 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Gates Center, the School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, and this wonderful distinguished presentation by the University of Libraries, the School of Computer Science, in honor of our great friend Pamela McCordick and her late husband, Joe Trau. But first, I wanna ask you to join me in thanking the people who organized this. So let's give those a big round of applause. So I'm Philip Lehman. I'm Associate Dean in Computer Science and also an alum. When I came to grad school here, the Computer Science Department was in the Mellon Institute of Science. Actually, I know this because I just looked at my diploma. It was actually the Mellon Institute. It was about 15 to 20 faculty, 80 graduate students, zero undergrads, unless you count the people in applied math who are kind of leaning that way, including by the way, Shafi Goldwasser, who will be getting an honorary degree this spring. And a few staff, some of whom were running the early stages of the ARPANET. So it was kind of a cool place to be. I pointed out to Pamela yesterday that all of us fit into her house. It was a little tight, but we all fit. So Alan Perlis, whom I'd met elsewhere, had left for places northeast in 1971 and handed the department leadership off to Joe. And a key distinction then as now was the one between a department chair on the one hand and a department head on the other. So chairs, typically, universities tend to rotate, but the word head had a certain gravitas at the time, I think you'd agree. And it was really a leadership role that Joe approached with the gusto in doing so in a context with people like Herb Simon and Alan Newell and Raj Reddy and Nico Harman and Bill Wolf and Gordon Bell, leading those folks took a special something. So Joe and Pamela were here from 71 to 79 when they headed to New York and Columbia, which was Salma Mater, where he founded the computer science department there largely, I think, on the Carnegie Mellon model. So we take some credit for that. His Wikipedia entry says that here he led, I'm gonna read this, led the computer science department from a critical period to eminence and that's no exaggeration. He developed a really interesting reputation for huge bragging externally about what we were doing, but he would tell all of us, yeah, we could be doing better. That was kind of Joe. He worked with a variety of people here, including a guy named H.T. Kung, who was also an alum and also my thesis advisor. So I am Joe's academic grandson, which is cool. And he also brought Kung from Taiwan and together they did some great work at the time in numerical mathematics and they even improved on some work that a guy named Isaac Newton had done. So that was pretty cool. And there's an important piece of work called the Shaw Travel Algorithm and maybe Mary will tell us about that later. In the meantime, Pamela was an active participant in many things computer science during those years. She worked as an author and as I mentioned, as a hostess, as when needed. And I'll tell you a little bit less about her because we have an hour to get into that, but suffice it to say she likes to set sherry traps. I also had the privilege of getting to know Joe and Pamela from a different perspective as when I was no longer a student and so that has really been a wonderful experience for me. During their last trip home to Carnegie Mellon in 2014, Joe was also in this room when Andrew was announced as the dean and so that was really a special connection. So one thing I didn't know very well was their work to assemble a huge collection of ancient and very ancient by comparison, a computing equipment which was on display in the library. I think, I don't think you've seen it yet, right? I haven't. You have, okay, good. It's just amazing how it turned out. But this is really a seminal collection because it connects our present to our past and is really a platform for understanding the future. So more on that as we go, we're so fortunate to have the legacy here. So with that bit of history, let me introduce our panelists and with the theme of Spring Chronicle, I don't know whether you guys are myths or legends, but I'm not gonna make that determination. So Pamela, as I mentioned, is an author and a very generous donor to Carney Mellon now sharing her time between New York and California. I understand that in the movie version of this, you'll be played by Francis McDormand. It's got to lunch. Andrew Moore is the dean who was introduced, I mentioned earlier. He'd been faculty in robotics and machine learning before a brief eight-year break to start Google Pittsburgh and lead a huge machine learning operation here and he's been back here since around that time in 2014. He's also a CMU parent and Andrew, I hope you're teaching William about slide rules as well as computing. Julia Parsons, whom I just met, is a 1942 graduate of Margaret Morrison Carnegie College. Was a Carnegie Tech student on December 1941 when the war started and then went on to the Navy and based on some working knowledge of German, as I understand it, helped break the German code. So that would be a really interesting story. Mary is a 1972 PhD alumna of computer science and the Alan J. Perlis University professor. Mary also has too many accolades to mention, but one of my favorites is a photo on Mary's wall and my favorite caption is who's that with Mary Shaw and the answer turns out to be Barack Obama giving her the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And then our moderator, esteemed moderator is Keith Webster, who is dean of the University Libraries and director of emerging and integrative media initiatives Keith has a distinguished career at the intersection of libraries and information science, which is really in this building, he says he's a thinly veiled computer scientist. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Keith. Thank you, Philip, and good afternoon, everyone. When people ask me what libraries are up to these days, one of my instinctive reactions is really borne out by this panel and it's about connections and I can draw dots between all of us in different ways and can almost construct a matrix. So we're talking about the theme of from enigma to AI. So as Philip said, Julia was engaged in cracking the codes that the Germans had created using an enigma machine. Pamela and Joe collected enigma machines and they are now housed in Hunt Library thanks to their generous gift. On artificial intelligence, Pamela has written widely on the topic, she's speaking at Mount Sinai Hospital next week on AI. I read one of her books on AI in 1984, I think Andrew did something similar. We've heard about the Shaw-Troub algorithm and so it goes on. So I think this phenomenal series of connections, some of them deliberate, some of them absolutely coincidental, really reinforces to me the sense that libraries are