Subject: From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 85 18:31:34 edt

Received: from sri-ai.arpa by CSNET-RELAY.ARPA id a000194; 4 Oct 85 0:04 EDT
Date: Mon 30 Sep 1985 23:06-PDT
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V3 #132
To: AIList@SRI-AI
Received: from rand-relay by vpi; Fri, 4 Oct 85 13:04 EST

AIList Digest            Tuesday, 1 Oct 1985      Volume 3 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
  Opinion - AI Hype

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1985  05:25 EDT
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: AI hype or .02+.02=.04

Depends on whether you like worth?less gadgets I guess.
SEC apparently doesn't according to a recent article
in Computerworld regarding Paradyne bidding in 1981.

                                        Dave

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 85 08:56:41 EDT
From: Herb Lin <[email-masked]>
Subject: SDI/AI/Free and open Debate

    Date: Sun, 22 Sep 85 19:44:48 PDT
    From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings at AEROSPACE.ARPA>

            SDI (ie. Space Development Initiative) is laying the ground work
    for the commercialization of space which we will all take for granted
    in 2000 or so.

This is most emphatically NOT the function of the President's SDI, or
even that of the DoD.  Maybe we would wish it to be (I would certainly
prefer such a goal to the current one), but it is not.  I base my
observation on official statements from the President, General
Abrahmson, Caspar Weinberger and others.  If you discount these
statements, then the claim that SDI is for space commercialization is
essentially opinion.

            If you are willing to stay off the interstate higways, the
    inland waterways, airplanes and other fruits of technology ripened
    by close association (computers, and computer networks as has been
    pointed out) -- worry about the military and AI and SDI.  But upon
    close inspection, I think it is better that the military have the
    technology and work the bugs out on trivial things like autonomous
    tanks BEFORE it is an integral part of an artificial life support
    system.

Every study that has investigated the funding of technical R&D has
concluded that spin-off is an economically unsound way to fund it.  If
you want to develop spin-offs, then you fund the spin-off directly,
not indirectly.  Technology development is a good thing, and it must
be debugged before it gets into wide public use, but using THAT to
justify military spending is to romanticize the military R&D process
more than appropriate.

Maybe the military is the only institution powerful enough and rich
enough to pay for risky R&D.  True enough.  But that is a social
choice that the nation has made; in my view that is inappropriate, and
it does not have to be that way.

Herb

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 1985 10:38 PST
From: Mike Kane <[email-masked]>
Reply-to: [email-masked]
Subject: AI/SDI Hype

I have followed the evolution of AI for several years now, from a mere
academic curiosity, to where it is today. True, I am not a participant,
just an interested observer. The recent exchanges on the net regarding the
commercialization of AI and AI's role in the SDI, have indeed been
stimulating, and are too much to let pass without comment.

The first point I wish to make is for Capt. Jennings to reread his history
of American technology. Case in point: Aircraft. The airplane existed for years
before the military leaders in this country viewed this technology as
anything more than pure circus. Aviation technology in this country, prior
to World War II, was funded and promoted as a purely commercial entity.
Remember Billy Mitchell?

  [The Wright brothers did have Army funding for much of their
  work, though.  -- KIL]

True, after WW II, the military began to completely dominate the aeronautical
industries in this country. But this occurred only after people like
Douglas, Lindbergh, et. al, had proved the technology and commercial viability.
There is a direct paralell with AI here. J. Cugini's comments were
directly applicable I think.

Before AI takes it's place beside data communications, DBMS, etc, as
industry commodity segments, it must find a practical purpose in life.
I seriously doubt whether SDI or other DOD related applications fulfill
this requirement. It may in fact extend the technology, but will AI ever
grow wings and fly away, so to speak, without someone finding a practical,
dollar breeding, reason for it to exist?

This is not intended as a flame directed at academia, but AI must find a
path to the marketplace, if it is to survive. You can't expect DARPA
funding forever.

M. Kane

------------------------------

Date: Wed 25 Sep 85 00:18:07-PDT
From: Gary Martins <[email-masked]>
Subject: What does it mean ?

In dousing a recent anti-"AI" flame [AIList V3 #126], Prof.
Minsky asserts, among other things:

         To my knowledge, ONLY AI systems, so far, can drive
         cars, carry on conversations, and debug electronic
         systems.  They don't do these jobs very well yet,
         but they're coming along -- and have no competition
         in those areas from any other kind of software.

The boldness and economy of this sort of response to
criticisms of "AI" have not lost their charm over the years!
But, at the risk of falling into flaming ourselves, let's
take a closer look.

The following clauses are of special interest:

              (A)  ONLY AI systems, so far, can drive cars,
                   carry on conversations, ...

              (B)  They don't do these jobs very well yet

              (C)  but they're coming along

              (D)  [they] have no competition in those areas
                   from any other kind of software

and, from earlier in Prof. Minsky's message:

              (E)  AI systems are better than other kinds of
                   software

On hearing an authority of Prof. Minsky's stature assert (A),
the average intelligent citizen (e.g., business magazine
editor, R&D funding officer, corporate manager, housewife,
...) might well conclude:

              (F)  There exist AI systems which can drive
                   cars, and carry on conversations

Would Prof. Minsky be comfortable with this inference?

