skip to main content
article
Free Access

Ten criticisms of parry

Published:01 October 1974Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Much of the Artificial Intelligence community is now aware of a computer simulation of paranoid processes developed by the Colby group at Stanford. The model (called PARRY) has been available for interviewing on the ARPA network and thousands of interviews have been conducted with several versions of the model. During the long period of development of the model, we have been aware of the limitations of various alternative programming approaches to designing an algorithm capable of conducting useful non-trivial dialogue in natural language. Colleagues, associates, and students have volunteered a number of criticisms of the model. Since criticisms can be endless, I shall restrict the discussion to only those which we consider serious, reasoned, and well-founded.

References

  1. Colby, K. M. (1974). ARTIFICIAL PARANOIA: a Computer Simulation of Paranoid Processes. Pergamon, New York, (In Press). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Colby, K. M., Weber, S., and Hilf, F.D. (1971), "Artificial paranoia". Artificial Intelligence, 2, 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Colby, K. M., Parkison, R. C., and Faught, B. (1974). "Pattern-matching rules for the recognition of natural language dialogue expressions". American Journal of Computational Linguistics. Vol. 1, Microfiche 5. (Also appears as Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Memo AIM-234, Computer Science Department, Stanford University). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Colby, K. M., Hilf, F. D., Weber, S., and Kraemer, H. (1972). "Turing-like indistinguishability tests for the validation of a computer simulation of paranoid processes". Artificial Intelligence, 3, 199--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Colby, K. M. and Hilf, F. D. (1974). "Multidimensional evaluation of a computer simulation of paranoid thought". In Knowledge and Cognition, Gregg, L. (Ed.), Lawrence Ehrlbaum and Associates, Potomac, Maryland. (Also appears as Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Memo AIM-194, Computer Science Department, Stanford University). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Colby, K. M., Hilf, F. D., Wittner, W. K., Faught, B., and Parkison, R. C. (1974). "Measuring the improvement in linguistic comprehension in a model of paranoid processes." (Forthcoming).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM SIGART Bulletin
    ACM SIGART Bulletin Just Accepted
    October 1974
    21 pages
    ISSN:0163-5719
    DOI:10.1145/1045200
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 1974 Author

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 1 October 1974

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • article

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader