perm filename MESS.QUA[F77,JMC]2 blob
sn#369005 filedate 1978-07-16 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00035 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00006 00002 Saul: The following is the background to the previous message.
C00015 00003 ∂20-Oct-77 0924 FTP:Hart at SRI-KL (Response to message)
C00017 00004 ∂22-Oct-77 1210 FTP:AMAREL at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR
C00018 00005 This is the CMU report.
C00031 00006 ∂26-Oct-77 1343 FTP: Brian Reid at CMU-10A Susan Cohen of the San Jose Mercury
C00032 00007 ∂26-Oct-77 1520 FTP:GEOFF at MIT-MC (Geoffrey Goodfellow) From the June ''Consumers''.
C00034 00008 ∂26-Oct-77 1521 FTP:Geoff at SRI-KA (Geoffrey S. Goodfellow) Re: QUASAR
C00035 00009 ∂26-Oct-77 1522 FTP:GEOFF at MIT-MC (Geoffrey Goodfellow) Original AO news dispatch on Quasar Robot.
C00040 00010 ∂02-Nov-77 1001 BPM
C00042 00011 ∂14-Nov-77 1549 FTP:Feigenbaum at SUMEX-AIM (Response to message)
C00043 00012 ∂15-Nov-77 1302 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A The Fake Robot
C00046 00013 ∂15-Nov-77 1820 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A Kindness to Quasar
C00048 00014 ∂21-Nov-77 1905 FTP:BRIAN REID(C410BR10) at CMU-10A Fake robot: a call for help
C00050 00015 Bob Smith from Rutgers (201) 238-1650 is willing and will send you a message.
C00052 00016 ∂21-Nov-77 2021 FTP:LEFAIVRE at RUTGERS-10 Business Week visit to Quasar
C00054 00017 ∂21-Nov-77 2115 FTP:Bruce Nelson at CMU-10A reids # is 412-682-0273
C00055 00018 ∂21-Nov-77 2125 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR Robot
C00056 00019 ∂21-Nov-77 2126 FTP:LEFAIVRE at RUTGERS-10 Update to last note
C00057 00020 ∂21-Nov-77 2129 FTP:BZM at CMU-10A reid ..
C00059 00021 ∂21-Nov-77 2211 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR
C00060 00022 ∂21-Nov-77 2308 FTP:HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman)
C00061 00023 ∂21-Nov-77 2311 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A the state of the Business Week visit
C00063 00024 ∂22-Nov-77 1205 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A The Quasar hoax: why we are interested
C00066 00025 ∂22-Nov-77 1212 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A Re: Fake robot: a call for help
C00068 00026 ∂22-Nov-77 1356 FTP:Feigenbaum at SUMEX-AIM QUASAR SWINDLE
C00069 00027 ∂22-Nov-77 1923 FTP:STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Re: The Quasar hoax: why we are interested
C00072 00028 ∂22-Nov-77 2039 FTP:HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman)
C00073 00029 ∂22-Nov-77 2042 FTP:HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman) Quasar fake robot
C00075 00030 ∂23-Nov-77 0413 FTP:BKPH at MIT-AI (Berthold K.P. Horn)
C00077 00031 ∂23-Nov-77 1004 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR
C00080 00032 ∂23-Nov-77 1020 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A Re: letter to Justice Department re Quasar
C00084 00033 ∂23-Nov-77 1200 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR
C00085 00034 ∂27-Nov-77 1422 FTP:BAK at MIT-ML (William A. Kornfeld)
C00091 00035 ∂30-Nov-77 1012 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A Justice Department Letter
C00093 ENDMK
C⊗;
Saul: The following is the background to the previous message.
∂19-Oct-77 2136 FTP:MINSKY at MIT-AI (Marvin Minsky) (Response to message)
Date: 20 OCT 1977 0034-EDT
From: MINSKY at MIT-AI (Marvin Minsky)
To: jmc at SU-AI
Here is copy of activity i started for public service.
Thanks to TW for useful reply about fake robots. I will
file my letter and replies in AI:MINSKY;ROBOT >
file and we can decide what to do in a week or two. Terry
thinks it might be a useful public opportunity
to do some good. Who else should be on mailing list?
Date: 19 OCT 1977 1442-PDT
From: WINOGRAD at PARC-MAXC
Subject: (Response to message)
To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, HORN at MIT-AI, PHW at MIT-AI,
To: binford at SU-AI, bobrow, nilsson at SRI-KL,
To: hart at SRI-KL, reddy at CMU-10A
In response to the message sent 19 OCT 1977 1708-EDT from MINSKY@MIT-AI
I talked to Paula Apsell (who is doing the NOVA AI film) about
this guy, and she knows a lot. Her associate Roy Gould) tried for
weeks to get an interview with the guy, since they wanted to use
this robot on their show. After fantastic shenanigans, he managed to
get to the factory, where it turned out (after all sorts
of evasion, etc.) that what they make is remote-controlled publicity
devices, with no AI content whatsoever. The
robot in the clipping Marvin sent around was probably one of
them, (as opposed to a person in a robot suit, the other alternative).
The guy more or less confessed to Roy that what he was doing
was "show business". As far as I know, they have no
plans to expose it, since they are busy trying to do a film
on legitimate AI. However, I agree with Marvin that something
should be done, and maybe they can be useful. At the moment
they're on the road filming, but I'll mention it when I see them,
and find out what they are interested in doing.
The whole thing is an interesting lesson in the gullibility
of the press, and the general public level of sophistication about
AI , and if we could use the opportunity to get out bettter
information, we should.
--terry
-------
From Minsky:
You have all noticed the publicity about the Quasar Industries -- of
Rutherford, New Jersey -- robot.
At first I tought it was funny. Naturally, I assumed that the robot is
a fake, and that someone was merely attempting a hoax, presumably to
fool businessmen into buying stock and the like. Such activities are,
of course, no more our concern than anyone else's.
