One big distinction in the 1962 time period is that they thought of “machine intelligence” as being a kind of complimentary set of thinking tools that could be “symbiotic” to how humans were able to think. They were not at all thinking about something like a slave or a major domo, but something more like a research assistant or a “Memex” (the latter was a big influence on Doug’s thinking).
In the very late 60s the “official AI researchers” started to think that something like “intelligent Greek slaves” were needed for the “Romans” (Americans), and became rivals to Doug’s notion of elevating human thinking rather than just elevating power. This was a bad idea then … and it’s a bad idea today.
I find it interesting that Engelbart, Kay, Jobs and even Elon have all been learned people who saw in AI a way of augmenting human capabilities, finding truth, giving kids new ways of learning about history and science, and tackling planet scale challenges.
Someone posted an old video here a few days ago of Steve Jobs giving a speech in the 1980s saying that his dream was to make the computer into a medium that allows you to have a dialogue with Aristotle.
Yet I’ve never heard anything like that from the guy who is center stage for AI today, Sam Altman.
Maybe Sam is a a visionary in his own right. Maybe be recognized that people just care a lot more about SEO, about not having to talk to customers anymore, and about the kids just being quiet.
Huh? Engelbart didn't like AI or at least didn't want his team to have anything to do with it:
>I recall seeing an interview with Engelbart that went over his split with the IPTO. He said that Lick came to him, and was taken with the hype with what was called “AI” at the time, that he was concerned that Engelbart’s research team at ARC had not put a focus on that yet, and that Engelbart seemed to have no intention of pursuing AI as a goal in the near future. Engelbart seemed frustrated/exasperated with Lick’s insistence on putting more attention on this. The discussion ended with Lick saying the IPTO could no longer fund him. . . . The take-away for me was Engelbart said this was “a sad parting,” because he was grateful, and had respect for Lick, but thought that he was wrong to press his team to pursue AI at that point.
AI has meant different things to different people in different times. I think his NLS was designed to capture all of (your|a company’s|humanity’s) knowledge and then giving you the information you need when you need it at your fingertips, even with any blanks or conclusions or summaries already filled in. That is, to me, the same thing as a system knowing how Aristotle would have answered your question. (Jobs, in his speech, also, didn’t call this “AI“. He just spoke of “computers”.)
And yet when Licklider asked Engelbart to add AI to Engelbart's project, Engelbart chose to lose Licklider's support (and soon after lost his federal funding IIUC) rather than do that.
