perm filename LIGHT.RE3[2,JMC]2 blob sn#092422 filedate 1974-03-21 generic text, type T, neo UTF8
00100	\\M0NGR25;\M1BDI25;\F0
00200	Draft for comments: This paper is in the file LIGHT.RE3[2,JMC]@SAIL
00300	It was solicited as a review by the AI Journal.
00400	
00500	Artificial  Intelligence: A General  Survey by
00600	Professor  Sir  James Lighthill,  FRS, in  \F1Artificial  Intelligence: a
00700	paper symposium\F0, Science Research Council 1973
00800	
00900	\J	Professor   Lighthill  of  Cambridge   University  is   a  famous
01000	hydrodynamicist  with a recent  interest in  applications to biology.
01100	His review of  artificial intelligence  was at the  request of  Brian
01200	Flowers, head of the  Science Research Council of Great  Britain, the
01300	main  funding body  for British  university scientific  research. Its
01400	purpose was to help the Science Research Council decide  requests for
01500	support of  work in  AI.  Lighthill  claims no  previous acquaintance
01600	with the  field,  but refers to a large number of authors whose works
01700	he consulted though not to any specific papers.
01800	
01900		Unfortunately,    workers  in  artificial  intelligence  lose
02000	intellectual  contact  with Professor  Lighthill  almost immediately,
02100	because he defines  the field in such  a way as  to exclude our  most
02200	important  research goals.    He  does this  by  classifying work  in
02300	artificial  intelligence into three categories A, B  and C.  A stands
02400	for  \F1advanced  automation\F0  which  he  likes,     C  stands  for
02500	\F1connections\F0  to psychology  and neurophysiology  which  he also
02600	likes, and B stands for \F1bridge\F0  between the other two and  also
02700	for \F1building  robots\F0 both of  which he  doesn't like. The  term
02800	\F1robot\F0  is  defined in  an  idiosyncratic way  to  refer  to any
02900	computer program or device which  is neither aimed at an  application
03000	nor intended to model the brain.  He then states that activities in B
03100	can  be justified only in so far as  they make a connection between A
03200	and C.
03300	
03400		Lighthill's   ABC  classification   seems   to  exclude   the
03500	possibility that there  can be a science of intelligent behavior that
03600	can be  studied  apart  from  applications and  apart  from  biology.
03700	However,   for almost  all workers  in the field,  the whole  idea of
03800	artificial  intelligence is  that the  relation between  problems and
03900	problem solving methods and  the relation between situations  and the
04000	behavior  that  will  achieve goals  can  be  studied  by theory  and
04100	computer experiment as an independent subject.
04200	
04300		He makes no  argument for his classification,   and gives  no
04400	hint that  anyone may think  differently.  This is  somewhat puzzling
04500	since  a number of the documents submitted  by British AI workers for
04600	his  consideration are  quite  explicit  about the  point.    Perhaps
04700	ignoring this claim plays  a tactical role in justifying his proposal
04800	that basic experimental  research in AI  be abandoned, because  if AI
04900	research has  scientific problems of its own,  they should be pursued
05000	even though  the level of  funding may  depend on  the prospects  for
05100	results at the present level of knowledge and talent.  Whereas if the
05200	research  is only  a means  toward solving  some other  scientific or
05300	practical problems,  then the  subject may be abandoned if  there are
05400	more promising ways of solving the other problems.
05500	
05600		Having ignored the possibility that AI has goals  of its own,
05700	Lighthill goes on  to document his claim that  it has not contributed
05800	to applications or to  psychology and physiology.   He exaggerates  a
05900	bit here,   it seems worthwhile  to spend some effort  disputing his
06000	claims that AI has not contributed to these other subjects.
06100	
06200		In my opinion,   AI's contribution to  practical applications
06300	has  been significant  but so  far mostly  peripheral to  the central
06400	ideas and  problems  of AI.   Thus  the  LISP language  for  symbolic
06500	computing was  developed for  AI use,   but  has had  applications to
06600	symbolic computations  in other areas, e.g.  physics.  Moreover, some
06700	ideas  from  LISP  such  as  conditional  expressions  and  recursive
06800	function definitions  have been used in  other programming languages.
06900	However,  the  ideas that have  been applied elsewhere  don't have  a
07000	specifically AI character  and might have been but  weren't developed
07100	without AI  in mind.  Other examples  include time-sharing, the first
07200	proposals for which had AI motivations and some techniques of picture
07300	processing that were first developed in AI laboratories and have been
07400	used elsewhere.   Even the current  work in automatic  assembly using
07500	vision  might have been developed  without AI in mind.   However, the
07600	Dendral work has always had a specifically AI character,  and many of
07700	the recent developments  in programming such as  PLANNER and CONNIVER
07800	have an AI motivation.