However, I find that lots of people see it, and few have healthy,
wholesome, unshakable doubts. And on further thought, I realized, why
should they? Only the AI community is in a position to challenge -
expose - educate - whatever.
So perhaps we must act -- for the first time? Perhaps this is not
merely a matter of meddling or criticising. If we are the only "group"
with the knowledge and authority to expose a fraud -- assuming that
this is the case -- then don't we have a moral obligation to say
something -- write an expose -- call a press conference -- or
something?
Such an action needs two steps:
Someone has to "investigate" and summarize what he found.
Some others have to back him up, sign a joint letter or
whatever, so that there is no one holding a legal bag alone.
Someone around here has a friend in journalism school, who might be
interested in doing this as an "investigative journalism" project, if
AI people will help her. Any other ideas?
-- Marvin
Here is an AP dispatch for your amusement, obtained over the network
from an unnamed source.
a263 1529 15 Oct 77
AM-Robot Sam,250
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Meet Sam, a well-educated, male chauvinist
robot.
Sam was stationed on the second floor of a downtown department store
as a promotional gimmick Friday using his 4,800-word vocabulary to
insult customers and make passes at young ladies.
The $4,000 robot looks like a king-size aerosol can with a smooth
translucent bubble head and flexible arms. He is guided by a computer
hidden in the midsection of his 5-foot-2, 240-pound frame and movber wheels
hidden under his polished metal skirt. His taped responses are
triggered by certain keywords uttered by humans.
''What's your name?'' somebody asked him.
''My name is Sam Struggle Gear,'' the robot answered metallically.
''What's yours, dummy?''
Perhaps emboldened by a friendly comment and a kiss on his plastic
forehead from Portland State University student Alice Ericsson, Sam
turned and announced, ''I like girls.''
Waving his accordion arms, he moved unerringly on the lone woman in
a group.
''I like this one,'' he said. ''What's your name?''
Somewhat startled, the woman replied, ''Sandie Murphy.''
After a machine-whirring pause, Sam asked: ''You fool around?''
''No,'' Mrs. Murphy said firmly. ''I'm married.''
''That's all right with me,'' Sam said. ''Us robots like women with
experience.''
Somebody told Sam he was being a little rude.
Sam stared at his critic from his featureless face and growled:
''How would you like tire marks on your belt buckle?''
1828pED 10-15
***************
∂20-Oct-77 0924 FTP:Hart at SRI-KL (Response to message)
Date: 20 Oct 1977 0925-PDT
From: Hart at SRI-KL
Subject: (Response to message)
To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, BOBROW at MIT-AI,
To: BOBROW`PARC-MAXC at MIT-AI, HORN at MIT-AI, PHW at MIT-AI,
To: tob at SU-AI, tw at PARC-MAXC, reddy at CMU-10A
cc: HART, JMC at SU-AI
In response to the message sent 20 OCT 1977 0016-EDT from MINSKY@MIT-AI
I agree that a little public educuation would be a good thing. It would,
however, be worth paying attention to the pitfalls of appearing overly
sanctimonious or self-serving, particularly when tarring the media. For
example, I was contacted by The Wall Street Journal shortly after the
wire service stories appeared, and I expressed considerable skepticism about
even a small part of the claims being true. To my knowledge, WSJ did not
give any space to the issue.
Mail list suggestion: Keith Uncapher, Josh Lederberg, Ed Feigenbaum
Peter
-------
∂22-Oct-77 1210 FTP:AMAREL at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR
Date: 22 Oct 1977 (Saturday) 1505-Est
From: AMAREL at RUTGERS-10
Subject: QUASAR
To: JMC at SU-AI
cc: AMAREL
john, i didn't notice any publicity about the quasar robot, and i know
nothing of what they claim about it. is there any more backround in addition
to the minsky and winograd messages that you sent me (oct 20 message by
minsky and oct 19 message by winograd) ?
regards, saul
This is the CMU report.
∂25-Oct-77 1458 FTP:Geoff at SRI-KA (Geoffrey S. Goodfellow) [ BRIAN REID(C410BR10) at CMU-10A : For Your Information (about Robots, not Messages)]
Date: 25 Oct 1977 1453-PDT
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-KA
Subject: [ BRIAN REID(C410BR10) at CMU-10A : For Your Information (about Robots, not Messages)]
From: Geoff at SRI-KA (Geoffrey S. Goodfellow)
To: JMC at SAIL, BPM at SAIL, Hart at KL, Raphael at KL,
To: SF at BBNE, Lederberg at SUMEX-AIM, Feigenbaum at SUMEX-AIM
Message-ID: <[SRI-KA]25-Oct-77 14:53:29.GEOFF>
Begin forwarded message
--------------------
Mail from SRI-KL rcvd at 25-Oct-77 1411-PDT
Mail from CMU-10A rcvd at 25-Oct-77 1410-PDT
Date: 25 Oct 1977 1513-EDT
From: BRIAN REID(C410BR10) at CMU-10A
Subject: For Your Information (about Robots, not Messages)
To: MSGRP.DST
- - - -
The Carnegie-Mellon University Artificial Intelligence Lab
meets
`The Ultimate Home Appliance'
(Reported by Mark Fox and Brian Reid)
On October 24, 1977, a well-known department store in the heart of
Pittsburgh advertised the appearance of a `domestic robot' named Sam
Strugglegear. Although this robot is not yet offered for sale, its
inventor, Anthony Reichelt of Quasar Industries in New Jersey, claims
that its powers include speech recognition with a 4800-word
vocabulary, sonar-navigated steering, and the ability to do household
chores such as vacuuming, serving of drinks, and babysitting. This
highly-publicized `robot' has been described in Newsweek, Parade, and
other national magazines.
Knowing of CMU's pioneering work in Artificial Intelligence,
particularly in the field of speech recognition, various friends have
called CMU to ask how this robot might be so much better at speech
recognition than our talented and dedicated research team.
Rising to the challenge, four courageous members of our department
went downtown to investigate. They found a frightening sight: in the
men's department, among the three-piece suits, was a 5'2'' image of
an aerosol can on wheels, talking animatedly to the crowd. The robot
seemed able to converse on any subject, to recognize the physical
features of the customers, and to move freely (though slowly) in any
direction. While the crowd was quite charmed by the talented
machine, we were dubious, and moved in to investigate it more
closely.
The robot moved on a set of wheels; there were two large drive
wheels about ten inches in diameter, and several small stabilizing
wheels: a mechanism quite similar to the MIT turtle. It moved about
three inches per second, approximately one tenth the normal walking
speed of an adult. We saw both arms rotate at the shoulder along a
horizontal axis. Although there was a joint at the elbow, we never
saw it move (perhaps this model had no actuator in the elbow).
The hands were like clam-shells in design. There was a rod at the
wrist that could be used for opening and closing the hands, but on
the model we saw, the hands were actually glued shut, so that they
could not move even if there were an actuator. The actuators for the
arms were electric motors attached to the arms by gears rather than
belts. When an arm was blocked while in motion, the motor would stop
dead, indicating the presence of some primitive feedback mechanism.
One patron asked to see the robot vacuum a carpet, but was brushed
off with the reply that its batteries were running low.
The CMU team next set out to investigate the robot's sensory
mechanisms. Pushing and blocking its motion had no effect; the
motors kept spinning away. It didn't seem able to tell that an
object was blocking its path. Covering the faceplate did not change
its behavior at all. Since the robot seemed able to navigate around
the room without hitting anything, we found it quite curious that it
had no detectable sensory reactions.
Feeling more dubious, we began looking around the room for evidence
of remote control. Lo and behold, about ten feet from the robot,
standing in the crowd, we found a man in a blue suit with his hand
held contemplatively to his mouth like Aristotle contemplating the
bust of Homer in the famous Rembrandt painting. After watching for a
while, we noticed that whenever the robot was talking, the man in the
blue suit could be seen muttering into his hand. Further seeing that
this man had a wire dangling suspiciously from his waist to his shoe,
one of the CMU group screwed up his courage and approached this
stranger. "Do many people figure out what you are doing?", we asked.
"No," he said, "they are usually too busy watching the robot to
notice me." "Aha!", we thought to ourselves, "it looks like we're on
to something here."
We then asked him what were the robot's speech and vision abilities,
to which he replied that the machine can see about ten inches, dimly,
and that its speech-understanding ability was about 200 words of
unconnected speech in a quiet environment.
We didn't really believe his statement of the robot's abilities, and
in the light of our discoveries of the robot's poor perceptive
skills, we were convinced that there must be yet another remote
control handling the motion. Time was running out; they needed to
move the machine to a suburban store for an evening demonstration.
We returned to CMU feeling unsatisfied.
When we gave our report to the rest of the lab back at CMU, a second
group of eight immediately set out to the suburban store, determined
to find the source of the robot's control. They found a
furtive-looking and rather disagreeable person loitering in the back
of the room. He was carrying an airline flight bag, with his hand
stuck down inside the bag. We asked him his business, to which he
replied that he was a truck driver. He became extremely agitated
when we asked him what was in the bag, asking if we were police. We
dispatched a person to watch him, in an attempt to find correlations
between movements of his hand and movements of the robot, whereupon
he got very excited and called for store officials to come get us
away from him. We never did get to see in the bag. However, we did
see the man with the microphone say to a store official, "Tell him we
want to take it for a walk," whereupon the store official wandered
over to the `bag man' and whispered something to him.
It would be tempting to call this robot a fake, but it is not. It
is a fake robot, but a reasonably good parlor trick, more in the
domain of magicians than of computer scientists. However, one is
reminded of how much better were the parlor tricks of olden days --
for example, the chess-playing robot built by Baron Wolfgang von
Kempelen in 1769. Spectators were given a view of the inside of the
robot, satisfying themselves that it could not possibly contain a
person. The robot would then trounce them at chess, all the while
rolling its eyes and nodding its head. The workings of this famous
`Turk' were not revealed until 1848, more than 70 years later, when
it was bought by the Philadelphia Chess Club and disassembled.
Thousands of people, including Napoleon and Edgar Allan Poe, tried
unsuccessfully to figure out how it worked; very rarely was it even
beaten.
Kempelen's description of his own robot, circa 1771, is probably the
best summary of Sam Strugglegear: "A mere bagatelle, not without
merit in point of mechanism, but whose effects appear marvelous only
from the boldness of conception and the clever choice of methods
adopted for promoting the illusion."
-------
--------------------
End forwarded message
-------
∂26-Oct-77 1343 FTP: Brian Reid at CMU-10A Susan Cohen of the San Jose Mercury
Date: 26 Oct 1977 1641-EDT
From: Brian Reid at CMU-10A
Subject: Susan Cohen of the San Jose Mercury
To: JMC at SU-AI (John McCarthy)
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 26 Oct 1977 16:41:41 Brian Reid
In-Reply-To: Your message of October 26, 1977
Susan Cohen has already reached me; she called CMU and asked for the AI lab
and I happened to be standing there.
However, if you still need a number, it is [412] 578-2613 (AI lab)
Brian Reid
-------
∂26-Oct-77 1520 FTP:GEOFF at MIT-MC (Geoffrey Goodfellow) From the June ''Consumers''.
Date: 26 OCT 1977 1817-EDT
From: GEOFF at MIT-MC (Geoffrey Goodfellow)
Subject: From the June "Consumers".
To: jmc at SU-AI
Consumers June 1977 P 334 "Selling it".
Everybodies home companion
"The trade publication Electronics Retailing tells of an absolute
must - a robot that will be programmed to do 12 'basic household
tasks such as mopping the floor, and will be equipped with a full
personality permitting him to speak and interact in any human
situation. Feed him a tape and he`ll teach the kids French; flip
a switch and he`ll continue teaching them while they sleep'.
The gizmo also reportedly can serve as a dishwasher, lawn mower
and cocktail server. Called the DA (Domestic Android) II, its
the product of Quasar Industries, stands 5'4", weighs 240 # (its
prototype at least) and supposedly will go on sale in about two
years. Yours for about $4000. , no marriage license required"
And that is NOT the April issue of consumers
∂26-Oct-77 1521 FTP:Geoff at SRI-KA (Geoffrey S. Goodfellow) Re: QUASAR
Date: 26 Oct 1977 1514-PDT
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-KA
Subject: Re: QUASAR
From: Geoff at SRI-KA (Geoffrey S. Goodfellow)
To: JMC at SU-AI
Message-ID: <[SRI-KA]26-Oct-77 15:14:28.GEOFF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of October 26, 1977
Yes, I have them both, inclduing a part from Consumer reports or
some such about them. I think I have them stored away on MIT-MC
and will get them back for you to give to Susan Cohen.
Please keep me posted. I found the CMU thing quite interesting,
not mention humerous.
-------
∂26-Oct-77 1522 FTP:GEOFF at MIT-MC (Geoffrey Goodfellow) Original AO news dispatch on Quasar Robot.
Date: 26 OCT 1977 1819-EDT
From: GEOFF at MIT-MC (Geoffrey Goodfellow)
Subject: Original AO news dispatch on Quasar Robot.
To: JMC at SU-AI
CC: Amarel at RUTGERS-10
a046 0333 21 Jul 77
PM-Robot, Bjt,450
By MARK CRANE
Associated Press Writer
RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP) - A company here plans to manufacturdαa
5-foot-2, 180-pound robot that can serve your dinner, vacuum your
rugs, babysit for your kids and insult your enemies.
''We've programmed the robot to approximate human behavior. The only
limitations to what it can do is the boundary of imagination and the
cost factor,'' says Anthony Reichelt, president of Quasar Industries
Inc.
The robot, which the company calls a domestic android, has been
researched for the past eight years and is now in the final testing
stages. ''We're about 22 months away from production,'' Reichelt said,
adding th under $4qy business is manufacturing robots. Until now, the
company's robots have been used for animated props and as promotional
gimmicks.
''This whole science is in its infancy,'' Reichelt said. ''Instead
of just kidding around with promotional things, we've reached the
state of the art to come out this summer with a para-medic robot.''
The para-medic robot is considered by some medical authorities to be
a useful psychological tool in dealing with autistic children,
Reichelt said.
''We put on a show for kids at a hospital in Scranton, Pa., last
summer. An 11-year-old there had been hurt in a car accident in which
one brother was killed and another brother seriously injured. The boy
regained consciousness but refused to talk to anyone,'' he said.
''We sent the robot in and it started talking to the boy. When there
was no response, the robot called the boy a 'dummy,' which we
programmed it to call nearly everyone. Within 20 minutes, the kid was
babbling away. Doctors had spent days trying to get him to talk,''
Reichelt said.
As a domestic servant, the robot is the ''ultimate appliance.''
It is shaped like a cone with a bubble head and two arms. It carries
a computer which can be programmed by the owner with a
calculator-like device, he said.
The robots, which are programmed with a 250-word taped vocabulary,
run on 24 volt batteries.
''The robot can be programmed to answer the door at a certain time.
When guests arrive, the robot can say, 'May I announce you please?'
When the guests give their names, the robot tapes the conversation and
plays it back to his owner,'' Reichelt said.
With a special option, the robot can babysit via television.
The robot responds to an owner's voice.
If anyone breaks into the owner's house, the robot is programmed to
sound an alarm. It then goes to the point of entry and verbally
challenges the intruder, Reichelt said.
The robot can be programmed to speak any language. ''We can have it
become anything you want, from a Japanese houseboy to a French maid.
It can also give foreign language lessons,'' he said.
0635aED 07-21
***************
∂02-Nov-77 1001 BPM
Robot Faces Suit
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A Catonsville, Md. woman claims a five-foot
department store robot named KLATU frightened her baby so much she
ought to be awarded $100,000 in damages.
KLATU, a silver-suited, fiberglass robot given to outbursts such as
''Hello, how are you,'' was scurrying around the mall last Nov. 10
when it encountered 10-month-old Shaun Patrick Del Guidice.
Shaun's mother, Shirley, in a U.S. District Court suit filed
Tuesday, describes the encounter as one in which her son was
''accosted, touched, assaulted and terrorized.''
That's not the way Bamberger's Department Store sees it.
''The robot started talking to him and I guess the kid got scared
and started crying,'' said Homer Best, loss-prevention manager for
Bamberger's store in the Springfield Mall shopping center.
''It's just a normal robot,'' Best said. ''This is the first time I
have ever heard of anything like this. To me, it's very ridiculous.''
KLATU, which Best described as ''very cute,'' is owned by Quasar
Industries of Hackensack, N.J. The remote-controlled, antennaed
creature was leased to Bamberger's to promote an electronics sale.
∂14-Nov-77 1549 FTP:Feigenbaum at SUMEX-AIM (Response to message)
Date: 14 NOV 1977 1548-PST
From: Feigenbaum at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: (Response to message)
To: JMC at SU-AI
In response to your message sent 14 Nov 1977 1518-PST
I agree. Glad you did it!...Ed
-------
∂15-Nov-77 1302 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A The Fake Robot
Date: 15 Nov 1977 1559-EST
From: Brian Reid at CMU-10A
Subject: The Fake Robot
To: JMC at SU-AI
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 15 Nov 1977 15:59:19 Brian Reid
Last night a reporter from the Christian Science Monitor called me
at home about the robot story. After I told him what he wanted to
know, we got into a long discussion (so long I missed dinner for it)
about why the American public is so taken in by this all.
This reporter, whose name I never quite got, seems willing to pour
a huge amount of energy into this story. He was busy tracking down
the department stores that had hired Quasar to find out just how much
they knew, and is looking heavily into the financial side of Quasar.
If, in fact, Quasar is not really trying to sell any robots but is
making their money from renting them out to department stores, then
they are probably guilty of no more fraud than circus side-shows.
However, if Quasar is preparing to go public and to sell stock, then
they could be in serious trouble.
This "why are they doing it" angle was the one that this reporter
seemed to be taking, and to my way of thinking it's the one most likely
to damage Quasar. However, Reichelt may not be a liar but a lunatic,
genuinely believing that he can build such a robot, in which case it
would be really difficult to pin any kind of `fraud' label on them.
As an aside, could I get a copy of Sandra Blakeslee's press release?
Brian
-------
If it was the Christian Science Monitor reporter from L.A., his
enthusiasm for work seemed to have declined before he called me.
I mislaid the slip of paper with his name. I have asked Sandra
Blakeslee to send you a copy of the release. By the way, I thought
your writeup was a bit too kind to Quasar.
∂15-Nov-77 1820 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A Kindness to Quasar
Date: 15 Nov 1977 2029-EST
From: Brian Reid at CMU-10A
Subject: Kindness to Quasar
To: JMC at SU-AI (John McCarthy)
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 15 Nov 1977 20:29:20 Brian Reid
In-Reply-To: Your message of November 15, 1977
My original writeup was rather harsh, but Joe Traub wouldn't let
me send it out (fear of lawsuits). While I was trying to tone it down,
Fox sent out an intermediate version of it, at which point it became
no longer relevant. I've got the longer one, if you want to see
it, but Traub specifically told me not to send it out so I'd
rather that you didn't show it to anybody.
B.
-------
Yes, I'd like to see it.
∂21-Nov-77 1905 FTP:BRIAN REID(C410BR10) at CMU-10A Fake robot: a call for help
Mail from SRI-KL rcvd at 21-Nov-77 1727-PST
Mail from MIT-MC rcvd at 21-Nov-77 1658-PST
Date: 21 Nov 1977 1950-EST
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Subject: Fake robot: a call for help
From: BRIAN REID(C410BR10) at CMU-10A
To: Header-People at MIT-MC, MSGRP.DST
- - - -
A reporter from Business Week magazine is going to Quasar
tomorrow morning (Tuesday 22 Nov) at 10:00 a.m.
I want him to take with him a person who would be able to
exposte the thing for what it is.
Are any of you folks in New York City?
Would any of you be willing to go along with this reporter
tomorrow morning?
If so, please let me know IMMEDIATELY, and I will connect you
up.
Brian Reid
-------
Bob Smith from Rutgers (201) 238-1650 is willing and will send you a message.
∂21-Nov-77 2014 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR robot
Date: 21 Nov 1977 (Monday) 2312-Est
From: RSMITH at RUTGERS-10
Subject: QUASAR robot
To: reid at CMU-10A
cc: jmc at SU-AI, LEFAIVRE, AMAREL
John McCarthy spoke with me just a moment ago about
the QUASAR robot. We understand that a reporter from Business
Week will be going to East Rutherford N.J. to meet with these
people sometime soon, and John McCarthy suggests that it would
be useful to have some AI people available to the reporter.
There are quite a few AI people at Rutgers (about 20 miles from
East Rutherford), and some of us would be happy to participate.
My phone numbers are:
(201) 238-1650 home
(201) 932-3626 office
and I am RSMITH@RUTGERS-10. Please get in touch with me
ASAP if there is anything we can do.
Also, JMC says that you have some critiques of the QUASAR stuff,
since it was demonstrated in a Pittsburgh department store. Can
you send whatever you have.
Regards,
Bob Smith
∂21-Nov-77 2021 FTP:LEFAIVRE at RUTGERS-10 Business Week visit to Quasar
Date: 21 Nov 1977 (Monday) 2319-Est
From: LEFAIVRE at RUTGERS-10
Subject: Business Week visit to Quasar
To: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A, MCCARTHY at SU-AI
Saul Amarel just informed me about the Quasar robot which is going to
free the American housewife from her drudgery. I saw a news report
describing their claims about a month ago, and was to say the least
incredulous. Although I don't claim to be a robotics expert, I am
interested in going up there to see what is going on. Bob Smith and
I both teach classes tomorrow afternoon, but I think this is important
enough for us to take off if necessary (I assume Bob has/will contact
you directly). Could you tell us how to get in touch with the Business
Week reporter? If he wants to call me, my home phone is (201) 246-2339.
I hope we can either expose just what these people are up to, or arrange
to have a Noble Prize in Robotics awareded to them if their claims hold
up.
-Rick LeFaivre
∂21-Nov-77 2115 FTP:Bruce Nelson at CMU-10A reids # is 412-682-0273
Date: 22 Nov 1977 0014-EST
From: Bruce Nelson at CMU-10A
Subject: reids # is 412-682-0273
To: jmc@sail
Sender: BRUCE.NELSON at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 22 Nov 1977 00:14:41 Bruce Nelson
-------
∂21-Nov-77 2125 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR Robot
Date: 22 Nov 1977 (Tuesday) 0023-Est
From: RSMITH at RUTGERS-10
Subject: QUASAR Robot
To: JMC at SU-AI
I extracted the messages from your mail that concerned
QUASAR. They are on file QUASAR.MSG[1,RS] if you should
want that set of messages.
Regards,
Bob Smith
P.S. I still have not heard from Brian Reid.
∂21-Nov-77 2126 FTP:LEFAIVRE at RUTGERS-10 Update to last note
Date: 22 Nov 1977 (Tuesday) 0024-Est
From: LEFAIVRE at RUTGERS-10
Subject: Update to last note
To: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A, MCCARTHY at SU-AI
cc: RSMITH, AMAREL
I just read about some of the history of the Quasar "robot", including
the CMU observations. I withdraw them from contention for the Nobel
Prize in Robotics.
∂21-Nov-77 2129 FTP:BZM at CMU-10A reid ..
Date: 22 Nov 1977 0028-EST
From: BZM at CMU-10A
Subject: reid ..
To: jmc@sail
Sender: BRUCE.NELSON at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 22 Nov 1977 00:28:29 Bruce Nelson
if he's not at home, he's likely to be at 412-441-4820. hope you get him.
-------
I got Reid's home phone, and his room-mate said that the Business Wek
reporter is named Billl Abrams, and his home phone is (212) 228-3260.
I suggest that Bob Smith (to choose just one) phone him even though it
is late, because he will have to leave early to get to Quasar by 10am.
Reid is conjectured to be at 412-441-4820 (not his home number), and
I'll try that to keep him informed.
∂21-Nov-77 2211 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR
Date: 22 Nov 1977 (Tuesday) 0108-Est
From: RSMITH at RUTGERS-10
Subject: QUASAR
To: reid at CMU-10A
cc: jmc at SU-AI, LEFAIVRE
At John McCarthy's suggestion I phoned Bill Abrams of
Business Week and talked with him. I suggested that some
of us from Rutgers would be very happy to accompany him to
QUASAR but he thought that was impracticable.
He is going to call me in the afternoon for perhaps an appointment
at Rutgers.
If you have any suggestions about what should happen please let
me know.
Regards,
Bob Smith
∂21-Nov-77 2308 FTP:HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman)
Date: 22 NOV 1977 0208-EST
From: HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman)
To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, BAK at MIT-AI, KLH at MIT-AI, HENRY at MIT-AI
To: jmc at SU-AI, rsmith at RUTGERS-10, lefaibre at RUTGERS-10
To: reid at CMU-10A
The Quasar promotional literature is on DHT;QUASAR >.
∂21-Nov-77 2311 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A the state of the Business Week visit
Date: 22 Nov 1977 0209-EST
From: Brian Reid at CMU-10A
Subject: the state of the Business Week visit
To: McCarthy at SU-AI, RSmith at RUTGERS-10, LeFaivre at RUTGERS-10,
To: Henry at MIT-AI, Minsky at MIT-AI
CC: Reid@CMU-10A
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 22 Nov 1977 02:09:03 Brian Reid
I think we seem to have scared the reporter away.
When I talked to him right before I sent out that hue and cry, he seemed
interested in having a technical person along. Now he wants to go it
alone. I gave him a lot of tips for what kind of things to look for
in spotting the hoax. I don't think it would hurt a thing if
a person or two just showed up anyhow. But we shall see. The reporter
has called me every day this week, and I assume that I will hear from him again
tomorrow). I'll keep you posted.
Brian
-------
∂22-Nov-77 1205 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A The Quasar hoax: why we are interested
Date: 22 Nov 1977 1500-EST
From: Brian Reid at CMU-10A
Subject: The Quasar hoax: why we are interested
To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI
CC: McCarthy at SU-AI
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 22 Nov 1977 15:00:18 Brian Reid
In-Reply-To: <[USC-ISI]22-NOV-77 11:45:46.STEFFERUD>
Stef:
Perhaps John McCarthy can give you a more impassioned explanation.
By and large, the public has been taken in by this thing hook, line,
and sinker. It is a bit of egg in the face of serious AI researchers
to have some clown getting so much publicity for such an obvious
fraud, but that is not the critical issue as I see it.
Marvin Minsky asserts, and I wholeheartedly support his position,
that scientists in any field have an obligation to expose fraud and
quackery in that field, especially if the public could be injured by
the successful implementation of a fraud.
The Quasar people seem ready to set up a big-time con. It appears
that they are about to go public (thereby setting up a possible
stock-fraud situation), and it also appears that they have set up a
fairly foolproof and sophisticated scheme for bilking people of their
money. I'll forward you John McCarthy's note in which he explains
what he thinks they are up to.
It might seem to you that anybody can tell it is a fake, but that
is in fact not the case at all. A reporter with whom I spoke earlier
this week had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, but he didn't seem to
think that there was anything `obviously impossible' about the claims
being made about the robot. So, if we don't expose it, who will?
as ever,
Brian
-------
∂22-Nov-77 1212 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A Re: Fake robot: a call for help
Date: 22 Nov 1977 1502-EST
From: Brian Reid at CMU-10A
To: JMC at SU-AI
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 22 Nov 1977 15:02:39 Brian Reid
Begin forwarded message
- - - - - - - - -
Date: 22 NOV 1977 1145-PST
Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI
Subject: Re: Fake robot: a call for help
From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI
To: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Cc: STEFFERUD
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]22-NOV-77 11:45:46.STEFFERUD>
In-Reply-To: Your message of NOVEMBER 21, 1977
HI BRIAN -
I CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH YOUR REGARDING THE FACT THAT THAT THING IS
A FAKE, AND THAT IT DISPLEASES YOU ALL THERE WHO ARE DOING
SERIOUS WORK IN THIS FIELD, BUT I DO NOT QUITE SEE WHY THAT
"PROMOTIONAL GIMICK FOR DEPARTMENT STORES" IS SUCH A THREAT TO
YOU FOLKS.
