Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rochester!gary From: gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) Newsgroups: net.jokes Subject: Re: Connectionist Dog Modeling Message-ID: <5533@rochester.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Mar-84 10:43:43 EST Article-I.D.: rocheste.5533 Posted: Fri Mar 9 10:43:43 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Mar-84 11:28:00 EST Sender: gary@rocheste.UUCP Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Lines: 109 From: Gary Cottrell>From seismo!harpo!decvax!decwrl!rhea!orphan!benson Fri Mar 2 20:24:18 1984 Received: by sen.rochester (3.327.3N) id AA12246; 2 Mar 84 20:24:13 EST (Fri) Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 1984 13:45:43-PST From: seismo!decvax!decwrl!rhea!orphan!benson Subject: Re: Seminar Announcement To: decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!gary Status: R 29-Feb-1984 Garrison W. Cottrell University of Cottage Street 55 Cottage Street Rochester, New York 14608 Dear Mr. Cottrell: Although I was unable to attend your recent seminar, "New Directions in Connectionist Dog Modeling," I am compelled to comment on your work as presented in your published works, along with the new ideas briefly discussed in the seminar announcement. Having read your "Dog: A Canine Architecture" in late 1981, I approached "Toward Connectionist Dog Modeling" the following year with cautious optimism. The former work encouraged me that perhaps a consistent dog model was, in fact, obtainable; at the same time, it caused me to wonder why it was desirable. Nontheless, "Toward Connectionist Dog Modeling" proved to be a landmark in this emerging science, and my resulting enthusiasm quieted those nagging suggestions of futility. You may not be familiar with my work in the field of artificial ignorance, which, I would like to suggest, shares several goals with your own work, with different emphasis. "Artificial Ignorance - An Achievable Goal?" (Benson 79) was the first of my published papers on the subject. Briefly, it promoted the idea that although creation of an "artificially intelligent" machine is a worthy scientific goal, design and implementation of an "artificially ignorant" one is much more sensible. It presented several arguments supporting the notion that, compared to artificial intelligence, artificial ignorance is easily achievable, and is therefore the logical first step. As a demonstration of the power of artificial ignorance (AI), I spent the latter half of 1979 producing CHESS1, a chess system for the VAX-11/780. CHESS1 was written primarily in LISP, a language of my own invention (Language for Ingorance Simulation Programming). In a resounding victory, CHESS1 lost to even the most ignorant human players, being unable to distinguish between the pieces. CHESS2, a more sophisticated implementation completed in April of 1980, lost just as effectively by moving the pieces in a clockwise progression around the edge of the board. Ignored by overly ambitious, grant-hungry researchers, artificial ignorance seemed to become my own personal discipline. After only three issues, the fledgling SIGIGN newsletter was discontinued, and the special interest group it served was disbanded. Undaunted, I published a series of three papers in 1980. The first two described several techniques I had developed toward simulating ignorant behavior ("Misunderstanding Human Speech", and "Pattern Misidentification", Benson 80). The third presented a simple conversion method for producing artificially ignorant programs from artificially intelligent ones, using a heuristic bug insertion algorithm ("Artificial Brain Damage", Benson 80). Despite these technical triumphs, interest in AI seemed to be dwindling. By the spring of 1981, I, too, had lost interest, convinced that my AI research had been little more than an interesting intellectual exercise. It is for this reason that your dog modeling thesis so thoroughly captured my interest. Surely the phrases (to quote from your announcement) "impoverished phoneme," "decimated world view," and "no brain" imply "ignorance." And, if I may paraphrase from your original treatise, the generic dog is essentially the equivalent of an intellectually stunted human who has been forced to bear fur and eat off the floor. Clearly dog modeling and AI have much in common. To prove my point, I have simulated the Wagging Response in a LISP application, and am working toward a procedural representation of the Tail Chasing Activity. The latter is a classic demonstration of genuine ignorance, as well as a natural application of recursive programming techniques. I welcome any suggestions you have on these experiments, and look forward to the continued success of your dog modeling research. Sincerely, Tom Benson