COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub"source
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub"source;
∂AIL %2Datamation%1↓1801 La Cienega Blvd.↓ Los Angeles CA 90035∞

	Joseph  Weizenbaum's  %2Computer  Power  and  Human  Reason%1
brings  to computer  science a  new method of  proof -  calling ideas
obscene.  Daniel McCracken (April %2Datamation%1) approvingly quotes,
%2"The very asking  of the question, 'What does a  judge know that we
cannot tell a computer?' is a monstrous obscenity.  That it has to be
put into print at all even for the purpose of exposing its morbidity,
is a sign of the madness of our times"%1.

	However, when Weizenbaum  complains that coupling an animal's
visual system and  brain to a  computer is %2"simply  obscene. %1[The
idea is one]%2 whose very contemplation ought  to give rise to feelings
of  disgust in every  civilized person."%1, McCracken,  who sees some
good in the  idea, mildly says he  wishes Weizenbaum would  elaborate
his objections.  This seems inconsistent, because both of them
call  ideas  obscene precisely  when  they  don't  wish to
elaborate their objections.   It's  bad sign of  our times that  this
style meets no objections from reviewers - not to mention editors.

	As McCracken conjectures,  some display terminals at  AI Labs
have  been  busy  with  refutations,  mine  included.    I  am  sorry
Weizenbaum  has  made  him hate  us  enough  to  enjoy imagining  us
gnashing our teeth, but this is not  why I write now.  My problem  is
that  Weizenbaum  "quotes"  me  twice from  oral  debates,  McCracken
repeats  %2both%1 "quotes", and I  can't confirm either  one.  The first
doesn't bother me,  because I do believe  that we will eventually  be
able to tell a computer what  a judge knows.  It won't be soon and we
may not  want to  use computers  as  judges, but  my opinion  on  the
scientific issue  (and I trust  that of %2Datamation%1's  readers) is
not influenced by the silly charge of having obscene ideas.

	The other  requote,  %2"The  only  reason  we  have  not  yet
succeeded in  simulating every aspect  of the world  is that  we have
been   lacking  a  sufficiently  powerful   logical  calculus."%1  is
allegedly from the BBC debate with Lighthill, but no-one can  find it
on either the video-tape  or the audio-tape.  I  fear Weizenbaum made
it  up,  since   it  reflects  the  confusion  in  his  book  between
formalization and simulation that I began disputing in my  1959 paper
"%2Programs with Common  Sense%1".  We need powerful  logical calculi
and  a description  of the  common¬sense  world using  these calculi,
because full  simulation is  usually impossible and wouldn't usually
tell  what  a  robot needs  to  know  anyway.    We use  the  law  of
conservation of energy even when we know the precise laws of motion -
and even more when  we don't.  I  thought perhaps I had  misspoken in
rapid dialog, but it just isn't on the tape.

	Maybe   I  shouldn't  complain   about  having   my  research
misrepresented; such distinctions may be mere pedantry to a practical
professor who can say, %2"Scientists who continue to prattle on about
'knowledge for  its own sake'  in order  to exploit  that slogan  for
their self-serving ends have detached  science and knowledge from any
contact with the real world"%1.

	Let  McCracken  beware  lest  his  next  book  be  banned  in
Poughkeepsie for obscene COBOL programs.

	Yours for precision in language.

.sgn