3 ms·
Roger Schank was always an interesting speaker: >The third conversation was with Bob Wilensky, a former student of mine, who asked me what I was going to do on
by Isamu 7y ago
Roger Schank was always an interesting speaker:
>The third conversation was with Bob Wilensky, a former student of mine, who asked me what I was going to
do on this panel. He asked if I thought doomsday was
coming. I said, “Yes.” And he said, “No, you’re wrong.” I
asked why. He said, ‘It’s already here. There’s no content
in this conference.” Now I think there’s something serious to be concerned about there. He isn’t the only person
I’ve heard express that view. If that’s true and there’s no
content in this conference, then doomsday is already here.
>I got
scared when big business started getting into this- Schlumberger, Xerox, Hewlett-Packard, Texas Instruments, GTE,
Amico, Exxon,-they were all making investments- they
all have AI group. You start to wonder who could be in the
AI groups. We haven’t got that many people in AI. And
you find out that, those people weren’t trained in AI. They
read an AI book, in many of these cases. They started off
reading all the best AI research. After a while you discover
AI group after AI group whose people were only peripherally in AI in the first place. What’s going to happen
is that those companies will find that their groups aren’t
producing as well as they had expected. When they find
that, they will complain; they will say nasty things about
AI. The presidents of those companies will be talking to
the people who are not at ARPA, but at the Secretary of
Defense level.
- gumby 7y agoWell, that's Roger. Schlumberger had Marty Tenenbaum; Xerox had Alan Kay (and a host of others), etc. Also the defense guys were recruiting heavily from MIT, Stanford CMU et al AI labs. Exxon etc got their "AI" through Schlumberger and didn't want scientists, but business folks. Does give the research perspective of the 80s though: ARPA was still considered the big fish. Now they aren't a major player. Significant still, yes, but not the way they were, either in structure or in % of overall investment.
- sgt101 7y agoThere's another big difference though - my perception is that the gap between business and science in 80's was vast... but now I think that most Stanford and MIT faculty are involved in business ventures.