From Closed World Discourse to Digital Utopianism: the Changing Face of Responsible Computing at Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (1981–1992)

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

From Closed World Discourse to Digital Utopianism: the Changing Face of Responsible Computing at Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (1981–1992) Internet Histories Digital Technology, Culture and Society ISSN: 2470-1475 (Print) 2470-1483 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rint20 From closed world discourse to digital utopianism: the changing face of responsible computing at Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (1981–1992) Megan Finn & Quinn DuPont To cite this article: Megan Finn & Quinn DuPont (2020) From closed world discourse to digital utopianism: the changing face of responsible computing at Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (1981–1992), Internet Histories, 4:1, 6-31, DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2020.1725851 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2020.1725851 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 02 Mar 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1553 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rint20 INTERNET HISTORIES 2020, VOL. 4, NO. 1, 6–31 https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2020.1725851 From closed world discourse to digital utopianism: the changing face of responsible computing at Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (1981–1992) Megan Finna and Quinn DuPontb aUniversity of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; bUniversity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) began in Received 22 August 2019 1981 as a group of computer scientists concerned about nuclear Revised 28 January 2020 destruction. Early CPSR members analysed military planning docu- Accepted 29 January 2020 ments and levelled technical critiques at how computers were to KEYWORDS be used in battle, highlighting the limits of computing technolo- civil liberties; computers gies. Although early CPSR arguments were primarily technical, as and war; pre-Internet responsible professionals their practices were based on a collect- history; responsible ive morality and a willingness to question their profession’seco- computing; technology nomic self-interest. As the Cold War thawed in 1989, CPSR met a activism; values series of challenges, including financial issues, leadership turnover, in computing and a changing and expanding role for information technology. CPSR emerged from this crisis with a renewed focus on “civil lib- erties” that was largely underwritten by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Although CPSR’s civil liberties advocacy sometimes retained its early arguments and practices by addressing the limi- tations of information technologies, they also adopted the emerg- ing views of Silicon Valley’s “digital utopianism,” advocating for the growth of information technology. We describe this seemingly contradictory shift in responsibility along three axes: the use of standpoint epistemology for responsible computing, a transition from professional choice to lobbying, and a transition from sub- stantivism to instrumentalism. In this paper, we characterize an important instance of collective responsibility for computing by tracing the evolution of CPSR’s first decade of practices, techni- ques, and arguments with an eye towards the challenges of responsible computing today. Debating the ethical use and responsible development of computing technologies is an evergreen concern that has intensified in recent years. With IT workers’ renewed political consciousness, these technologies have taken on new meaning and import- ance. Political activism in computing communities today animates a broad range of topics, technologies, ideologies, and institutions. The so-called “techlash” includes the CONTACT Megan Finn [email protected] University of Washington Information School, Mary Gates Hall, 1851 NE Grant Ln, Seattle, WA 98105, USA ß 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. INTERNET HISTORIES 7 Tech Workers Coalition, employee protests for safe workplaces at Google, activist organizations such as AI Now Institute, and political debates about the spread of “fake news.” In this article we draw attention to the resurgence of interest in “responsible computing” and contextualise it historically through a case study of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CSPR), a professional group that sought to shape the future of computing through moral principles and values. CPSR began in 1981, lasted for over 30 years, and spun off many of today’s leading Internet watchdog and activist groups. While mostly focused in the United States, CPSR’s extensive reach and decentralised, chapter-driven work agenda nonetheless meant that the organization addressed a wide-ranging set of concerns with global impact. This history has important lessons for the subsequent development of network and computer technologies by illuminating the origins of some of the ongoing debates and struggles for technology’s responsible use and development. We enter into the responsible computing debate by uncovering and highlighting an organization that spans the formative years of the Internet, provides evidence of early activist and reform efforts, and therefore offers a source of reflection for politics today. We identify organizational changes in the context of broader social changes and new technological issues. We found that CPSR marshalled technical and political values to shape our contemporary