| |
|
Man-Computer Symbiosis
Written in 1960, this essay foresaw the growing dependence upon computers for more and more intelligent functions, and an age of human/ computer interdependence in which the distinction between the two becomes increasingly blurred.
Originally published in IEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, volume HFE-1, pages 411, March 1960. Published on KurzweilAI.net December 11, 2001. SummaryMan-computer symbiosis is an expected development in cooperative interaction between men and electronic computers. It will involve very close coupling between the human and the electronic members of the partnership. The main aims are
1) to let computers facilitate formulative thinking as they now facilitate the solution of formulated problems, and
2) to enable men and computers to cooperate in making decisions and controlling complex situations without inflexible dependence on predetermined programs.
In the anticipated symbiotic partnership, men will set the goals, formulate the hypotheses, determine the criteria, and perform the evaluations. Computing machines will do the routinizable work that must be done to prepare the way for insights and decisions in technical and scientific thinking. Preliminary analyses indicate that the symbiotic partnership will perform intellectual operations much more effectively than man alone can perform them. Prerequisites for the achievement of the effective, cooperative association include developments in computer time sharing, in memory components, in memory organization, in programming languages, and in input and output equipment. IntroductionSymbiosisThe fig tree is pollinated only by the insect Blastophaga grossorun. The larva of the insect lives in the ovary of the fig tree, and there it gets its food. The tree and the insect are thus heavily interdependent: the tree cannot reproduce wit bout the insect; the insect cannot eat wit bout the tree; together, they constitute not only a viable but a productive and thriving partnership. This cooperative "living together in intimate association, or even close union, of two dissimilar organisms" is called symbiosis.
"Man-computer symbiosis" is a subclass of man-machine systems. There are many man-machine systems. At present, however, there are no mancomputer symbioses. The purposes of this paper are to present the concept and, hopefully, to foster the development of man-computer symbiosis by analyzing some problems of interaction between men and computing machines, calling attention to applicable principles of man-machine engineering, and 1 pointing out a few questions to which research answers are needed. The hope is that, in not too many years, human brains and computing machines will be coupled together very tightly, and that the resulting partnership will think as no human brain has ever thought and process data in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today. As a concept, man-computer symbiosis is different in an important way from what North has called "mechanically extended man." In the manmachine systems of the past, the human operator supplied the initiative, the direction, the integration, and the criterion. The mechanical parts of the systems were mere extensions, first of the human arm, then of the human eye. These systems certainly did not consist of "dissimilar organisms living together " There was only one kind of organismmanand the rest was there only to help him.
In one sense of course, any man-made system is intended to help man, to help a man or men outside the system. If we focus upon the human operator within the system, however, we see that, in some areas of technology, a fantastic change has taken place during the last few years. "Mechanical extension" has given way to replacement of men, to automation, and the men who remain are there more to help than to be helped. In some instances, particularly in large computer-centered information and control systems, the human operators are responsible mainly for functions that it proved infeasible to automate. Such systems ("humanly extended machines," North might call them) are not symbiotic systems. They are "semi-automatic" systems, systems that started out to be fully automatic but fell short of the goal.
Man-computer symbiosis is probably not the ultimate paradigm for complex technological systems. It seems entirely possible that, in due course, electronic or chemical "machines" will outdo the human brain in most of the functions we now consider exclusively within its province. Even now, Gelernter's IBM-704 program for proving theorems in plane geometry proceeds at about the same pace as Brooklyn high school students, and makes similar errors. There are, in fact, several theorem-proving, problem-solving, chess-playing, and pattern-recognizing programs capable of rivaling human intellectual performance in restricted areas; and Newell, Simon, and Shaw's "general problem solver" may remove some of the restrictions. In short, it seems worthwhile to avoid argument with (other) enthusiasts for artificial intelligence by conceding dominance in the distant future of cerebration to machines alone. There will nevertheless be a fairly long interim during which the main intellectual advances will be made by men and computers working together in intimate association. A multidisciplinary study group, examining future research and development problems of the Air Force, estimated that it would be 1980 before developments in artificial intelligence make it possible for machines alone to do much thinking or problem solving of military significance. That would leave, say, five years to develop mancomputer symbiosis and 15 years to use it. The 15 may be 10 or 500, but those years should be intellectually the most creative and exciting in the history of mankind. Aims of Man-Computer SymbiosisPresent-day computers are designed primarily to solve preformulated problems or to process data according to predetermined procedures. The course of the computation may be conditional upon results obtained during the computation, but all the alternatives must be foreseen in advance. (If an unforeseen alternative arises, the whole process comes to a halt and awaits the necessary extension of the program.) The requirement for preformulation or predetermination is sometimes no great disadvantage. It is often said that programming for a computing machine forces one to think clearly, that it disciplines the thought process. If the user can think his problem through in advance, symbiotic association with a computing machine is not necessary.
