Artificial Intelligence – a personal view
Contributions

Marr has proposed the following methodology for AI research
o It is important to isolate simpler information processing problem of which
tangible, efficient and correct solutions can be sought
o It is important to come up with ‘abstract’ method which gives a direction to solve
a particular information processing problem. A particular algorithm can be
devised from this method later and it is important to separate the two.
o Solving AI problems are of two types. Type 1 denotes those types of problems
where a simple method can be devised to solve a information processing
problem. Type 2 denotes those types of problems where a problem is solved by
simultaneous interaction of more than one process whose interactions form a
simplest description
Questions

I understand Marr is critical of AI. Why?
o

What do you think Minsky would think of Marr’s Paper?
o

Marr is not critical of AI, but has some reservations towards the approach taken
towards solving the problems in AI. Based on his classification of Type I and
Type II methodologies, he feels that many researchers have come across
solutions that are solved by convoluted Type II methods, but for which alternate
Type I solution could have existed. Also, he feels that many are guilty of not
separating the abstract methods to solve a given problem and the algorithms with
the gory details of implementation. Furthermore, he feels that current research on
AI should focus on solving simpler problems for which we can provide clean,
correct and efficient solutions rather than for complex problems like cryptarithmetic for which we don’t know how exactly the human brain decomposes
this problem to solve it. He also touch upon the political issue of external
pressure for showing early results impacts a good judgment and results in
programs that just ‘mimic’ the solution but aren’t the actual solution by any
means.
Misnky will agree with Marr about his methodology of isolating problems,
identifying methods and then implement algorithms. Minsky himself proposes to
decompose complex problems into simpler solutions and then solving simpler
problems and aggregating their results to get the final ‘goal’. However, he won’t
agree to Marr that we need to attack only simpler problems. Minsky would feel
that we can attack complex problems as far as we can decompose them into
simpler manageable problems
What do you think Marr would think of Minsky’s Paper, steps..?
o
I think Marr would appreciate the idea of Minsky; that or breaking a complex
problem of achieving a goal into simpler ones. These simpler problems are in the
essence, the Type I problems that Marr is referring to. Minsky is thinking in same
lines with Marr here that we need to isolate simpler solvable problems which
need not be of higher complexity levels.

What do you think Marr would think of Brook’s work?
o

What do you think Marr would think about connectionism?
o

Marr has expressed that the perception of an event or of an object must include
the simultaneous computation or several descriptions of it that capture diverse
aspects of the use, purpose or circumstances of the event or object. The
connectionist model is based on simultaneous computations that capture the
perception of an object or event. The perception-motor cycle mentioned in the
connectionist model fits well here. Again, I feel that Marr would be supportive
of this idea.
What do you think Marr would think Deep blue?
o

Brook’s work closely fits the Type II model where a complex functionality is
achieved by simultaneous interactions of many processes (layers in case of
brook). Again, the idea is to decompose complex behavior into simpler
manageable sub-problems. Marr never seemed to have advocated for centralized
managed systems with formal representation of general concepts or against them.
Brook’s work also seems to go by thinking of a method and then an algorithm
(FSA for this work) and have a subtle distinction between them. My feeling is
that Marr will appreciate Brook’s work in that perspective
I presume the question reflects about the Deep-Blue program. Marr has the idea
of first selecting simpler problems and devising solutions for them. For complex
problems like playing chess, we don’t know how human brain decomposes such
problem. again, he feels that just providing solutions to such complex problems
isn’t enough, as many times they just ‘mimic’ the actual solutions. I don’t think
Marr will be too appreciative about Deep Blue.
What do you think Chomsky would think about Marr’s Paper?
o
Chomsky will agree to Marr’s ideas of separating Methods and Gory detailed
algorithms. Marr’s idea seems to be an extension to Chomsky’s work.
Anticipated questions


What is Marr’s Idea of Artificial Intelligence? What level of Intelligence he
expects Machines to demonstrate?
What would be Marr’s vision of achieving in the field of AI in next 5 years?