COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\input kermac.tex
C00005 00003	\arabicnumbering{1}
C00014 ENDMK
C⊗;
\input kermac.tex
\input papmac
% \input macmac
% \input codmac
% \input indmac.tex[tex,mmd]

%chpar12=1100				% Use magnify, not this !!!
\magnify{1100}				% Now this is ok.

\font V=timesroman at 18truebp
\def\Tit{\:V}
\def\<#1>{{\:m <#1>}\¬}
\def\lv{\:B}
\def\te{\:a}
\def\ni{\:b}
\def\ei{\:m}
\def\se{\:d}
\def\si{\:c}
\def\s8{\:p}
\def\it{\:?}

	% Change formats:
\def\sectionbeginb#1#2{\addq1{\varsec}
	\sectiondeclare{\tit\hangindent4.5em\sectionnum.\ \ #1\¬
		      }{\sectionnum\hquad #2
		      }{\sectionnum\hquad #2} }
\def\subsectionbeginb#1#2{\addq1{\varssec}
	\subsectiondeclare{\tenpoint\bf\hangindent4.5em\subsecnum\hquad\rm #1
			 }{\subsecnum\hquad #2}}

\setmargin{1truein}{1.25truein}{.9375truein}{.9375truein}
	% Modified to moveright the even pages only with hshft set to .45
% \def\shftthepage#1{
%	\ddvnmsel{\moveright\hshft truein\thevbox{#1}}{\thevbox{#1}} }


	% To produce special TEX printing and imitations
\def\TEX{\hbox{\:aT\hskip-.1667em\lower.424ex\hbox{E}\hskip-.125em X}}
\def\DEK{\hbox{\:aD\hskip-.1667em\lower.424ex\hbox{E}\hskip-.125em K}}
\def\MAX{\hbox{\:aM\hskip-.2000em\lower.424ex\hbox{A}\hskip-.200em X}}
\def\ALS{\hbox{\:a \lower.424ex\hbox{A}\hskip-.1667em\hbox
                                    {L}\hskip-.1667em\raise.424ex\hbox{S}}}

	% Initializations
\def\projname{Short WAITS}
\def\date{January 16, 1981}
	% Set parameters to taste:
\parskip .1in
\parindent 0pt
% \def\hshft{.45}
	% To change spacing on contents page
\def\hdltopskip{-0.05in}
\def\hdlbtmskip{0.10vu plus 2pt}
	% To change table of contents to eightpoint
\let\tofctypeface=\ninepoint

\secsubsecstyle

% \chcode'20←13
% \def\⊂#1⊃{\indexk{#1}}
% mtex.dmp[1,3].
\arabicnumbering{1}
\normalpage

\ctrline{\lv Abstract}
\ctrline{\lv On the State of Artificial Intelligence in 1984}
\ctrline {\lv an Early Prediction}
\ctrline{\lv by}
\ctrline{\lv Arthur L. Samuel}
\te
\par
We have been asked to think back to 1956 and recall what we then thought
would be the state of computers, computing and in particular of
Artificial Intelligence by the year 1981.

The task of reporting my early predictions happens to relatively easy for
me because I actually put my predictions down on paper in two different
papers that were published a few years after that famous Dartmouth
meeting.

I have often observed that people usually over-estimate what can be done
in a short period of time and under-estimate what will be done over a
longer period of time.

I am now afraid that I overdid this exponential thinking, although, of course,
we still have three years to go.

It is too bad that I was not asked to predict for the year 2000 because it
is likely that I would have made about the same predictions and many
of my still un-met predictions might well come true by this later date.

But to get to my predictions.

Firstly, as to the size, speed, memory capacity and cost, I predicted that
computers would get very much smaller in size, that they would be roughly
1000 times as fast as they then were and that their memories would be very
much larger---large enough to store in one data bank all of man's recorded
information.

I did anticipate that two rather basic problems would have been solved
well before 1984, and alas they have not.

The second basic problem had to do with the imperative nature of our
then-existing programming languages.

Finally, I expected extremely cheap, convenient to use and portable
terminals to have been developed and that communicating with the computer
would be as easy and natural as communicating with an intelligent servant
of the human variety.

Most of my predictions were concerned with the effects that the
anticipated advances in computer technology would have on society.

I predicted the wide-spread use of personal computers that would be both
computers in their own right and intelligent terminals for communication
with large central computers and large central data banks, and that one
could communicate with these central data banks from one's portable
computer regardless of where one might be.

Actually, the telephone industry let me down rather badly.

I erred completely with respect to the development of large data banks to
replace libraries.

I was over optimistic also with respect to language translation, stating:
{\it ``...automatic translation via the telephone will also have come into
use--- although perhaps not into general use, because of the cost and the
gradual drift toward a universal language.'' }

I still believe that we will finally be able to have quite satisfactory
machine translation, but I am a bit more cautious now in predicting when.

A lot of money has been spent on speech recognition, as many of you know,
but much of this effort was directed toward reaching a specific goal in
five years and it was only at the end of this period that a few
organizations buckled down to task of really solving the problem.

I also envisioned a much greater advance in teaching machines than has
actually occurred, both in terms of many slave teaching machines and of
many large master-computers which {\it ``will alter teaching methods on
the basis of experience.''}

I was right on target in my predictions as to The Banishment of Paper-Work
(this was the title of one of my papers), meaning by this the use of
computers in business.

I further stated that {\it ``Process control with the attending automation,
while delegated to simpler computers, will have reached a very high degree
of development so that the number of factory workers will drop
precipitously.''}

I had one final word to say regarding intellectual achievements of
computers.

My concluding sentences were: {\it ``Computers will not have contributed as
much as some people have predicted with respect to making basic
contributions to mathematics and science and, somehow or other, all
attempts to invest them with truly creative abilities will have failed.

There will still be a place in the world for people!''}

Now what do I now think of my earlier point of view. 

Well, in the first place, we were all overly optimistic in those days, but
I can remember railing against certain people who were then making quite
unfounded statements as to what was then being accomplished or of what
would happen in the next few years.

We also have had to contend with people who attempted to discount the entire
field of activity.

So, all in all, I would like to defend my 1956 point of view and claim
that my predictions were not too far out of line in the light of what we
actually knew at the time.

I went wrong, however, because I did not make due allowances for the fact
that developments in terminals, in data transmission facilities and in
programming languages would not keep pace with those in main frame
development, and progress in A.I. is critically dependent upon these
facilities.

\par
\vfill
\end