However, many problems that can be thought through in advance are very difficult to think through in advance. They would be easier to solve, and they could be solved faster, through an intuitively guided trial-anderror procedure in which the computer cooperated, turning up flaws in the reasoning or revealing unexpected turns in the solution. Other problems simply cannot be formulated without computing-machine aid. Poincaré anticipated the frustration of an important group of would-be computer users when he said, "The question is not, `What is the answer?' The question is, `What is the question?' " One of the main aims of man-computer symbiosis is to bring the computing machine effectively into the formulative parts of technical problems.
The other main aim is closely related. It is to bring computing machines effectively into processes of thinking that must go on in "real time," time that moves too fast to permit using computers in conventional ways. Imagine trying, for example, to direct a battle with the aid of a computer on such a schedule as this. You formulate your problem today. Tomorrow you spend with a programmer. Next week the computer devotes 5 minutes to assembling your program and 47 seconds to calculating the answer to your problem. You get a sheet of paper 20 feet long, full of numbers that, instead of providing a final solution, only suggest a tactic that should be explored by simulation. Obviously, the battle would be over before the second step in its planning was begun. To think in interaction with a computer in the same way that you think with a colleague whose competence supplements your own will require much tighter coupling between man and machine than is suggested by the example and than is possible today. Need for Computer Participation in Formulative and Real-Time ThinkingThe preceding paragraphs tacitly made the assumption that, if they could be introduced effectively into the thought process, the functions that can be performed by data-processing machines would improve or facilitate thinking and problem solving in an important way. That assumption may require justification. A Preliminary and Informal Time-and-Motion Analysis of Technical ThinkingDespite the fact that there is a voluminous literature on thinking and problem solving, including intensive case-history studies of the process of invention, I could find nothing comparable to a time-and-motion-study analysis of the mental work of a person engaged in a scientific or technical enterprise. In the spring and summer of 1957, therefore, I tried to keep track of what one moderately technical person actually did during the hours he regarded as devoted to work. Although I was aware of the inadequacy of the sampling, I served as my own subject.
It soon became apparent that the main thing I did was to keep records, and the project would have become an infinite regress if the keeping of records had been carried through in the detail envisaged in the initial plan. It was not. Nevertheless, I obtained a picture of my activities that gave me pause. Perhaps my spectrum is not typicalI hope it is not, but I fear it is.
About 85 per cent of my "thinking" time was spent getting into a position to think, to make a decision, to learn something I needed to know. Much more time went into finding or obtaining information than into digesting it. Hours went into the plotting of graphs, and other hours into instructing an assistant how to plot. When the graphs were finished, the relations were obvious at once, but the plotting had to be done in order to make them so. At one point, it was necessary to compare six experimental determinations of a function relating speech-intelligibility to speech-to-noise ratio. No two experimenters had used the same definition or measure of speech-to-noise ratio. Several hours of calculating were required to get the data into comparable form. When they were in comparable form, it took only a few seconds to determine what I needed to know.
Throughout the period I examined, in short, my "thinking" time was devoted mainly to activities that were essentially clerical or mechanical: searching, calculating, plotting, transforming, determining the logical or dynamic consequences of a set of assumptions or hypotheses, preparing the way for a decision or an insight. Moreover, my choices of what to attempt and what not to attempt were determined to an embarrassingly great extent by considerations of clerical feasibility, not intellectual capability.
The main suggestion conveyed by the findings just described is that the operations that fill most of the time allegedly devoted to technical thinking are operations that can be performed more effectively by machines than by men. Severe problems are posed by the fact that these operations have to be performed upon diverse variables and in unforeseen and continually changing sequences. If those problems can be solved in such a way as to create a symbiotic relation between a man and a fast information-retrieval and data-processing machine, however, it seems evident that the cooperative interaction would greatly improve the thinking process.
It may be appropriate to acknowledge, at this point, that we are using the term "computer" to cover a wide class of calculating, data-processing, and information-storage-and-retrieval machines. The capabilities of machines in this class are increasing almost daily. It is therefore hazardous to make general statements about capabilities of the class. Perhaps it is equally hazardous to make general statements about the capabilities of men. Nevertheless, certain genotypic differences in capability between men and computers do stand out, and they have a bearing on the nature of possible man-computer symbiosis and the potential value of achieving it.
