R. 1965. Cognition and Thought, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. 1987. On the scope of syntactics in mathematics and science: the machine metaphor. Real Brains Artificial Minds (Casti, J. L. and Karlquist, A., Eds). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1973. The structure of ill-structured problems Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1979. Artificial intelligence research strategies in the light of AI models of scientific discovery. Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2, 1086–1094.Google Scholar
Smithers, T.Conkie, A.Doheny, J.Logan, B. and Millington, K. 1990. Design as intelligent behaviour: An AI in design research programme, Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 5, 78–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar