Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Although at the time there was a growing group of people at Sussex University
(Informatics) who responded very positively to the grand challenge, we are still a
long way from producing human style intelligence.
5.
It has international scope: participation would increase the research profile of a
nation.
It clearly has worldwide implications but Artificial Intelligence has benefited most
from faster and more compact computers. No new principles have evolved from or
since the grand challenge.
6.
It is generally comprehensible, and captures the imagination of the lay public, as
well as the esteem of scientists in other disciplines.
Many of the problems people had at the time of the challenge have been ameliorated
by 'iPads' and 'Apps'. What was really meant by this criterion is the excitement about
the 'idea' proposed. The notion would strike at the very heart of how we organise
ourselves and accept hypotheses. The accelerated growth of laws and regulations is
derived from the misapprehension that concepts can be perfectly captured through
definition. The rejection of this idea would release us all from the inappropriate
constraints imposed by those in authority; it would give us a rationale on which to
reject nonsense. Sadly, this has never happened.
7.
It was formulated long ago, and still stands.
If 'long ago' means 'in the early part of the twentieth century', then it does still stand.
8.
It promises to go beyond what is initially possible, and requires development of
understanding, techniques and tools unknown at the start of the project
.
This promise seemed to be the case. A new technology and science could stem from
this proposal. As noted for 6, in some limited way it has in the form of iPads and
Apps.
9.
It calls for planned co-operation among identified research teams and communi-
ties.
It will require a wide range of specialisation ranging from psychologists, philoso-
phers, linguists, sociologists and computer scientists of many fields (e.g. networking,
systems, architecture and interface design). However, it never really happened except
in very isolated places.
10.
It encourages and benefits from competition among individuals and teams, with
clear criteria on who is winning, or who has won.
I did not like to see this happen. It could do, but I would discourage it. Competition
in science is generally counter-productive because it involves secrecy and ownership
of knowledge.
11.
It decomposes into identified intermediate research goals, whose achievement
brings scientific or economic benefit, even if the project as a whole fails.