As has been said in various ways, men are noisy, narrow-band devices, but their nervous systems have very many parallel and simultaneously active channels. Relative to men, computing machines are very fast and very accurate, but they are constrained to perform only one or a few elementary operations at a time. Men are flexible, capable of "programming themselves contingently" on the basis of newly received information. Computing machines are single-minded, constrained by their " pre-programming." Men naturally speak redundant languages organized around unitary objects and coherent actions and employing 20 to 60 elementary symbols. Computers "naturally" speak nonredundant languages, usually with only two elementary symbols and no inherent appreciation either of unitary objects or of coherent actions. To be rigorously correct, those characterizations would have to include many qualifiers. Nevertheless, the picture of dissimilarity (and therefore potential supplementation) that they present is essentially valid. Computing machines can do readily, well, and rapidly many things that are difficult or impossible for man, and men can do readily and well, though not rapidly, many things that are difficult or impossible for computers. That suggests that a symbiotic cooperation, if successful in integrating the positive characteristics of men and computers, would be of great value. The differences in speed and in language, of course, pose difficulties that must be overcome. Separable Functions of Men and Computers in the Anticipated Symbiotic AssociationIt seems likely that the contributions of human operators and equipment will blend together so completely in many operations that it will be difficult to separate them neatly in analysis. That would be the case if, in gathering data on which to base a decision, for example, both the man and the computer came up with relevant precedents from experience and if the computer then suggested a course of action that agreed with the man's intuitive judgment. (In theorem-proving programs, computers find precedents in experience, and in the SAGE System, they suggest courses of action. The foregoing is not a far-fetched example.) In other operations, however, the contributions of men and equipment will be to some extent separable.
Men will set the goals and supply the motivations, of course, at least in the early years. They will formulate hypotheses. They will ask questions. They will think of mechanisms, procedures, and models. They will remember that such-and-such a person did some possibly relevant work on a topic of interest back in 1947, or at any rate shortly after World War II, and they will have an idea in what journals it might have been published. In general, they will make approximate and fallible, but leading, contributions, and they will define criteria and serve as evaluators, judging the contributions of the equipment and guiding the general line of thought.
In addition, men will handle the very-low-probability situations when such situations do actually arise. (In current man-machine systems, that is one of the human operator's most important functions. The sum of the probabilities of very-low-probability alternatives is often much too large to neglect.) Men will fill in the gaps, either in the problem solution or in the computer program, when the computer has no mode or routine that is applicable in a particular circumstance.
The information-processing equipment, for its part, will convert hypotheses into testable models and then test the models against data (which the human operator may designate roughly and identify as relevant when the computer presents them for his approval). The equipment will answer questions. It will simulate the mechanisms and models, carry out the procedures, and display the results to the operator. It will transform data, plot graphs ("cutting the cake" in whatever way the human operator specifies, or in several alternative ways if the human operator is not sure what he wants). The equipment will interpolate, extrapolate, and transform. It will convert static equations or logical statements into dynamic models so the human operator can examine their behavior. In general, it will carry out the routinizable, clerical operations that fill the intervals between decisions.
In addition, the computer will serve as a statistical-inference, decisiontheory, or game-theory machine to make elementary evaluations of suggested courses of action whenever there is enough basis to support a formal statistical analysis. Finally, it will do as much diagnosis, pattern-matching, and relevance-recognizing as it profitably can, but it will accept a clearly secondary status in those areas. The Prerequisites for Realization of Man-Computer Symbiosis
Data-processing equipment tacitly postulated in the preceding section is not available. The computer programs have not been written. There are in fact several hurdles that stand between the nonsymbiotic present and the 7 anticipated symbiotic future. Let us examine some of them to see more clearly what is needed and what the chances are of achieving it. Speed Mismatch Between Men and ComputersAny present-day large-scale computer is too fast and too costly for realtime cooperative thinking with one man. Clearly, for the sake of efficiency and economy, the computer must divide its time among many users. Timesharing systems are currently under active development. There are even arrangements to keep users from "clobbering" anything but their own personal programs.
It seems reasonable to envision, for a time 10 or 15 years hence, a "thinking center" that will incorporate the functions of present-day libraries together with anticipated advances in information storage and retrieval and the symbiotic functions suggested earlier in this paper. The picture readily enlarges itself into a network of such centers, connected to one another by wide-band communication lines and to individual users by leased-wire services. In such a system, the speed of the computers would be balanced, and the cost of the gigantic memories and the sophisticated programs would be divided by the number of users. When we start to think of storing any appreciable fraction of a technical literature in computer memory, we run into billions of bits and, unless things change markedly, billions of dollars.
The first thing to face is that we shall not store all the technical and scientific papers in computer memory. We may store the parts that can be summarized most succinctlythe quantitative parts and the reference citationsbut not the whole. Books are among the most beautifully engineered, and human-engineered, components in existence, and they will continue to be functionally important within the context of man-computer symbiosis. (Hopefully, the computer will expedite the finding, delivering, and returning of books.)
The second point is that a very important section of memory will be permanent: part indelible memory and part published memory. The computer will be able to write once into indelible memory, and then read back indefinitely, but the computer will not be able to erase indelible memory. (It may also over-write, turning all the 0's into l's, as though marking over what was written earlier.) Published memory will be "read-only" memory. It will be introduced into the computer already structured. The computer will be able to refer to it repeatedly, but not to change it. These types of memory will become more and more important as computers grow larger. They can be made more compact than core, thin-film, or even tape memory, and they will be much less expensive. The main engineering problems will concern selection circuitry.
