I *have* been doing more work on HAL and Eliza, but have been a little frustrated. Having looked through most of Kubrick’s and Clarke’s recollections of the filming, I have found no explicit mention of Eliza. On the other hand, the fact that Marvin Minsky was an advisor on the set makes it not unlikely that he mentioned Weizenbaum’s report in the ACM to some one on the set.

Even if I could not find that vital historical fingerprint, however, I do think there is a more ephemeral linkage that can be drawn. In Clarke’s novelised version, he says that Hal is modelled on the human brain (following Minsky’s work) but that the interconnections are so numerous no one has any idea how the machine produces consciousness. In my argument, therefore, Hal stands as a critique of the behaviourist model of AI – this is, of course, precisely what the Turing test is all about (and also, as Michael’s article points out, chess playing computers), and it was Eliza’s ability to dupe human interlocutors that hammered home the limitations of this epistemological approach (likewise chess computers which became more powerful but therefore less like heuristic human players).

So even if Eliza is not the specific inspiration for Hal, my understanding is that Eliza is simply the most prominent manifestation of that period’s move away from Turing’s benchmark – to model the machine intelligence on the human – towards self-emergent intelligences and the honing of specialised processing systems rather than general problem solvers. I’ve got a fairly polished thesis chapter on 2001, and though it takes a slightly different tack to Hal than you are probably concerned with, I’d be happy to pass it along if you’d like.

Best,
Ishmael

I think you’re right that there may be an interesting connection between Eliza and HAL. Have you done any more work on this? Also, any thoughts on Michael’s related chapter (”Reading Hal: Representation and Artificial Intelligence”)?

“First unveiled years before HAL 9000’s screen debut in 2001: A Space Odyssey, it seemed that Eliza made it possible to have a real conversation with a computer.”

As I understand it, Eliza was first unveiled in 1966, with 2001 having its first screening in 1968, so the use of “years before” here is a bit disingenuous.

Actually, this may be a more interesting connection, given the close proximity of the two. Clarke and Kubrick employed Marvin Minsky as an advisor on the set of 2001, and it seems quite likely (though I haven’t checked) that Minsky could have heard about Wiezenbaum’s creation, such that it informed the treatment of Hal in the film. Hal seems to have quite a modulated, dispassionate voice, not unlike a psychotherapist. And (if I remember rightly) during the scenes as Bowman prepares to “lobotomise” Hal, the computer reverts to asking questions, akin to the Eliza technique of interrogation to conceal its lack of actual intelligence.

I’ve just started working on 2001 and Hal, so if I come across anything more concrete I will be happy to pass it on.

Interesting stuff!

First, I consider Eliza/Doctor “groundbreaking” because it was so influential, rather than because it was particularly large.

Second, Weizenbaum says of Eliza, “The work was done in the period 1964-1966.” Since I was talking about its creation, rather than its publication, I chose “mid-1960s” — but if people find that confusing I could change it.

Third, turning to “the potential of computing” and “the intent of the program,” my impression is that Weizenbaum was interested in exploring possibilities for natural language processing. He was shocked to find that people viewed Eliza/Doctor’s simple, playful transformations as something very different (and much more significant). But he didn’t create the system with the intent of exposing these misunderstandings.

Finally, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the HAL 9000 was the first representation of a talking computer. I was just referencing it as a famous talking computer of, as you say, roughly the same era. You’re right that changing “years before” to “two years before” would make this clearer for those who don’t know the release date of the film.

Eliza was a small program, even by the standards of the 1960s; I think the date could be pinned more precisely to its first publication.

> one of the world’s most famous demonstrations of the potential of computing

It is not clear to me that the text makes it clear that this is directly contrary to the intent of the program.

> HAL 9000

“Years before” might be “two years” (Eliza published in 1966, Kubrick’s film debuted in 1968 and so was filmed about the same time). But conversations with computers have a much longer history, of course; Heinlein’s MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS is 1966, Star Trek has a computer testifying at a trial in 1967.

For those without personal BBS memories, I hope this section still helps set the stage by establishing the idea that I am among the many who have written about Eliza who first experienced it in a computing context quite different from the predominant present ones.

But it also strikes me that, for the BBS world more specifically, it would also be good to have a reference or two. I should obviously point people to Jason Scott’s documentary. Anything else spring to mind?

One interesting thing, however, is that positioning this as a “review” seems to have raised an expectation of formality that isn’t usually present on the blog. Some GTxA readers seem more comfortable sending me backchannel responses via email, rather than having their comments be part of the public review.

In one sense that’s fine, because all these comments help with my work and thinking. On another hand it’s a shame, because wider discussion of these issues could have broader benefit. But obviously people should participate however they are moved.

That said, I’d disagree that the public comments, so far, are nit-picking. I think they range from the very high-level (Lev and Matt bringing up big issues for the field, which I need to bear in mind while viewing the project as a whole) to the very detailed (use of the word “early”) and also various spots in-between (Markku and Bryan asking how particular critical concepts relate to what I’ve written). Maybe the more detailed comments could be called nit-picking, but that has a negative feel — and I’m happy with any comment that helps the project improve.

As for it being hard to get a broader picture, I think that was particularly true of the introductory chapter. Hopefully that chapter has now provided a little background against which what comes can be read. But I’m perfectly happy if people wait for there to be another whole chapter, or two, or three, before going back and commenting on the very first section of the first chapter. This project has more than two months to go, and the ideal is to learn something from it, from people who comment when and how they feel motivated. I’m watching all the comments, not just those on the last couple posts.