Perhaps the conclusion should be qualified, in a manner
familiar to real-world systems engineers:

              (F') There exist AI systems which, while they
                   CANNOT drive cars or carry on
                   conversations (in the ordinary meaning
                   of these phrases), CAN now perform the
                   essentials of these tasks in such a way
                   that they can be straightforwardly scaled
                   up to the real tasks

Do you buy this?  Well, then, how about:

              (F") There are no AI systems today which can
                   really drive cars or carry on
                   conversations, but we are keenly hopeful
                   that SOMEDAY such systems may exist

Setting these quibbles aside, let's zoom in for an even
closer look at the word "ONLY" in (A) [only AI systems ...].  Our
intelligent citizen might take this to mean:

              (G)  AI is the ONLY reasonable hope of
                   achieving sophisticated goals like these

On the face of it, this would seem to conflict with (B) [but not well ...],
given the long history of "AI" research in these areas!  But those
with short (long-term) memories may be soothed by the time-honored
refrain (C) [coming along ...], even without quantification.

But we could be flaming up the wrong tree.  Maybe (A) is
really just a factual boast in modest disguise:

              (H)  The nation's biggest AI Labs have been
                   pretty successful in monopolizing R&D
                   funds in areas like these.  [I.e., only AI
                   systems do these jobs because researchers
                   in other disciplines have not been funded
                   to attempt them. -- KIL]

Whatever the other merits of this interpretation, it
certainly helps us to see what (D) [no competition ...] really means.

We are left with (E) [AI is better ...].  Should our intelligent
citizen believe it?  Like Marxist economics, (E) may be a very
difficult thesis to sustain on the factual public record.

Like it or not, we live in a world (the so-called "real
world") that surrounds us with utterly non-"AI" software that
keeps track of payrolls, arranges airline reservations,
manages power distribution grids, guides missiles, allocates
resources, monitors inventories, analyzes radar signals, does
computer animation, assists in mechanical design and
fabrication, manipulates spreadsheets, controls space
vehicles, drives robots, integrates CAT scans, and performs
lots of other mundane tasks.  Of course, both (B) [but not well ...]
and (C) [coming along ...]  still apply to some extent in many of
these areas, but the existing accomplishments are genuine and
valuable.

In fact, there are some nicely engineered non-"AI" systems
that play world-class chess, and drive both commercial and
military high-performance aircraft in daily operations!

Even though "AI" has been around for about as long as the
rest of computing, its record of real-world deployment is
hardly consistent with (E) [AI is better ...], even now at the crest
of the latest "AI" boom. On the contrary, this record seems rather
skimpy and inconsequential sometimes, doesn't it?

Could it be true that (E) is a kind of modern cult
shibboleth, stimulating to believers but mostly just
mystifying to the uninitiated?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 85 08:21 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: AI hype

   Here is an outsider's opinion regarding AI hype.  The mood of a
field and the tone of the technical presentations are shaped more by
political pressures and events than by the morals of the researchers.
As a grad student in particle physics I felt that people were a little
devious in presenting results or proposals.  Fortunately the audience
is always on guard and the question-and-answer sessions tend to be
very spirited.  Probably several decades of spectacular successes have
encouraged people to be optimistic, and fierce competition for machine
time and funds encourages people to present their results "in the
best possible light".
   As a researcher in particle physics I observe a much more open,
even pessimistic, attitude in oral presentations and publications.
This may be due to disappointing results in the early years of the
field.  Speakers tend to rush to present features of the data which
they don't yet understand, and the audience asks questions which
are intended to be constructive.  And yet the competition for funds
is very intense.  In fact I feel that the current funding squeeze
in plasma physics is partly due to underselling the current
encouraging results.
   I would encourage people in AI to be enthusiastic about prospects
for future programs (without, of course, getting caught making
a statement which can't be defended.)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1985 01:39-EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Observations on Expert Systems

        o The existence of expert systems implies practice (refinement) and
          physiological learning are not necessarily prerequisites
          for becomming an expert.

        o An expert system ignores the transmission loss of the
          expert => knowledge engineer => program => user data path.

        o Expert systems filter out ``feel'' (both phsycial and
          mental), ``intuition'', and other ill defined,
          illogical quantities experts use when making decsions.

The motivation for these observations is derived from the following
real world experience:

  Instead of a computer and some expert system software I will use me.
  I will presume I am at least as ``intelligent'' as the computer.
  I now select my domain: conoeing in whitewater.  I will also
  act as my own ``knowledge engineer'' and mentally transcribe
  the instructions of the expert (the canoe instructor) into
  my memory; again I assume I am at least as good as a computer
  knowledge representation and a knowledge engineer.  So, I should
  be well prepared to canoe down some whitewater rapids.  I launch
  my canoe and within the first 100 yards or so I am dumped
  unceremoniously into the river by a nasty current. . .

Anyone who has been involved in a situation such as this realizes the fallacy
of attempting to become an expert in a relatively short time without
actually experiencing, learning, and practicing within the domain.
If the expert system model of ``becoming an expert'' were valid I
should be able to become an expert merely by studying an expert system.

                                                        -Todd K.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 85 20:27:34 edt
From: Brad Miller  <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: AI hype and Marvin Minsky's reply

In defense of my friend Bill Anderson:

Compare Marvin's posting to Weizenbaum's book "Computer Power and
Human Reason". He makes the point that not only is AI hype, but folks
like Dr. Minsky may be fundamentally deluded [i.e. their world view that
a computer can do anything a person can is incorrect].

Brad Miller
[email-masked]   miller!rochester
University of Rochester CS Dept. Lab Manager

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************