Dr. Robert K. Moniot

Back to course home page

CISC 4660 L01 -- Minds, Machines & Society
Spring, 2012

Assignments

Note: These are listed in reverse order of time, so the latest assignments will always be at the top. Assigned readings are posted as (usually) PDF documents on the class Blackboard web site (or links provided if available publicly on-line).

• Due May 4: Summary of your presentation. Send it to me in electronic form, and I will post it on Blackboard under Course Documents. The purpose of these summaries is to provide material for students to study in preparation for the final exam. Create your summary accordingly. Do not simply send me your presentation slides or your final paper. This item will count as 10% of your presentation grade.
• Due May 4 (first reading day): Research paper final revised version. The final paper must be based on research and written in proper scholarly style, with references for all sources consulted. See the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers or similar work for guidelines on proper citation style.  The topic of your paper is to be the same as your presentation, but you may (should) go into greater depth and cover a broader range of aspects of the topic than your presentation did.  For instance, overlap with another student's presentation topic is not a problem for your paper.  The paper should be 3000 to 4000 words (10 to 15 pages) in length.
• Due April 16: Research paper first draft. This should be at least half the length of the final version of the paper, and include proper citations to references used so far. It should be well along but need not be polished. It will not be graded other than for being on time. You will receive it back within a week with comments and feedback to help you produce an improved final draft.
• Due March 26: Research paper proposal. One or two pages describing what you have learned so far about your topic and what you plan to do with it. List some references you have consulted.
• Given March 7: Fourth Essay, due March 21: “future of AI.”
  We have now looked or will soon look at some "real" AI systems based on symbol manipulation and on computational approaches such as artificial neural networks.  The readings from Newell & Simon (1976) and Brooks (1991) have advocated the advantages of each of these approaches, while Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1988) argue that neither is likely to achieve the goal of true human-level intelligence.  Critique one of these articles in light of the others and of what you have learned by seeing these technologies in operation (albeit in small examples).  Do you think the author(s) of the article would change his/their view now, after the passage of quite a few years?  (Assuming, in the case of Newell and Simon, that they were still alive.)  Do you see any of their predictions coming to pass?
• Given March 7: Read the following item:
  1. Rodney A. Brooks, Intelligence Without Representation. Artificial Intelligence Journal 47 (1991), pp. 139–159.
• Given February 29: Read the following two items:
  1. Hubert L. Dreyfus & Stuart E. Dreyfus, Making a mind versus modelling the brain: artificial intelligence back at a branch point. Daedalus 117, no. 1 (Winter 1988), pp. 15-43.
  2. Allen Newell & Herbert A. Simon, Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search. Communications of the ACM 19:3 (March 1976), pp. 113-126.
• Given February 22: Third Essay, due February 29: “spiritual machines.”
  In the assigned reading selections from The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil makes a number of specific predictions for developments by the year 2009, as well as predictions of much greater advancements for the more distant (but not very distant) future.
  The year 2009 is already behind us, so we can now make a scorecard for his success in predicting developments for what was then 10 years out. See if you can find some commonalities among the predictions that panned out (at least fairly well) and those that are still in the future, that could systematically explain the different outcomes.
  Regarding the more distant prospects, how do you think they will fare? Pay particular attention to bringing out and analyzing unspoken assumptions, of which there are many. (An example of one such assumption is that complete knowledge of the brain would imply complete knowledge of the mind.)
  For this essay I am looking for serious engagement with the psychological, social, ethical, and especially philosophical issues that these visions of the future involve. Positions you take are to be backed up with the best arguments you can marshal. You may find some ammunition in the Franchi & Güzeldere selection, as well as some of the readings from previous weeks, but feel free to look elsewhere for ideas, as well as bringing in your own.
  This essay can go on a bit longer than the previous ones, but still try to keep it to about 5 pages or less.
• Given February 21: Read the following two items:
  1. Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Penguin (1999), excerpts.
  2. Stefano Franchi & Güven Güzeldere, Mechanical Bodies, Computational Minds, MIT Press (2005), excerpt.
• Given February 15: Read the following three items:
  1. Richard P. Feynman, Plenty of room at the bottom. Talk given at American Physical Society meeting at Caltech (1959).
  2. K. Eric Drexler, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, Anchor Books (1986). Chapter 1.
  3. Bill Joy, Why the future doesn't need us. Wired (April 2000).
• Given February 13: Second Essay, Due February 21: visions of the future. Write about some of the ideas for new modes of computer use in the near future, as discussed in class and in the readings for week 3 (ubiquitous and wearable computing, "mirror worlds").  You may write a fictional short story illustrating these ideas, or you may write an expository essay discussing them.  (You need not include all of the proposed ideas, and you may add some ideas of your own.)
  Address both the advantages and the limitations or disadvantages of the technologies.  Also make a statement about the influence and value (positive or negative) of the technology on society of the future.
  Keep to within 500 to 1000 words in length (2 to 4 pages).
• Given February 6: Read the following two items:
  1. Mark Weiser, The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, 265 no. 3 (September, 1991), pp. 94-104.
  2. David Gelernter, Mirror Worlds, Oxford University Press (1991). Chapter 2.
  This is a change from the syllabus. I am dropping the Gemperle et al and Healy & Picard articles as assigned reading.
• Given January 30: Read the following two items:
  1. Joseph Weizenbaum, Computer Power and Human Reason, W.H. Freeman, New York (1975), chapter 6.
  2. Sherry Turkle, The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit, Simon and Schuster, New York (1985), chapter 1.
• Given January 25: First Essay, Due February 1: impressions of computers. Describe your own first experiences with computers. Discuss how those experiences shaped your perception of computers and your expectations about their present and potential capabilities. Finally, compare these impressions of computers with the visions of Turing, Simon, and other computer scientists whose ideas we have read and discussed. Keep the length to within 500 to 1000 words (two to four pages).
• Given January 23: Read the following article, which will inform discussion in the next class.
  1. Douglas R. Hofstadter, A Coffeehouse Conversation on the Turing Test. In Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern, Basic Books (1985).
• Given January 18: Read the following two articles, which will be the basis for discussion next class.
  1. Alan Turing, Computing machinery and intelligence, Mind 59, pp. 433-460 (1950).
  2. John R. Searle, Minds, brains and programs, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417-424 (1980).