HAYES@SPAR-20.ARPA (PAT) (04/17/87)
Let me briefly add a seconding voice to Linda Means comments on the horrible output of the style-criticising programs illustrated a while ago. That people should suggest using such things to influence children almost makes me agree with Weizenbaum. The thesis behind AI is that intelligence is computation, but not TRIVIAL computation. Obviously nothing that could run on a PC could possibly do a good job of such a very subtle and information- -rich task as critiquing English style, and these things do a TERRIBLE job. But perhaps the worst aspect of them used as pedagogical tools is not how well they do the job, but that they so obviously work by applying some simple and superficial rules in a context-insensitive fashion. Any kid who was 'taught' by one of these would quickly learn these rules. A few experiences like this, though, and (s)he would learn that most problems are solved by applying a few superficial rules without any need for deeper thinking, which is a worse and more dangerous lesson. Im all for the application of AI to education, but lets not get it confused with the thoughtless use of mediocre code to subvert education. Pat HayAI red.uldA