In so far as other aspects of memory requirement are concerned, we may count upon the continuing development of ordinary scientific and business computing machines There is some prospect that memory elements will become as fast as processing (logic) elements. That development would have a revolutionary effect upon the design of computers. Memory Organization RequirementsImplicit in the idea of man-computer symbiosis are the requirements that information be retrievable both by name and by pattern and that it be accessible through procedure much faster than serial search. At least half of the problem of memory organization appears to reside in the storage procedure. Most of the remainder seems to be wrapped up in the problem of pattern recognition within the storage mechanism or medium. Detailed discussion of these problems is beyond the present scope. However, a brief outline of one promising idea, "trie memory," may serve to indicate the general nature of anticipated developments.
Trie memory is so called by its originator, Fredkin, because it is designed to facilitate retrieval of information and because the branching storage structure, when developed, resembles a tree. Most common memory systems store functions of arguments at locations designated by the arguments. (In one sense, they do not store the arguments at all. In another and more realistic sense, they store all the possible arguments in the framework structure of the memory.) The trie memory system, on the other hand, stores both the functions and the arguments. The argument is introduced into the memory first, one character at a time, starting at a standard initial register. Each argument register has one cell for each character of the ensemble (e.g., two for information encoded in binary form) and each character cell has within it storage space for the address of the next register. The argument is stored by writing a series of addresses, each one of which tells where to find the next. At the end of the argument is a special "end-of-argument" marker. Then follow directions to the function, which is stored in one or another of several ways, either further trie structure or "list structure" often being most effective. The trie memory scheme is inefficient for small memories, but it becomes increasingly efficient in using available storage space as memory size increases.
The attractive features of the scheme are these:
1) The retrieval process is extremely simple. Given the argument, enter the standard initial register with the first character, and pick up the address of the second. Then go to the second register, and pick up the address of the third, etc.
2) If two arguments have initial characters in common, they use the same storage space for those characters.
3) The lengths of the arguments need not be the same, and need not be specified in advance.
4) No room in storage is reserved for or used by any argument until it is actually stored. The trie structure is created as the items are introduced into the memory.
5) A function can be used as an argument for another function, and that function as an argument for the next. Thus, for example, by entering with the argument, "matrix multiplication," one might retrieve the entire program for performing a matrix multiplication on the computer.
6) By examining the storage at a given level, one can determine what thus-far similar items have been stored. For example, if there is no citation for Egan, J. P., it is but a step or two backward to pick up the trail of Egan, James . . . .
The properties just described do not include all the desired ones, but they bring computer storage into resonance with human operators and their predilection to designate things by naming or pointing. The basic dissimilarity between human languages and computer languages may be the most serious obstacle to true symbiosis. It is reassuring, however, to note what great strides have already been made, through interpretive programs and particularly through assembly or compiling programs such as FORTRAN, to adapt computers to human language forms. The "Information Processing Language" of Shaw, Newell, Simon, and Ellis represents another line of rapprochement. And, in ALGOL and related systems, men are proving their flexibility by adopting standard formulas of representation and expression that are readily translatable into machine language.
For the purposes of real-time cooperation between men and computers, it will be necessary, however, to make use of an additional and rather different principle of communication and control. The idea may be high-lighted by comparing instructions ordinarily addressed to intelligent human beings with instructions ordinarily used with computers. The latter specify precisely the individual steps to take and the sequence in which to take them. The former present or imply something about incentive or motivation, and they supply a criterion by which the human executor of the instructions will know when he has accomplished his task. In short: instructions directed to computers specify courses; instructions-directed to human beings specify goals.
Men appear to think more naturally and easily in terms of goals than in terms of courses. True, they usually know something about directions in which to travel or lines along which to work, but few start out with precisely formulated itineraries. Who, for example, would depart from Boston for Los Angeles with a detailed specification of the route? Instead, to paraphrase Wiener, men bound for Los Angeles try continually to decrease the amount by which they are not yet in the smog.
Computer instruction through specification of goals is being approached along two paths. The first involves problem-solving, hill-climbing, selforganizing programs. The second involves real-time concatenation of preprogrammed segments and closed subroutines which the human operator can designate and call into action simply by name.
Along the first of these paths, there has been promising exploratory work. It is clear that, working within the loose constraints of predetermined strategies, computers will in due course be able to devise and simplify their own procedures for achieving stated goals. Thus far, the achievements have not been substantively important; they have constituted only "demonstration in principle." Nevertheless, the implications are far-reaching.
Although the second path is simpler and apparently capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected. Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm. We may in due course see a serious effort to develop computer programs that can be connected together like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever computation or control is required at the moment. The consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently, is that the effort would produce nothing that would be of great value in the context of existing computers. It would be unrewarding to develop the language before there are any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it. Input and Output EquipmentThe department of data processing that seems least advanced, in so far as the requirements of man-computer symbiosis are concerned, is the one that deals with input and output equipment or, as it is seen from the human operator's point of view, displays and controls. Immediately after saying that, it is essential to make qualifying comments, because the engineering of equipment for high-speed introduction and extraction of information has been excellent, and because some very sophisticated display and control techniques have been developed in such research laboratories as the Lincoln Laboratory. By and large, in generally available computers, however, there is almost no provision for any more effective, immediate man-machine communication than can be achieved with an electric typewriter.
Displays seem to be in a somewhat better state than controls. Many computers plot graphs on oscilloscope screens, and a few take advantage of the remarkable capabilities, graphical and symbolic, of the charactron display tube. Nowhere, to my knowledge, however, is there anything approaching the flexibility and convenience of the pencil and doodle pad or the chalk and blackboard used by men in technical discussion.
1) Desk-Surface Display and Control: Certainly, for effective mancomputer interaction, it will be necessary for the man and the computer to draw graphs and pictures and to write notes and equations to each other on the same display surface. The man should be able to present a function to the computer, in a rough but rapid fashion, by drawing a graph. The computer should read the man's writing, perhaps on the condition that it be in clear block capitals, and it should immediately post, at the location of each hand-drawn symbol, the corresponding character as interpreted and put into precise type-face. With such an input-output device, the operator would quickly learn to write or print in a manner legible to the machine. He could compose instructions and subroutines, set them into proper format, and check them over before introducing them finally into the computer's main memory. He could even define new symbols, as Gilmore and Savell have done at the Lincoln Laboratory, and present them directly to the computer. He could sketch out the format of a table roughly and let the computer shape it up with precision. He could correct the computer's data, instruct the machine via flow diagrams, and in general interact with it very much as he would with another engineer, except that the "other engineer" would be a precise draftsman, a lightning calculator, a mnemonic wizard, and many other valuable partners all in one.
2) Computer-Posted Wall Display: In some technological systems, several men share responsibility for controlling vehicles whose behaviors interact. Some information must be presented simultaneously to all the men, preferably on a common grid, to coordinate their actions. Other information is of relevance only to one or two operators. There would be only a confusion of uninterpretable clutter if all the information were presented on one display to all of them. The information must be posted by a computer, since manual plotting is too slow to keep it up to date.
The problem just outlined is even now a critical one, and it seems certain to become more and more critical as time goes by. Several designers are convinced that displays with the desired characteristics can be constructed with the aid of flashing lights and time-sharing viewing screens based on the light-valve principle.
The large display should be supplemented, according to most of those who have thought about the problem, by individual display-control units. The latter would permit the operators to modify the wall display without leaving their locations. For some purposes, it would be desirable for the operators to be able to communicate with the computer through the supplementary displays and perhaps even through the wall display. At least one scheme for providing such communication seems feasible.
The large wall display and its associated system are relevant, of course, to symbiotic cooperation between a computer and a team of men. Laboratory experiments have indicated repeatedly that informal, parallel arrangements of operators, coordinating their activities through reference to a large situation display, have important advantages over the arrangement, more widely used, that locates the operators at individual consoles and attempts to correlate their actions through the agency of a computer. This is one of several operator-team problems in need of careful study.
3) Automatic Speech Production and Recognition: How desirable and how feasible is speech communication between human operators and computing machines? That compound question is asked whenever sophisticated data-processing systems are discussed. Engineers who work and live with computers take a conservative attitude toward the desirability. Engineers who have had experience in the field of automatic speech recognition take a conservative attitude toward the feasibility. Yet there is continuing interest in the idea of talking with computing machines. In large part, the interest stems from realization that one can hardly take a military commander or a corporation president away from his work to teach him to type. If computing machines are ever to be used directly by top-level decision makers, it may be worthwhile to provide communication via the most natural means, even at considerable cost.
Preliminary analysis of his problems and time scales suggests that a corporation president would be interested in a symbiotic association with a computer only as an avocation. Business situations usually move slowly enough that there is time for briefings and conferences. It seems reasonable, therefore, for computer specializts to be the ones who interact directly with computers in business offices.
The military commander, on the other hand, faces a greater probability of having to make critical decisions in short intervals of time. It is easy to overdramatize the notion of the ten-minute war, but it would be dangerous to count on having more than ten minutes in which to make a critical decision. As military system ground environments and control centers grow in capability and complexity, therefore, a real requirement for automatic speech production and recognition in computers seems likely to develop. Certainly, if the equipment were already developed, reliable, and available, it would be used.
