Lighthill report: Difference between revisions
references are numbered now |
→Content: summary |
||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|1973 article on artificial intelligence research}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
__NOTOC__ |
|||
'''''Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey''''', commonly known as the '''Lighthill report''', is a [[scholarly article]] by [[James Lighthill]], published in ''Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium'' in 1973.<ref name="lighthill_report">{{cite web| first=James | last=Lighthill | authorlink=James Lighthill | date=1973 | url=http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/inf/literature/reports/lighthill_report/p001.htm | title=Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey | work=Artificial Intelligence: A paper symposium | publisher=[[Science Research Council]] | location=UK }}</ref> It was compiled by Lighthill for the British [[Science Research Council]] as an evaluation of academic research in the field of [[artificial intelligence]] (AI). The report gave a very pessimistic prognosis for many core aspects of research in this field, stating that "In no part of the field have the discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised". It "formed the basis for the decision by the British government to end support for AI research in most British universities",<ref name="aiama">{{cite book |last1=Russell |first1=S. J. |title=[[Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach]] |last2=Norvig |first2=P. |author-link2=Peter Norvig |publisher=[[Prentice Hall]] |year=2010 |edition=3rd |location=Upper Saddle River, NJ}}</ref> contributing to an [[AI winter]] in Britain. |
|||
== Publication history == |
|||
Published in 1973, it was compiled by Lighthill for the British [[Science Research Council]] as an evaluation of the academic research in the field of [[Artificial Intelligence]]. The report gave a very pessimistic prognosis for many core aspects of research in this field, stating that "in no part of the field have discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised". |
|||
It was commissioned by the SRC in 1972 for Lighthill to "make a personal review of the subject [of AI]". Lighthill completed the report in July. The SRC discussed the report in September, and decided to publish it, together with some alternative points of view by [[Stuart Sutherland]], [[Roger Needham]], [[Christopher Longuet-Higgins]], and [[Donald Michie]].<ref name="lighthill_report" />{{Pg|location=preface}} The SRC's decision to invite the report was partly a reaction to high levels of discord within the [[University of Edinburgh]]'s Department of Artificial Intelligence, one of the earliest and biggest centres for AI research in the UK.<ref name="ai_at_edinburgh">{{cite web |last=Howe |first=Jim |date=June 2007 |title=Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Perspective |url=https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/about/AIhistory.html |accessdate=29 September 2022 |publisher=[[University of Edinburgh]] |location=UK}}</ref> |
|||
On May 9, 1973, Lighthill debated several leading AI researchers (Donald Michie, [[John McCarthy (computer scientist)|John McCarthy]], [[Richard Gregory]]) at the Royal Institution in London concerning the report.<ref>{{Citation |last=Emanuel |first=Jeff |title=Dicklesworthstone/the_lighthill_debate_on_ai |date=2024-10-01 |url=https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone/the_lighthill_debate_on_ai |access-date=2024-11-20}}</ref> |
|||
It "formed the basis for the decision by the British government to end support for [[AI]] research in all but three universities"<ref name="aiama"/> —Edinburgh, Sussex and Essex. |
|||
== Content == |
|||
While the report was supportive of research into the simulation of neurophysiological and psychological processes, it was "highly critical of [[basic research]] in foundational areas such as [[robotics]] and [[language processing]]".<ref name="lighthill_report"/> |
While the report was supportive of research into the simulation of neurophysiological and psychological processes, it was "highly critical of [[basic research]] in foundational areas such as [[robotics]] and [[language processing]]".<ref name="lighthill_report"/> |
||
The report stated that AI researchers had failed to address the issue of [[combinatorial explosion]] when solving problems within real |
The report stated that AI researchers had failed to address the issue of [[combinatorial explosion]] when solving problems within real-world domains. That is, the report states that AI techniques may work within the scope of small problem domains, but the techniques would not scale up well to solve more realistic problems. The report represents a pessimistic view of AI that began after early excitement in the field. |
||
The report divides AI research into three categories: |
|||
The Science Research Council's decision to invite the report was partly a reaction to high levels of discord within the [[University of Edinburgh|University of Edinburgh's]] Department of Artificial Intelligence, one of the earliest and biggest centres for AI research in the UK.<ref name="ai_at_edinburgh"/> |
|||
* Advanced Automation ("A"): applications of AI, such as optical character recognition, mechanical component design and manufacture, missile perception and guidance, etc. |
|||
* Computer-based Central Nervous System research ("C"): building computational models of human brains (neurobiology) and behavior (psychology). |
|||
* Bridge, or Building Robots ("B"): research that combines categories A and C. This category is intentionally vague. |
|||
Projects in category A have had some success, but only in restricted domains where a large quantity of detailed knowledge is used in designing the program. This was disappointing to researchers who hoped for generic methods. Due to combinatorial explosion, the amount of detailed knowledge quickly grows too large to be entered by hand, thus restricting projects to restricted domains. |
|||
Projects in category C have had some measure of success. Artificial neural networks were successfully used to model neurobiological data. [[SHRDLU]] demonstrated that human use of language, even in fine details, depends on the semantics or knowledge, and is not purely syntactical. This was influential in [[psycholinguistics]]. Attempts to extend SHRDLU to larger [[Domain of discourse|domains of discourse]] is impractical, due to combinatorial explosion. |
|||
Projects in category B have been failures. One important project, that of "programming and building a robot that would mimic human ability in a combination of eye-hand co-ordination and common-sense problem solving", have been entirely disappointing. Similarly, chess playing programs are no better than human amateurs. Due to combinatorial explosion, the run-time of general algorithms quickly grows impractical, requiring detailed problem-specific heuristics. |
|||
There is no ''coherent'' AI research program, because there does not exist successful projects in category B. What appears to be in category B, such as [[SHRDLU]], is actually in category C. Consequently, what appears to be the AI research program is actually two programs. It is expected that within the next 25 years, category A would simply become applied technologies engineering, and C would integrate with psychology and neurobiology, while category B would be abandoned. |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
| Line 14: | Line 31: | ||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
{{reflist|refs = |
|||
<ref name="lighthill_report"> James Lighthill (1973): "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey" in ''Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium'', Science Research Council |
|||
</ref> |
|||
<ref name = "aiama"> Russell Norvig 2003}} |
|||
</ref> |
|||
<ref name="ai_at_edinburgh"> |
|||
Howe, J. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/AI_at_Edinburgh_perspective.html ''"Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University : a Perspective"''], November 1994, retrieved January 2006 |
|||
</ref> |
|||
}} |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
*[ |
*[https://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/freddy/ Other Freddy II Robot Resources] Includes a link to the 90-minute 1973 "''Controversy''" debate from the Royal Academy of [[James Lighthill|Lighthill]] vs. [[Donald Michie|Michie]], [[John McCarthy (computer scientist)|McCarthy]] and [[Richard Gregory|Gregory]] in response to Lighthill's report to the British government. |
||
*The Lighthill Debate (1973) at YouTube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yReDbeY7ZMU Part 1]·[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLnqHzpLPws 2]·[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnZghm0rRlI 3]·[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyU9pm1hmYs 4]·[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRgSiKKwFjE 5]·[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GZWFnWOqkA 6] |
|||
[[Category: |
[[Category:1973 documents]] |
||
[[Category:1973 in science]] |
|||
[[Category:1973 in the United Kingdom]] |
|||
[[Category:Computer science papers]] |
[[Category:Computer science papers]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:History of artificial intelligence]] |
||
[[Category:History of computing in the United Kingdom]] |
|||
[[Category:Documents of the United Kingdom]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 07:28, 20 November 2024
Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey, commonly known as the Lighthill report, is a scholarly article by James Lighthill, published in Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium in 1973.[1] It was compiled by Lighthill for the British Science Research Council as an evaluation of academic research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). The report gave a very pessimistic prognosis for many core aspects of research in this field, stating that "In no part of the field have the discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised". It "formed the basis for the decision by the British government to end support for AI research in most British universities",[2] contributing to an AI winter in Britain.