understanding of responsible computing. Using archival materials from the Charles Babbage Institute and the Stanford University Archives, as well as published and new oral histories with seven key figures of CPSR from its fertile early and middle periods (1981-1992),1 we highlight how the organization’s social and political reforms drew on notions of responsibility. We focus on CPSR’s advocacy practices and its articulations of principles and found evidence of “responsible” professional activity operating in the context of changing social values in a capitalist and technologically organized society. During this period, CPSR often led the development of responsible computing but has seldom been acknowledged as an important actor. Despite its positive influence, CPSR also failed to recognize and resist broader moral transformations that were underway and through its practices, the organization was an active participant in the shift from “the closed world” (Edwards, 1997)to“the rise of digital utopianism” (Turner, 2006). We analyse transformations in responsibility within CPSR during the height of its influence. Originally, CPSR sought to limit the development of computers for nuclear and AI-enabled weapons systems. Later, social, political, and technological changes along with shifts in organization membership caused CPSR and its allies to advocate for the expansion of computing technologies. One of those issues, privacy and surveil- lance, emerged as a potent concern. Throughout this transformation, responsible com- puting remained CPSR’s raison d’etre:^ it educated the public and government about the risks of computing technologies even as the substance of its moral claims changed dramatically over time. We characterize this transformation as an evolution of practices that constitute a new kind of responsible computing. CPSR members were originally motivated by pro- fessional choice, but later became motivated by political action. Once CPSR became active in direct lobbying and political persuasion, CPSR’s activism changed. While the organization grew in power, the epistemic standpoint that both motivated and limited 8 M. FINN AND Q. DUPONT its duty of responsibility was replaced by emergent technocratic powers. The trans- formation from peaceniks to technocrats links Edwards’ and Turner’s theses—from closed world discourse to digital utopianism—but does not explain the connection. Thus, we turn to Andrew Feenberg’s schema of technology (1999) and find that CPSR practices shifted from substantivism to instrumentalism. Early members of CPSR railed against a dangerous closed world by describing how technical means are linked to risky ends in complex military computing systems. Once CPSR became a technocratic actor, however, their previously sceptical views about technology transformed into a liberal faith in its progress. We conclude by offering lessons for today drawn from CPSR’s history. Resisting closed world logics CPSR emerged out of concerns about computer-aided nuclear war. In 1981, the US government was deep in the Cold War. Initially, a small group of computer professio- nals at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) raised concerns about computer-aided nuclear war on an internal mailing list. Nearby computer professionals and Stanford researchers joined the discussion and the nascent CPSR formed. Soon after, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was announced in 1983. The SDI aimed to fund novel science and engineering techniques, including advances in computing, to develop automatic defences against Soviet missile attacks. CPSR described SDI as “an armed early warning system … [that] would respond instantly to attack, intercepting missiles in space” (CPSR Speakers Bureau Speaker
Recommended publications
  • Oral History Interview with Severo Ornstein and Laura Gould
    An Interview with SEVERO ORNSTEIN AND LAURA GOULD OH 258 Conducted by Bruce H. Bruemmer on 17 November 1994 Woodside, CA Charles Babbage Institute Center for the History of Information Processing University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Severo Ornstein and Laura Gould Interview 17 November 1994 Abstract Ornstein and Gould discuss the creation and expansion of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). Ornstein recalls beginning a listserve at Xerox PARC for those concerned with the threat of nuclear war. Ornstein and Gould describe the movement of listserve participants from e-mail discussions to meetings and forming a group concerned with computer use in military systems. The bulk of the interview traces CPSR's organizational growth, fundraising, and activities educating the public about computer-dependent weapons systems such as proposed in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). SEVERO ORNSTEIN AND LAURA GOULD INTERVIEW DATE: November 17, 1994 INTERVIEWER: Bruce H. Bruemmer LOCATION: Woodside, CA BRUEMMER: As I was going through your oral history interview I began to wonder about your political background and political background of the people who had started the organization. Can you characterize that? You had mentioned in your interview that you had done some antiwar demonstrations and that type of thing which is all very interesting given also your connection with DARPA. ORNSTEIN: Yes, most of the people at DARPA knew this. DARPA was not actually making bombs, you understand, and I think in the interview I talked about my feelings about DARPA at the time. I was strongly against the Vietnam War and never hid it from anyone. I wore my "Resist" button right into the Pentagon and if they didn't like it they could throw me out.