07900	
08000		AI's  contributions to  neurophysiology  have been  small and
08100	mostly of a negative character, i.e. showing that  certain mechanisms
08200	that neurophysiologists propose are not well defined or inadequate to
08300	carry  out the behavior they are supposed to  account for.  I have in
08400	mind Hebb's proposals in his book \F1The  Organization of Behavior\F0.
08500	No-one  today would believe  that the  gaps in  those ideas  could be
08600	filled without adding something much  larger than the original  work.
08700	Moreover, the  last 20  years experience  in programming machines  to
08800	learn  and solve problems  makes it implausible  that cell assemblies
08900	\F1per se\F0  would learn  much without  putting  in some  additional
09000	organization, and  physiologists today  would be unlikely  to propose
09100	such a theory.  However, merely showing that some things are unlikely
09200	to work is not a \F1positive\F0 contribution.
09300	I think there will be more interaction between AI and neurophysiology
09400	as soon as the neurophysiologists are in a position to compare
09500	information processing models of higher level functions with
09600	physiological data.  There is little contact at the nerve cell level,
09700	because, as Minsky showed in his PhD dissertation in 1954, almost any
09800	of the proposed models of the neuron is a universal computing element,
09900	so that there is no connection between the structure of the neuron and
10000	what higher level processes are possible.
10100	
10200		On the other  hand,  the  effects of artificial  intelligence
10300	research  on  psychology have  been  larger  as  attested by  various
10400	psychologists. First of all, psychologists have begun to use models in
10500	which  complex  internal  data structures  that  cannot  be  observed
10600	directly  are attributed to  animals and people.   Psychologists have
10700	come to use these models,  because they exhibit behavior  that cannot
10800	be exhibited by models conforming  to the tenets of behaviorism which
10900	essentially  allows  only connections  between  externally observable
11000	variables.   Information processing  models in  psychology have  also
11100	induced dissatisfaction  with psychoanalytic and  related theories of
11200	emotional behavior.  Namely,  these information processing models  of
11300	emotional states  can  yield predictions  that can  be compared  with
11400	experiment or experience in a more definite way than can the vague
11500	models of psychoanalysis and its offspring.
11600	
11700		Contributions  of AI to  psychology are  further discussed in
11800	the paper  \F1Some Comments  on the  Lighthill Report\F0  by  N.   S.
11900	Sutherland which  was included  in the same  book with  the Lighthill
12000	report itself.
12100	
12200		Systematic  comment on  the main  section,   entitled \F1Past
12300	Disappointments\F0  is  difficult because  of  the  strange  way  the
12400	subject is divided up but here are some remarks:
12500	
12600		1. Automatic  landing systems for airplanes are  offered as a
12700	field in  which conventional  engineering techniques  have been  more
12800	successful than AI  methods.  Indeed, no-one would  advocate applying
12900	the scene analysis or tree search techniques developed in AI research
13000	to automatic landing  in the context in  which automatic landing  has
13100	been developed.  Namely, radio signals are available to determine the
13200	precise  position of  the airplane in  relation to  a straight runway
13300	which is  guaranteed clear  of  interfering objects.   AI  techniques
13400	would  be  necessary  to make  a  system  capable  of landing  on  an
13500	unprepared dirt strip with no radio aids which had to be located  and
13600	distinguished  from roads  visually  and  which  might have  cows  or
13700	potholes or muddy places on it.  The problem of automatically driving
13800	an automobile in an  uncontrolled environment is even more  difficult
13900	and will  definitely require AI  techniques, which, however,  are not
14000	nearly ready for a full solution of such a difficult problem.
14100	
14200		2.  Lighthill  is  disappointed  that  detailed  knowledge of
14300	subject matter has to be put in if programs  are to be successful
14400	in theorem proving, interpreting  mass spectra, and game playing.  He
14500	uses the word \F1heuristics\F0  in a non-standard way  for this.   He
14600	misses the fact that there are great  difficulties in finding ways of
14700	representing knowledge of  the world in computer programs and much AI
14800	research  and internal  controversy are  directed  to  this  problem.
14900	Moreover,  most  AI  researchers  feel that  more  progress  on  this
15000	\F1representation problem\F0 is essential before substantial progress
15100	can be made on the problem of automatic acquisition of knowledge.  Of
15200	course, missing  these particular points is a  consequence of missing
15300	the existence of  the AI  problem as distinct  from automation  and
15400	study of the central nervous system.
15500	
15600		3. A  further disappointment is  that chess  playing programs
15700	have only  reached an "experienced amateur" level  of play.  Well, if
15800	programs can't do better than that  by 1978, I shall lose 250  pounds
15900	and will  be disappointed  too though not  extremely surprised.   The
16000	present  level of  computer chess  is based  on the  incorporation of
16100	certain intellectual  mechanisms in the  programs.  Some  improvement
16200	can be made by further  refinement of the heuristics in the programs,
16300	but probably master  level chess  awaits the ability  to put  general
16400	configuration patterns into the programs in an easy and flexible way.
16500	I don't see how to set a date by which this problem must be solved in
16600	order to avoid disappointment in the field of artificial intelligence
16700	as a whole.
16800	
16900		4. Lighthill discusses the \F1combinatorial explosion\F0
17000	problem as though it were a relatively recent phenomenon that
17100	disappointed hopes that unguided theorem provers would be able to
17200	start from axioms representing knowledge about the world and solve
17300	difficult problems.  In general, the \F1combinatorial explosion\F0
17400	problem has been recognized in AI from the beginning, and the usual
17500	meaning of \F1heuristic\F0 is a device for reducing this explosion.
17600	Regrettably, some people were briefly over-optimistic about what
17700	general purpose heuristics for theorem proving could do in problem
17800	solving.
17900	
18000	
18100	Did We Deserve It?
18200	
18300		Lighthill had  his shot  at AI and  missed, but  this doesn't
18400	prove  that  everything in  AI  is ok.    In my  opinion,  present AI
18500	research suffers  from some  major deficiencies apart  from the  fact
18600	that  any scientists  would  achieve more  if they  were  smarter and
18700	worked harder.
18800	
18900		1. Much  work in  AI has  the "look  ma, no  hands"  disease.
19000	Someone programs  a computer  to do  something no  computer has  done
19100	before and writes a paper pointing out that the computer did it.  The
19200	paper is not directed to the identification and study of intellectual
19300	mechanisms and often contains no  coherent account of how the program
19400	works  at all.  As an  example, consider  that the  SIGART Newsletter
19500	prints the scores of the  games in the ACM Computer  Chess Tournament
19600	just as though the programs were human players and their innards were
19700	inaccessible.  We need to know why one program missed the right  move
19800	in a position  - what was it thinking  about all that time?   We also
19900	need  an  analysis of  what  class of  positions  the  particular one
20000	belonged to and how a  future program might recognize this class  and
20100	play better.
20200	
20205		2. A second disease is to work only on theories that can be
20210	expressed mathematically in the present state of knowledge.
20215	Mahtematicians are often attracted to the artificial intelligence
20220	problem,...
20225	
20300		2. Every now  and then, some AI scientist gets  an idea for a
20400	general  scheme of  intelligent behavior that  can be  applied to any
20500	problem provided the machine  is given the specific knowledge  that a
20600	human has about  the domain.  Examples of this  have included the GPS
20700	formalism, a simple predicate  calculus formalism, and more  recently
20800	the  PLANNER  formalism  and  perhaps   the  current  Carnegie-Mellon
20900	production formalism.  In the first and third  cases, the belief that
21000	any problem solving  ability and knowledge could  be fitted into  the
21100	formalisms led to published  predictions that computers would achieve
21200	certain  levels  of  performance  in certain  time  scales.    If the
21300	inventors of  the formalisms  had been  right about  them, the  goals
21400	might have  been achieved, but  regrettably they were  mistaken. Such
21500	general purpose formalisms will be  invented from time to time, and,
21600	most  likely, one of them will eventually prove adequate.
21700	However, it would be  a great relief to the rest of the workers in AI
21800	if the  inventors of  new general  formalisms  would express  their
21900	hopes in a more guarded form than has sometimes been the case.
22000	
22100		3. At present,  there does not exist  a comprehensive general
22200	review of  AI that discusses all the main approaches and achievements
22300	and issues.    Most likely,  this  is not  merely because  the  field
22400	doesn't have a  first rate reviewer at present,  but because the field
22500	is confused about what these  approaches and achievements and  issues
22600	are.   The production  of such  a review  will therefore  be a  major
22700	creative work and not merely a work of scholarship.
22800	
22900		4. While it is far beyond the scope of this review to try
23000	to summarize what has been accomplished in AI since Turing's 1950 paper,
23100	here is a five sentence try: Many approaches have been explored and
23200	tentatively rejected including automaton models, random search,
23300	sequence extrapolation, and many others.  Many heuristics have been
23400	developed for reducing various kinds of tree search; soee of these are
23500	quite special to particular applications, but others are general.
23600	Much progress has been made in discovering how various kinds of
23700	information can be represented in the memory of a computer, but
23800	a fully general representation is not yet available.  The problem
23900	of perception of speech and vision has been explored and recognition
24000	has been found feasible in many instances.  A beginning has been made
24100	in understanding the semantics of natural language.
24200	
24300	
24400					John McCarthy - 9 March 1974