Publication history
[edit]It was commissioned by the SRC in 1972 for Lighthill to "make a personal review of the subject [of AI]". Lighthill completed the report in July. The SRC discussed the report in September, and decided to publish it, together with some alternative points of view by Stuart Sutherland, Roger Needham, Christopher Longuet-Higgins, and Donald Michie.[1]: preface The SRC's decision to invite the report was partly a reaction to high levels of discord within the University of Edinburgh's Department of Artificial Intelligence, one of the earliest and biggest centres for AI research in the UK.[3]
On May 9, 1973, Lighthill debated several leading AI researchers (Donald Michie, John McCarthy, Richard Gregory) at the Royal Institution in London concerning the report.[4]
Content
[edit]While the report was supportive of research into the simulation of neurophysiological and psychological processes, it was "highly critical of basic research in foundational areas such as robotics and language processing".[1] The report stated that AI researchers had failed to address the issue of combinatorial explosion when solving problems within real-world domains. That is, the report states that AI techniques may work within the scope of small problem domains, but the techniques would not scale up well to solve more realistic problems. The report represents a pessimistic view of AI that began after early excitement in the field.
The report divides AI research into three categories:
- Advanced Automation ("A"): applications of AI, such as optical character recognition, mechanical component design and manufacture, missile perception and guidance, etc.
- Computer-based Central Nervous System research ("C"): building computational models of human brains (neurobiology) and behavior (psychology).
- Bridge, or Building Robots ("B"): research that combines categories A and C. This category is intentionally vague.
Projects in category A have had some success, but only in restricted domains where a large quantity of detailed knowledge is used in designing the program. This was disappointing to researchers who hoped for generic methods. Due to combinatorial explosion, the amount of detailed knowledge quickly grows too large to be entered by hand, thus restricting projects to restricted domains.
Projects in category C have had some measure of success. Artificial neural networks were successfully used to model neurobiological data. SHRDLU demonstrated that human use of language, even in fine details, depends on the semantics or knowledge, and is not purely syntactical. This was influential in psycholinguistics. Attempts to extend SHRDLU to larger domains of discourse is impractical, due to combinatorial explosion.
Projects in category B have been failures. One important project, that of "programming and building a robot that would mimic human ability in a combination of eye-hand co-ordination and common-sense problem solving", have been entirely disappointing. Similarly, chess playing programs are no better than human amateurs. Due to combinatorial explosion, the run-time of general algorithms quickly grows impractical, requiring detailed problem-specific heuristics.
There is no coherent AI research program, because there does not exist successful projects in category B. What appears to be in category B, such as SHRDLU, is actually in category C. Consequently, what appears to be the AI research program is actually two programs. It is expected that within the next 25 years, category A would simply become applied technologies engineering, and C would integrate with psychology and neurobiology, while category B would be abandoned.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b c Lighthill, James (1973). "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey". Artificial Intelligence: A paper symposium. UK: Science Research Council.
- ^ Russell, S. J.; Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- ^ Howe, Jim (June 2007). "Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Perspective". UK: University of Edinburgh. Retrieved 29 September 2022.
- ^ Emanuel, Jeff (2024-10-01), Dicklesworthstone/the_lighthill_debate_on_ai, retrieved 2024-11-20
External links
[edit]- "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey" James Lighthill: in Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium, Science Research Council
- Other Freddy II Robot Resources Includes a link to the 90-minute 1973 "Controversy" debate from the Royal Academy of Lighthill vs. Michie, McCarthy and Gregory in response to Lighthill's report to the British government.
- The Lighthill Debate (1973) at YouTube: Part 1·2·3·4·5·6