In so far as feasibility is concerned, speech production poses less severe problems of a technical nature than does automatic recognition of speech sounds. A commercial electronic digital voltmeter now reads aloud its indications, digit by digit. For eight or ten years, at the Bell Telephone Laboratories, the Royal Institute of Technology (Stockholm), the Signals Research and Development Establishment (Christchurch), the Haskins Laboratory, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and their co-workers, have demonstrated successive generations of intelligible automatic talkers. Recent work at the Haskins Laboratory has led to the development of a digital code, suitable for use by computing machines, that makes an automatic voice utter intelligible connected discourse.
The feasibility of automatic speech recognition depends heavily upon the size of the vocabulary of words to be recognized and upon the diversity of talkers and accents with which it must work. Ninety-eight per cent correct recognition of naturally spoken decimal digits was demonstrated several years ago at the Bell Telephone Laboratories and at the Lincoln Laboratory . To go a step up the scale of vocabulary size, we may say that an automatic recognizer of clearly spoken alpha-numerical characters can almost surely be developed now on the basis of existing knowledge. Since untrained operators can read at least as rapidly as trained ones can type, such a device would be a convenient tool in almost any computer installation.
For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however, a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g., 1000 words of something like basic English and 1000 technical terms, would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists, construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be accomplished now. However, there are several organizations that would happily undertake to develop an automatic recognize for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis. They would stipulate that the speech be clear speech, dictation style, without unusual accent.
Although detailed discussion of techniques of automatic speech recognition is beyond the present scope, it is fitting to note that computing machines are playing a dominant role in the development of automatic speech recognizers. They have contributed the impetus that accounts for the present optimism, or rather for the optimism presently found in some quarters. Two or three years ago, it appeared that automatic recognition of sizeable vocabularies would not be achieved for ten or fifteen years; that it would have to await much further, gradual accumulation of knowledge of acoustic, phonetic, linguistic, and psychological processes in speech communication. Now, however, many see a prospect of accelerating the acquisition of that knowledge with the aid of computer processing of speech signals, and not a few workers have the feeling that sophisticated computer programs will be able to perform well as speech-pattern recognizes even without the aid of much substantive knowledge of speech signals and processes. Putting those two considerations together brings the estimate of the time required to achieve practically significant speech recognition down to perhaps five years, the five years just mentioned.
This article was originally published in IEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, volume HFE-1, pages 411, March 1960 and reprinted in Systems Research Center Research Report #61, titled, "In Memoriam: J.C.R. Licklider 1915 - 1990".
In Memoriam: J.C.R. Licklider
| | Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X! | |
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: man-machine symbiosis
|
|
 |
|
>How can you draw a line between the world that nature created and the effects that we have had?
>Do you really think we are outside or separate from nature?
>Aren't we just a by product of evolution (including our machines), which is simply the driving force behind nature?
The way I see it, we are working with two separate lines of evolution, the one that nature designed to bring us about and the one created by us to adjust to conditions beyond nature's control because it moves too slowly.
We are part of both streams of evolution, but there are areas where they conflict. The most obvious one, to my mind, is the instict of most animal life on the planet to defend its territory. When a species finds a niche and begins to exploit it, the members of the species seem to cooperate until their numbers start creating hardships for the group. Then conflict brought about by dwindling resources causes the group to split and one part of the group drives out or destroys the other part. The survivors of the defeated group move on and extablish a new group or tribe and this is how we managed to populate the entire earth.
When we developed language, we developed a meme that allowed us to live in greater numbers by creating tools for civilization. First of all, instead of exploiting the land by killing off the plants and animals that supported us then moving on, we developed ways of replenishing the land by planting new crops and raising the animals we needed. Tribes grew larger in a paradigm shift that flew in the face of what nature had wraught.
This was the foundation for religion. Leaders like Gilgamesh in Sumeria looked at some of the problems that were driving his tribe apart and wrote a set of laws to reduce the naturally occurring conflicts. His people could no longer just take another man's wife or goods or life without consequence. Instead of killing or driving out the person who took your property, laws were created to decide who was entitled to it and conflicts were settled more peacefully.
Out of these laws, religion was born. Gods were said to have created the laws so that mere men would have no recourse but to obey them. But nature controlls the emotions in us. The pull of nature to follow a zero-sum lifestyle was often stronger than the urge to follow the nonzero-sum that created civilization. In addition, civilization was no match for the number of people nature was creating with the help of farming, building houses, organizing people into specific trades, etc. People still found reasons to divide up and fight over good land. The losers again were driven away to start new tribes, but they took with them the ideas that were developed by the civilization they grew up in.
The Jews, for example, were an offshoot of the Gilgamesh's Sumerian civilization. The Tora and the ten commandments embody the code Gilgamesh used to control his people. A millinium or so later, after the Trojan war, a group of Greeks settled a place called Rome and used the culture developed by the Greeks to create a new civilization.
Under the gene development, separation creates speciation because the separated group has to adjust to a different environment. So they evolve to live in the circumstances of their new home and, over time, become a new species. Only now, using the much faster evolutionary power of memes, they become a new civilization whose members don't have to change physically. They just adopt new memes.
