To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Henderson writes, “you need to understand very clearly how people think in order to program a computer to do so–and at the same time, you can check up on your understanding by seeing whether the computer in fact does what you meant it to do.” This statement overlooks the fact that there is no reason on this green earth to assume that the living thought of a living mind is in any way similar to the mechanical regurgitations of Dr. Schank’s computer. To be sure, we have Schank’s word on it, but–you must pardon me–Schank is wrong! That the computer can be programmed to crudely simulate certain products of the human mind may give us no more idea of the psychology of thought than the insights afforded by the B-1 bomber into the metabolism and mating habits of hummingbirds.
But Schank’s mind is well wired, and Henderson is thrilled to point out the connections (“the psychology-department connection” “the education-department connection”), and as the synapses crackle and pop we become aware that for Schank intelligence is a simple thing, being no more than “the ability to say the right thing at the right time,” and that if you think of the right retort two hours or two days later, “That’s not as intelligent.”
But enough! Almost every statement made by Schank and his Boswell begs–nay, beseeches and implores–a litany of questions which they are too arrogant to acknowledge or too ignorant to explore. Henderson tells us that Schank doesn’t suffer fools gladly but seems to think the rest of us ought to.