    [Show full text]
  • Backmatter In
    Appendices Bibliography This book is a little like the previews of coming attractions at the movies; it's meant to whet your appetite in several directions, without giving you the complete story about anything. To ®nd out more, you'll have to consult more specialized books on each topic. There are a lot of books on computer programming and computer science, and whichever I chose to list here would be out of date by the time you read this. Instead of trying to give current references in every area, in this edition I'm listing only the few most important and timeless books, plus an indication of the sources I used for each chapter. Computer science is a fast-changing ®eld; if you want to know what the current hot issues are, you have to read the journals. The way to start is to join the Association for Computing Machinery, 1515 Broadway, New York, NY 10036. If you are a full-time student you are eligible for a special rate for dues, which as I write this is $25 per year. (But you should write for a membership application with the current rates.) The Association publishes about 20 monthly or quarterly periodicals, plus the newsletters of about 40 Special Interest Groups in particular ®elds. 341 Read These! If you read no other books about computer science, you must read these two. One is an introductory text for college computer science students; the other is intended for a nonspecialist audience. Abelson, Harold, and Gerald Jay Sussman with Julie Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, MIT Press, Second Edition, 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Lisp
    1 The Evolution of Lisp Guy L. Steele Jr. Richard P. Gabriel Thinking Machines Corporation Lucid, Inc. 245 First Street 707 Laurel Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 Menlo Park, California 94025 Phone: (617) 234-2860 Phone: (415) 329-8400 FAX: (617) 243-4444 FAX: (415) 329-8480 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Lisp is the world’s greatest programming language—or so its proponents think. The structure of Lisp makes it easy to extend the language or even to implement entirely new dialects without starting from scratch. Overall, the evolution of Lisp has been guided more by institutional rivalry, one-upsmanship, and the glee born of technical cleverness that is characteristic of the “hacker culture” than by sober assessments of technical requirements. Nevertheless this process has eventually produced both an industrial- strength programming language, messy but powerful, and a technically pure dialect, small but powerful, that is suitable for use by programming-language theoreticians. We pick up where McCarthy’s paper in the first HOPL conference left off. We trace the development chronologically from the era of the PDP-6, through the heyday of Interlisp and MacLisp, past the ascension and decline of special purpose Lisp machines, to the present era of standardization activities. We then examine the technical evolution of a few representative language features, including both some notable successes and some notable failures, that illuminate design issues that distinguish Lisp from other programming languages. We also discuss the use of Lisp as a laboratory for designing other programming languages. We conclude with some reflections on the forces that have driven the evolution of Lisp.
    [Show full text]
  • A Debate on Teaching Computing Science
    Teaching Computing Science t the ACM Computer Science Conference last Strategic Defense Initiative. William Scherlis is February, Edsger Dijkstra gave an invited talk known for his articulate advocacy of formal methods called “On the Cruelty of Really Teaching in computer science. M. H. van Emden is known for Computing Science.” He challenged some of his contributions in programming languages and the basic assumptions on which our curricula philosophical insights into science. Jacques Cohen Aare based and provoked a lot of discussion. The edi- is known for his work with programming languages tors of Comwunications received several recommenda- and logic programming and is a member of the Edi- tions to publish his talk in these pages. His comments torial Panel of this magazine. Richard Hamming brought into the foreground some of the background received the Turing Award in 1968 and is well known of controversy that surrounds the issue of what be- for his work in communications and coding theory. longs in the core of a computer science curriculum. Richard M. Karp received the Turing Award in 1985 To give full airing to the controversy, we invited and is known for his contributions in the design of Dijkstra to engage in a debate with selected col- algorithms. Terry Winograd is well known for his leagues, each of whom would contribute a short early work in artificial intelligence and recent work critique of his position, with Dijkstra himself making in the principles of design. a closing statement. He graciously accepted this offer. I am grateful to these people for participating in We invited people from a variety of specialties, this debate and to Professor Dijkstra for creating the backgrounds, and interpretations to provide their opening.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Program the 34Th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems San Jose Convention Center SCHEDULE of EVENTS
    San Jose, CA, USA May 7 - 12 Conference Program The 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems San Jose Convention Center https://chi2016.acm.org SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Saturday, May 7 Sunday, May 8 09:00 - 17:00 Workshops & Symposia 09:00 - 17:00 Workshops & Symposia #chi4good Day of Service Doctoral Consortium 17:00-18:00 Newcomer’s Welcome Reception Monday, May 9 Tuesday, May 10 08:30 - 10:00 Opening Keynote: Dayo Olopade 08:30 - 09:20 Plenary: Kimberly Bryant in 10:00 - 11:30 Coffee Break conversation with Sarah Guthals Video Showcase 09:30 - 10:50 Technical Sessions Student Game Finalist Exhibition 10:50 - 11:30 Coffee Break 11:30 - 12:50 Technical Sessions Interactive Demos Open 12:50 - 14:30 Lunch Break Student Game Finalist Exhibition lunch@chi 11:30 - 12:50 Technical Sessions 14:30 - 15:50 Technical Sessions 12:50 - 14:30 Lunch Break 15:50 - 16:30 Coffee Break Diversity Lunch 16:30 - 17:50 Technical Sessions 14:30 - 15:50 Technical Sessions 18:00 - 19:30 Opening Reception and Exhibit Hall 15:50 - 16:30 Coffee Break Grand Opening Interactive Demos Open Interactivity Demos Open 16:30 - 17:50 Technical Sessions 18:00 - 19:30 Job Fair Art Exhibition Opening Wednesday, May 11 Thursday, May 12 08:30 - 09:20 Plenary: Marissa Mayer in 08:30 - 09:20 Plenary: Alan Kay in conversation conversation with Terry Winograd with Vishal Sikka 09:30 - 10:50 Technical Sessions 09:30 - 10:50 Technical Sessions 10:50 - 11:30 Coffee Break 10:50 - 11:30 Coffee Break Interactive Demos Open Interactive Demos Open 11:30 - 12:50 Technical
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Computing Research and the Universities
    March 1987 Report No. S’I’.IN-W-87- 1160 Strategic Computing Research and the Universities ‘I‘crry A. \Vinogr;ld Department of Computer Science Sktnford llnivcrsity St;wford, CA 94305 Strategic Computing Research and the Universities Terry Winograd Abstract The Strategic Computing Initiative offers the potential of new research funds for university computer science departments. As with all funds, they bring benefits and can have unwanted strings attached. In the case of military funding, the web of attached strings can be subtle and confusing. The goal of this paper is to delineate some of these entanglements and perhaps provide some guidance for loosening and eliminating them. This paper will appear as a chapter in Paul N. Edwards and Richard Gordon, eds., Strategic Computing: Defense Research and High Technology (forthcoming). It has also been issued as Silicon Valley Research Group Working Paper No. 7 by the University of California, Santa Cruz. Strategic Computing Research and the Universities Terry Winograd Introduction The Strategic Computing Initiative offers the potential of new research funds for university computer science departments. As with all funds, they bring benefits and can have unwanted strings attached. In the case of military funding, the web of attached strings can be subtle and confusing. The goal of this paper is to delineate some of these entanglements and perhaps provide some guidance for loosening and eliminating them. The issues are not peculiar to the Strategic Computing Initiative, and it will be useful to point out other examples that illustrate them, especially as they have emerged in the SCI’s successor, the Strategic Defense Initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • What to Read
    Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Working Paper 239 November 1982 What to Read A Biased Guide to Al Literacy for the Beginner Philip E. Agre Abstract: This note tries to provide a quick guide to Al literacy for the beginning Al hacker and for the experienced Al hacker or two whose scholarship isn't what it should be. Most will recognize it as the same old list of classic papers, give or take a few that I feel to be under- or over-rated. It is not guaranteed to be thorough or balanced or anything like that. A.I. Laboratory Working Papers are produced for internal circulation, and may contain information that is, for example, too preliminary or too detailed for formal publication. It is not intended that they should be considered papers to which reference can be made in the literature. Acknowledgements. It was Ken Forbus' idea, and he, Howic Shrobe, D)an Weld, and John Batali read various drafts. Dan Huttenlocher and Tom Knight helped with the speech recognition section. The science fiction section was prepared with the aid of my SF/Al editorial board, consisting of Carl Feynman and David Wallace, and of the ArpaNet SF-Lovers community. Even so, all responsibility rests with me. Introduction I discovered the hard way that it's a good idea for a beginning Al hacker to set about reading everything. But where to start? The purpose of this note is to provide the beginning Al hacker (and the experienced Al hacker or two whose scholarship isn't what it should be) with some starting places that I've found useful in my own reading.
    [Show full text]
  • In Artificial Intelligence Department of Computer Science Stanford University
    Syllabus for Qualifying Exam in Artificial Intelligence Department of Computer Science Stanford University Spring 1980 The syllabus is organized to present a picture of the range of knowledge expected of Ph.D. candidates in Artificial Intelligence, rather than specifying a fixed list of readings. There are a number of different dimensions along which we could divide up the material. The attempt in the earlier version to establish a thorough categorization has been replaced this year with a less formal, more realistic organization. We have listed a number of "topics" with a short paragraph describing the necessary reading for each. These topics overlap in various ways, and reflect idiosyncratic views of how things divide up without any attempt to provide a consistent classification. Hopefully the set of references included with each item will make it possible for students to select a reasonable number of readings which will fill any knowledge gaps. The long reading list is intended as a source of details on individual references, not as a necessary set of things to read. It includes a rough indication of what sort of understanding is most important for each reference whether there is a general perspective, one or more specific concepts, and/or—a body of detail with which students are expected to be fluent. These indications are of course based on the prejudices and peculiarities of the committee making up the syllabus, and should not be taken as representing the views of anyone else (including the members of individual exam committees). Please send any comments or suggestions on the syllabus to Doug Lenat (LENATgSUMEX) .
    [Show full text]
  • What Can You Do with a Web in Your Pocket?
    What can you do with a Web in your Pocket? ¡ ¢ £ Sergey Brin Rajeev Motwani Lawrence Page Terry Winograd Abstract The amount of information available online has grown enormously over the past decade. Fortunately, computing power, disk capacity, and network bandwidth have also increased dramatically. It is currently possible for a university research project to store and process the entire World Wide Web. Since there is a limit on how much text humans can generate, it is plausible that within a few decades one will be able to store and process all the human-generated text on the Web in a shirt pocket. The Web is a very rich and interesting data source. In this paper, we describe the Stanford WebBase, a local repository of a significant portion of the Web. Furthermore, we describe a number of recent ex- periments that leverage the size and the diversity of the WebBase. First, we have largely automated the process of extracting a sizable relation of books (title, author pairs) from hundreds of data sources spread across the World Wide Web using a technique we call Dual Iterative Pattern Relation Extraction. Sec- ond, we have developed a global ranking of Web pages called PageRank based on the link structure of the Web that has properties that are useful for search and navigation. Third, we have used PageRank to develop a novel search engine called Google, which also makes heavy use of anchor text. All of these experiments rely significantly on the size and diversity of the WebBase. 1 Introduction The Web is a very diverse data source combining highly structured HTML, fully general natural language con- tained within the HTML, and embedded images.