So to answer your question, our bodies are the product of one form of evolution and our culture, society, and machines are the product of another. The meme line could not exist without the gene line, but they have now taken over the march of evolution by making the decisions about where we are going. Memes are the new deciding factor that governs which plants and animals will inherit the earth, including us.
I'm not sure the genes are going to sit still for this usurpation of ther territory. Individuals are more inclined to follow the dictates of their emotions (a creation of the gene line of evolution) than the dictates of living in a civilized world. As individuals and as tribes, we still tend to take what we want when we want it. We use the religions we created to govern our lives peacefully to provide us with reasons to follow our emotions and instincts. The Romans used it to conquer all the tribes around them. The Christians used it as an excuse for the crusades. And Osama bin Laden is now using it as an excuse to destroy buildings in America.
We have now reached the point where one or the other of these two lines of evolution will dominate. The zero-sum evolutionary line of our genes would destroy civilization to create a new beginning for the mankind it created, while the nonzero-sum line of evolution created by memes would usurp the flow of evolution by changing its direction. Our memes would take us to the stars while our genes would have us spend the rest of our time on earth fighting over bits and pieces of it.
Time will be the deciding factor for which line of evolution wins out. If we reach the singularity, the memes win. If we destroy each other first, the genes win and mankind starts over. That, at any rate, is my take on the situation. I'm rooting for the memes and the civilization they built. ;-)>
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Memetic singularity index
|
|
|
|
Hi Tomas, good to talk to you again 8)
> How many bits is weighting the current memplex?
Grant, I think there are some better indicators than simply language, however communication is the right area to focus on. I think that channels like email and SMS are very good indicators of it's progression, since they are raw measurements of ideas being spawned from one mind to another (or many others). According to one out of date summary (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/internet/emaildetails.html) there were about 450-500 million email boxes in 2000 with 500-600 billion email message sent during 2000.
> What is it's doubling time?
According to that summary (which is quite out of date) the doubling time is about 12 months and decreasing (see graph).
According to gsmworld (http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/sms_success.html#2) the European market alone for SMS was sending about 1 billion messages a month in 1999 and was doubling around every 6 months (again this is out of date and I'm sure this is decreasing).
This is therefore the index for replication of memes in these channels. I believe that SMS is growing faster than email because of the convenience of it's wireless substrate.
> How fast is it cleaning itself of inaccurate data?
In evolutionary terms this would be the selection pressure. I'm not sure what a good measure of this would be. Perhaps in email this would be measuring how many messages are forwarded or stored, but I haven't seen any data on this area. It's certainly a VERY valid topic for research.
> If we could estimate this - we would know the answer to - when the Singularity?
Well, when the memetic singularity will be anyway...which I believe is simply the first strand into the overall singularity (sorry to harp on about this).
I believe the convergence of WLAN/WWAN technologies which naturally bridges email and SMS will be the real birthplace of this memetic singularity.
I'm currently working on building an index to track the growth of this and I'll post more links as it develops. As for when it will happen...well both email and SMS usage are getting very close to vertical growth.
There are also some new developments that are about to reshape the whole telecommunications area. An extension of HTTP called SIP now has enough momentum to really change the way we all communicate. It allows intercommunication between almost all types of messaging (voice, video, IM, email, SMS, web, etc). It has been adopted by both AOL and MSN's Instant Messaging platforms. And many telephony gateways are starting to support it. This means that communication across different platforms, media and devices can now easily be setup and reshaped on the fly. And the tools are quite easy to use. So any kid with a little experience with web development and some Java or Perl tools can create a powerful communications application. This should bring about a rapid growth spurt equivalent to the web boom in the mid 90's. Combine this with the rapid growth in WLAN technologies and we are set for a new wave of communications revolutions. This means the growth of SIP usage would be a very good index for the approaching memetic singularity.
In short, I think the memetic revolution is very near...
roBman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Memetic singularity index
|
|
|
|
Some good points, RoBman. I had completely overlooked the replication process and just estimated the number of new memes being generated. The problem I see with e-mail and snail mail, etc., is that most of it is junk mail with no real content to it. The recipient is not getting any new information. It's just noise. But real e-mail that involves passing ideas back and forth between researchers and people working on projects of various kinds do have real content and contribute to the memeplex. Since the vast majority of messages counted are junk and stuff generated by worms and viruses I don't think they are a significant indicator.