AS LONG AS THEIR DECEPTION IS AS FAULTY AS YOUR EARLIER
COMMUNICATIONS INDICATE, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT THING IS GOING TO
HURT ANYONE. MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? TILL THEN, I
FEAR THAT I MUST MERELY WATCH AND CHUCKLE AT THIS QUIOTIC
AFFAIR. IT IS RARE TO FIND SUCH AN ATTRACTIVE WINDMILL, I MUST
SAY!
CHEERS - STEF
PS- HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
-------
End forwarded message
-------
∂22-Nov-77 1356 FTP:Feigenbaum at SUMEX-AIM QUASAR SWINDLE
Date: 22 NOV 1977 1355-PST
From: Feigenbaum at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: QUASAR SWINDLE
To: JMC at SAIL
JOHN,
Are you going to contact the FTC? I think it's a very important thing
to do. Also the Justice Dept.
Ed
-------
∂22-Nov-77 1923 FTP:STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Re: The Quasar hoax: why we are interested
Date: 22 NOV 1977 1737-PST
Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI
Subject: Re: The Quasar hoax: why we are interested
From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI
To: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Cc: STEFFERUD, McCarthy at SU-AI
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]22-NOV-77 17:37:06.STEFFERUD>
In-Reply-To: [CMU-10A] 22 Nov 1977 15:00:18 Brian Reid
WELL - NOW I AM GLAD I ASKED, CAUSE IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A
GREAT DEAL MORE EFFORT ON MY PART TO UNDERSTAND WITHOUT ASKING.
I FIND MYSELF SYMPATHETIC TO THE CAUSE, AND SUGGEST THAT A
CAREFULLY REASONED EXPLANATION BE FORWARDED TO THE MSGGROUP LIST,
THOUGH PERHAPS IT SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE "TRANSACTIONS"?
NOT THAT IT WOULD HURT TO HAVE ALITTLE EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL IN
THERE. (YES, I KNOW IT IS PRETTY NOISEY ALREADY!)
AND ANOTHER THOUGHT, HOW ABOUT FORWARDING YOUR STUFF TO BEV
BLEAKLEY, MANAGING EDITOR OF "COMPUTERDATA" THE CANADIAN COMPUTER
MAGAZINE, WHITSED PUBLISHING LIMITED, SUITE 2504, 2 BLOOR STREET
WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO M4W 3G1. PHONE (416) 967-6200
OR, IF YOU WISH, I WILL FORWARD WHAT EVER YOU WANT ALONG WITH
SOME OTHER STUFF I AM SENDING TO HER NOW. MY PACKAGE WILL BE
READY TO GO BY THE WEEKEND.
GOOD LUCK - STEF
PS: I ASSUME FROM YOUR REFERENCE THAT YOU HAVE INFACT PROCEEDED
WITH NOTIFICATION OF THE FTC, ET AL? S/
-------
∂22-Nov-77 2039 FTP:HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman)
Date: 22 NOV 1977 2341-EST
From: HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman)
To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, KEN at MIT-AI, KLH at MIT-AI, jmc at SU-AI
To: rsmith at RUTGERS-10, lefaivre at RUTGERS-10, reid at CMU-10A
To: bak at MIT-ML
The file GREG;GMROB > at MIT-AI has an account of a visit to
a department store demonstration of the Quasar robot by some
people from the General Motors research labs. They too discovered
it to be remotely human controlled. The file also includes
a transcript of a TV news broadcast featuring the robot.
∂22-Nov-77 2042 FTP:HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman) Quasar fake robot
Date: 22 NOV 1977 2327-EST
From: HENRY at MIT-AI (Henry Lieberman)
Subject: Quasar fake robot
To: jmc at SU-AI
Thanks for your conjectures regarding what Quasar
is up to and suggestions. I will pass them along to Cathy.
We received the promotional literature in response to
two letters- one posing a consumer willing to purchase
the robot for home use, one posing as an investor willing
to sink money into it. It came also with a brochure with
pictures showing the robot dressed in all sorts of costumes.
It's really hilarious - I'll send you a copy. Do you have
a reference for the article in which you spoke to the
west coast newspapers?
∂23-Nov-77 0413 FTP:BKPH at MIT-AI (Berthold K.P. Horn)
Date: 23 NOV 1977 0713-EST
From: BKPH at MIT-AI (Berthold K.P. Horn)
To: jmc at SU-AI
It is possible that they (QUASAR) have less grandious plans and
either simply want to make money off stores that want them to
show their thing to attract customers, or that they are planning
on ripping off potential investors. That is, once there is
enough publicity they will wander around finding people
interested in supporting their operation financially. The
technique you describe may be ultimately more rewarding, but
much riskier and more work.
I agree that its better that somebody speak out and thus
establishes some doubt in the mind of potential swindelee's.
Good luck.
∂23-Nov-77 1004 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR
Date: 23 Nov 1977 (Wednesday) 1302-Est
From: RSMITH at RUTGERS-10
Subject: QUASAR
To: jmc at SU-AI, reid at CMU-10A
I spoke with Bill Abrams for about 10 minutes yesterday.
He seems to "have their number", as he puts it. He
played me a tape recording of a conversation he had
with a robot. Metallic-sounding voice, but human
prosody and quite articulate and complex conversation.
Let me know if there is anything we at Rutgers can do.
Regards,
Bob Smith
JUSTIC.LE1[LET,JMC] is a draft of a letter to the Justice Department
asking them to investigate Quasar for possible fraud. I suppose it
isn't essential, but it would be worthwhile if the AI community,
as represented by Rutgers, made direct contact with Quasar and asked
for the tour give Business Week. I would suggest that you ask to
converse with the Robot and get it into a conversation about its
capabilities. The person providing the Robot's conversation
may be more careless than the same person speaking directly, because
he has a more complicated task to perform. You can ask it how it
works. At the end of the interview, direct questions to Reichelt
about from whom he has taken money might be asked.