    [Show full text]
  • A Procedural Model of Language Understanding
    Four A Procedural Model of Language Understanding Terry Winograd Massachusetts Institute of Technology Much of the research on language is based on an attempt to separateit into distinct components-components that can then be studied independently. Modern syn- tactic theoreticians have been tremendously successful at setting up complexrules which describe in detail the possible orderings of syntactic constituents- at the same time other researchers are trying to define semantic relations and to model the cognitive structures underlying language use. Most attempts to model language understanding on the computer have followed this strategy of dealing with a single component of language. They are constructed primarily as a syntactic program (Kuno, 1965], a model of semantic connections (Schank, 1971), or an attempt to model the memory structures (Quillian 1967) Question-answering systems have had to deal with the entire language process but they have been severely limited in the breadth of their language ability The only attempt to handle large portions of language data was the machine translation and it became soon obvious that the methods were not up to the requirements of the task. Language translation could not be treated as a problem of syntactic rearranging structures and words, because attention to meaning was required even to achieve moderately acceptableresults. One basic limitation of those programs that have tried to handle the problems of meaning is they that have dealt almost exclusively with the understanding of single effort, / , ("JjA&ikJSM>VaK^hi' '■■v. <j_ j^iM6*ii«W*..»*&M**bJ*£k&££* - ' * l^h-rtfl-^. -„., * TERRY WINOGRAD 153 language takes place ,n such an sentences, when in fact almost no human use of we make use of " artificial setting.
    [Show full text]
  • A Timeline of Artificial Intelligence
    A Timeline of Artificial Intelligence by piero scaruffi | www.scaruffi.com All of these events are explained in my book "Intelligence is not Artificial". TM, ®, Copyright © 1996-2019 Piero Scaruffi except pictures. All rights reserved. 1960: Henry Kelley and Arthur Bryson invent backpropagation 1960: Donald Michie's reinforcement-learning system MENACE 1960: Hilary Putnam's Computational Functionalism ("Minds and Machines") 1960: The backpropagation algorithm 1961: Melvin Maron's "Automatic Indexing" 1961: Karl Steinbuch's neural network Lernmatrix 1961: Leonard Scheer's and John Chubbuck's Mod I (1962) and Mod II (1964) 1961: Space General Corporation's lunar explorer 1962: IBM's "Shoebox" for speech recognition 1962: AMF's "VersaTran" robot 1963: John McCarthy moves to Stanford and founds the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL) 1963: Lawrence Roberts' "Machine Perception of Three Dimensional Solids", the birth of computer vision 1963: Jim Slagle writes a program for symbolic integration (calculus) 1963: Edward Feigenbaum's and Julian Feldman's "Computers and Thought" 1963: Vladimir Vapnik's "support-vector networks" (SVN) 1964: Peter Toma demonstrates the machine-translation system Systran 1965: Irving John Good (Isidore Jacob Gudak) speculates about "ultraintelligent machines" (the "singularity") 1965: The Case Institute of Technology builds the first computer-controlled robotic arm 1965: Ed Feigenbaum's Dendral expert system 1965: Gordon Moore's Law of exponential progress in integrated circuits ("Cramming more components
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Understanding Information About the World
    AI Magazine Volume 1 Number 1 (1980) (© AAAI) Al Magazine 5 NdTlJR41 LPNGUDE UNDERZirANDlNG Avron Barr Department of Computer Science Stanford University Palo Alto, CA 94305 This is an excerpt from the Handbook of Artificial natural languages, programming languages can express easily Intelligence, a compendium of hundreds of articles about Al only those concepts that are important in programming: “Do ideas, techniques, and programs being prepared at Stanford this, then do that,” “See whether such and such is true,” etc. University by Al researchers and students from across the The things that can be meant by expressions in a language are country. In addition to articles describing the specifics of referred to as the semantics of the language. various AI programming methods, the Handbook contains The research described in this chapter of the Handbook dozens of overview articles like this one, which attempt togiue concerns the development of computer programs that try to historical and scientific perspective to work in the different deal with the full range of meaning of languages like English. If areas of AI research. computers could understand what people mean when typing This article is from the Handbook chapter on Natural (or speaking) English sentences, they would be easier to use Language Understanding. Cross-references to other articles and would fit more naturally into people’s lives. Furthermore, in the handbook have been removed--terms discussed in more artificial intelligence (AI) researchers hope that learning how to detail elsewhere are italicized. Many people have contributed build computers that can communicate as people do will to this chapter, including especially Anne Gardner, James extend our understanding of the nature of language and of the Davidson, and Terry Winograd.
    [Show full text]