I chose words as an indicator because every idea generates a word when it is communicated. The number of words in the English language was estimated around the turn of the century (1900) at about 100,000. When I was in high school, a cell, for example, had three parts. Now a cell seems to have more parts than the human body. Every aspect of science and business have generated new concepts and ideas that acquire names before they are promulgated. But another thing I overlooked in my estimate was the fact that many ideas require more than one word to transmit. The term "sea bass" for example consists of three major concepts or memes (sea, bass, and sea bass) as well as a number of structure related memes, such as word order, part of speech, relationship to a larger concept (the entire sentence) and the context in which it was used (was it part of a joke? Information on where to find fish? Information on the different kinds of fish in fresh or salt water?). All of these memes are part of the transmission that moves the meme from one mind to another. They also influence the reasons why it was chosen by the speaker and accepted or rejected by the listener or reader. And then, statements like e=MC2 contain elements with far reaching consequences for the generation of memes. They enable the mind to create a cascading flood of new memes.
Biology, alone, must generate a hundred to a thousand new memes a day. Physics, conputer science, chemistry, law, government, etc., all make contributions at a similar rate. Every new idea needs a name in order to be transmitted. It also generates metaphors and expanations and arguements. All of these have their own memetic content. So words, in my estimation, are a good indicator of the speed at which new memes are being created and spread. My multiplier just needed to be a good deal bigger than three. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: It's just minds having sex!
|
|
|
|
>Once memetics has a defined quanta we will be able to measure the selection end of the process with more detail.
Hey, RoBman, I have a theory that provides the quants, but nobody seems to take it seriously. just look at each meme added to the plex as a tool invented by someone to do a specific job.
Let's take the hammer as an example. The order I am coming up here is as arbitrary as the things we make tools out of, but the process, I believe, holds water.
In the beginning, man had his hands and a stick or bone with which to hit things. But wood and bone broke too easily, so he had to pound hard stuff with a rock. The rock, on the other hand, required a hand to hold it, and this led to smashed fingers. So one day, some bright guy thought that if the rock was on the end of a stick, it would be as easy to hold as a stick but as hard and solid at the end as a rock. Thus a meme was born. Over time, the sinews he used to tie things together allowed him to hold the rock to the stick and the hammer was born. From that time on, the rock changed from round, to flat and from rock to iron and then steel. Each change adopted by others was a meme. As the hammer improved, old hammers were discarded, although we can still find some of them burried in the earth where men lived.
Now we have a wide range of hammer-like objects we use for hitting things. Each new shape and each new substance we use for the head and the handle comprise a new meme. Each new use we find for the hammer is also a meme. The reason we choose or discard a particular hammer is ruled by the job we are going to use it for and how well it does the job compared to what else is available. If I'm going to build a house, I will likely choose a hammer with a hammer that's flat in one spot and has a curved fork on the opposite side to help me drive and remove nails.
My point is, that the evolution of the hammer meme is the same as the evolution of every other tool in our tool kit. That includes language, cooking, farming, and everything else in our culture. Each has evolved separately and had an influence on the evolution of others. We seldom have completely new ideas anymore. Everything we come up with is built on memes we've alread developed and placed in the storage area of our brains. And now that has been expanded exponentially by the ability to write and accumulate tools and pass them on to anyone who can read what we have written. It's also why the number of tools we have to work with and build upon is growing at the rate we see taking place today.
The key to classifying memes is to look at what they are being used for and the line of memes they descend from. You can do that with everything from words in language to the whole spectrum of social intercourse back to the caves we came out of in Africa. Anthropologists have been finding and classifying tools to trace the growth of civilization for as long as they've been around. Linguists have traced our language back to something called Indo-European.
But it's all just a collection of tools we used to communicate with and can be classified and categorized like any other kind of data. The problem with computing a total is that it is increasing faster than we can count. No matter how fast we work, we'll always be behind the curve. But in the final analysis, the number of memes will be equal to the number of tools we (as a species) have available to work with. Computing that number is the work of an anthropologist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Needy memes
|
|
|
|
Hi Grant,
I think that is an excellent point. I've been reading a number of papers on this topic lately and your's is actually a very concise and compelling definition.
However, if you don't mind I'd even refine it a little further:
Needs are the drivers behind all memes.
Needs are simply perceptions created by beliefs and values. This is how a need like "war" or a "hunger strike" can override the need to "survive"....perception is a fluid and malleable thing.
Memes are the internal sensory representations we hold as solutions to these needs. Like genes, they are an abstract model for how to create something...and even though they are resident in a host they may or may not be expressed at any point in time.
Artefacts, like hammers and buildings, and computers etc are the expression of those memes. Just like proteins, organs and organisms they are expressions of individual and clustered genes. The fidelity of this expression is a big cause of variation within the memes.
The 3 evolutionary forces of replication, variation and selection apply to these memes just like they do to genes.
This whole meme system is built upon the genes primitive tools for need fulfillment (sex, fight-or-flight, hunger etc based on hormones and other chemicals). This is what has enabled it to subvert and dominate the genes needs and to become the leading replicator we currently know of.
Thanks grant, your definition has helped me clarify alot of my thoughts on this area 8)
roBman
PS: Merry Xmas everyone...the singularity is yet another year closer 8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