Quite probably Quasar will refuse to let you in, but you might mention
that you know they have been denounced but want to be fair.
∂23-Nov-77 1020 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A Re: letter to Justice Department re Quasar
Date: 23 Nov 1977 1313-EST
From: Brian Reid at CMU-10A
Subject: Re: letter to Justice Department re Quasar
To: JMC at SU-AI (John McCarthy)
CC: Minsky at MIT-AI
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 23 Nov 1977 13:13:00 Brian Reid
In-Reply-To: Your message of November 23, 1977
The second-to-the last paragraph contains a group of words that
should be deleted; it looks like a late-night editing error. (from
"make very difficult" to "wonders").
Other than that, it looks fine to me.
I believe that if they mail out one of those brochures, they will
already have committed mail fraud; in any event, a copy of this
letter should be forwarded to the Chief Postal Inspector, Main Postal
Service Building, Washington DC 20260. It is not a good idea to rely
on government agencies to forward letters to the appropriate place.
The Justice Department's address is "Department of Justice,
Washington DC 20530". That's their headquarters; presumably they
could route the letter to the correct agency inside D of J.
It might add credibility (in the eyes of a government official who
has possibly never heard of you) to mention that ARPA funded an
intensive 5-year research effort to build a speech-recognition
system, spending upwards of $100 million on it, and achieved much
less than this robot claims to be able to do. As a long-time
resident of Washington, I've noticed that the rank and file in
government agencies attach more credibility to military research than
to University research. [One of our lab hangers-on suggested that we
should tell ARPA about this and they would classify it Top Secret,
and the problem would be solved].
If you need to get hold of me over the Thanksgiving weekend, I'll be
in Washington DC at (301) 434-2847.
Brian
-------
∂23-Nov-77 1200 FTP:RSMITH at RUTGERS-10 QUASAR
Date: 23 Nov 1977 (Wednesday) 1457-Est
From: RSMITH at RUTGERS-10
Subject: QUASAR
To: JMC at SU-AI
Ok, a few of us will call them and request that tour as you
have proposed.
Bob Smith
∂27-Nov-77 1422 FTP:BAK at MIT-ML (William A. Kornfeld)
Date: 27 NOV 1977 1716-EST
From: BAK at MIT-ML (William A. Kornfeld)
To: HENRY at MIT-ML, KLH at MIT-ML, LEFAIVRE at MIT-ML, BAK at MIT-ML
To: JMC at SU-AI, RSMITH at RUTGERS-10, REID at CMU-10A
To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, DHT at MIT-AI
I went down with Cathy Shaw to Quasar headquarters November 23. Our attitude
was as journalists interested in producing a favorable article so they would
give us alot of good quotes. Quasar's headquarters (and factory) are in an
old converted store front in a New Jersey suburb near NYC. There is no sign
on the front of the office letting you know its Quasar. The front office
consists of a receptionist's desk (staffed incidentally by Reichelt's wife)
and three "robots" on display. One of the three was Sam Smugglegear of
department store fame. One of the technicians was putting in the arms while
we were there. The arm consists of a pipe covered by pleated plastic tubing.
There were no wires of any kind going from the arm to the main robot so we
can assume that the only degree of freedom in the arm is at the shoulder. The
head is made of translucent plastic and is quite empty. Behind Sam was there
"sentry robot". It was shaped roughly like Sam but appeared about 10 feet tall
and was painted in black and grey; it was very imposing. I was not able to tell
whether this particular model was capable of movement by remote control or not.
The third robot (only the torso was displayed for this one) was manigin-like in
appearance. It consisted of lots of parts and was potentially capable of moving
its jaw, eyes, and neck (looked alot like a Disneyland prop).
We spoke to Mrs. Reichelt and a marketing representative. They seemed quite
happy to talk to us. Mrs. Reichelt made a very poor liar. At several points
during the interview she appeared very nervous and tried to avoid answering
questions. We got them to make a number of outlandish statements which, in
conjunction with observations made at stores and other places, could be used to
put together an incriminating article. Here are some of these points.
1. The store demo robots are NOT remotely controlled by people.
2. The domestic android is technologically possible today. [See their
promotional lit. for a description of what the domestic android can do.]
3. They already have a prototype of the domestic android that is capable of
doing everything their $4000 version will be able to do. The domestic android
was on loan to Penthouse (for promotional use) the day we were there. Cathy
is going to try to contact Penthouse to get them to admit that the robot is
remote controlled. How this will go I don't know yet.
4. The domestic android is capable of its many feats without a human being
presently in the house.
Naturally they tried to be as wishy-washy as they could, trying to make all
statements ambiguouos (so as not to exclude remote control). But we were
still able to get enough out of them to demonstrate that they are a fraud.
We'll see how the guy from Business Week did when the issue comes out (does
anyone know now?) but if there is need for another article there is enough
material for one and Cathy would probably be interested in writing it.
They get $900 per day for a demo in stores according to a memo on the wall.
They appeared to be very heavily booked. It is possible that they are not
serious about defrauding innocent investors but only in getting lots of bookings
at stores.
--Bill Kornfeld (BAK@MIT-ML)
∂30-Nov-77 1012 FTP:Brian Reid at CMU-10A Justice Department Letter
Date: 30 Nov 1977 1309-EST
From: Brian Reid at CMU-10A
Subject: Justice Department Letter
To: McCarthy at SU-AI, Minsky at MIT-AI
Sender: BRIAN.REID at CMU-10A
Message-ID: [CMU-10A] 30 Nov 1977 13:09:41 Brian Reid
The letter is on its way to Marvin. There is a typo on the first page
(differeet for different), and the pound-signs didn't get turned into
numbers by PUB. Perhaps you ought to crank it through PUB again and
forward a new first page (which doesn't have any signatures and is
therefore interchangeable).
Brian
-------
Thanks, I'll do it.