here to connect ideas, connect people and create a sense of an academic commons in a university community. That's partly trying to explain why I'm here but it's also partly a lead into my opening question for Pamela. Last week was National Library Week, the 60th anniversary of this annual event and the theme this year was libraries lead. So without trying to set it up too much Pamela, I'd be interested to know where libraries might have led you and we can maybe use this as just the launch pad for the next hour and I've got the unenviable task of trying to keep everybody on time and focused. Over the last 24 hours I've learned this is going to be a tough stretch but please take it away and welcome. Thank you. I went into my first library when I was about six and the library in those days for me was a haven. We were in very difficult circumstances. We were immigrants. My father and mother brought three little children, I was one of them, to the United States and we were living with relatives. It was a very fraught situation. The library was where I went to feel like a human being to feel that people loved me even though they were speaking to me in text from far away that they loved me for who I was. I cannot even begin to talk about what the library has meant to me in my life. I can't. It was central to my life. It is central to my life. I still go to libraries. Although now I have a Kindle and I download my mysteries. Is that the kind of thing? That sounds good. I'll maybe let others chime in on that theme as the conversation unfolds but maybe at this point we could ask you and Mary to talk about some of the themes that Philip alluded to in his opening remarks. So Pamela, you and Joe came to Pittsburgh in 1971 at the behest of Carnegie Mellon because Al Perlis had left four parts northeast. Why is everybody afraid to say Yale? To Yale. A detail. So we had three founders and the other two were Al Newell and Herb Simon who were still here. So Joe came into a setting in which there were two very strong personalities backed up by a cast of not yet thousands but several's. How did you and Joe move into the setting and do it in such a way that Joe actually took command and exercised that leadership? I have to go back to my introduction to artificial intelligence. This was before I knew Joe Traub existed. I was working my way through college at the University of California at Berkeley and I was in the business school. I was an English major so they figured I wasn't gonna give any secrets away in terms of exams or anything like that. Anyway, I would type course outlines and syllabuses and things like that. That was my job. That's how I paid my way through college. And I kept running into this Herbert A. Simon and I thought in my snotty English major way, oh, this field is really thin if one guy has written all the books. Municipal administration, theory of the organization, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and onto AI. Okay. It was kind of like all of English literature had been written by Dryden. Somebody you've heard of but you never read. Okay, that was it. My further introduction to artificial intelligence, again at about the same time, was Ed Feigenbaum and Julian Feldman, both of them alumni of Carnegie Mellon, said to me, we know you're graduating in January and going to graduate school in the fall. Would you like to, on those nine months that you're not working, would you like to work on our book? And I said, yes, I'd love to, what is it about? And Ed said, artificial intelligence. And I said, what's that? And Ed said, puffing on his pipe, as those of you know him, artificial intelligence is a computer doing things which if a human did them, we'd say that's intelligent behavior. I really am getting to your question, Mary. So okay, time passes. I meet Joe, I get married to Joe, and by this time, I'm really much better versed in the whole field of computation but especially artificial intelligence than I had been earlier. And when Joe gets the call from Carnegie Mellon, I say, well of course you've got to go there. Tear me away from the West Coast, what do I care? And that's how we came here. Now we had a faculty welcome to the new chair party and there was Herb Simon in the flesh across the room. I was so tongue tied with admiration and awe that I couldn't even bring myself to go over and say hello. He came over to me and said, welcome to Pittsburgh. So we knew the group we were in. How Joe managed to take a leadership role where you know Joe? Joe was very assertive. Some people would say abrasive but not those who loved him and he just moved right in. But this was one of the interesting things about Joe's leadership of the department. He introduced, I believe it was Joe who introduced the reasonable person principle which has guided us ever since. That is the proposition that we're all good people here and we're interesting and different and idiosyncratic but whatever somebody is doing, assume it to be reasonable unless it's just conspicuously not reasonable. And that opens the world, provides scope for doing a lot of really bizarre things. But good things. And so that coupled with the doctrine that was set down by the founders that computer science is the very broad study of things surrounding computing. Set us up for opportunities of all kinds. But in running the department, one of the things that always struck me about Joe is that he would walk around and talk to people. He'd put a question on the table and I don't think I ever saw him state an opinion. I don't think I ever saw him think we should do this. But after the discussion settled, it always came out to what I thought he wanted to do anyway. Can you shed any insight into this? I never forget it. I never forget it. That's very funny. No, at home it was quite different. No, not the way you think. Joe would say to anybody who would listen, Pamela gives me my way 95% of the time, that 5% that she is interested in, she gets her way and no question about it. But you did research with Joe. And that was part of the magic. I was actually in programming systems and programming languages. And because it seemed interesting, I went to some seminars on algorithms. After one of the seminars on algorithms where somebody was presenting a brand new algorithm that everybody was excited about, I went home and scratched my head and kind of thought about it as a computer programmer. Well, it came back a couple of days later and said to Joe, you know, Joe, he did this for cases one and two and I see how to do it for cases, all of them. And he said, let's talk about this. And then with this wound up being a collaboration in which I worked on the core of the algorithm, how you compute something and anything I really, really believed as a programmer was going to work, he could write a proof for it. And at one point we thought the paper had evaporated because we could state the entire thing in an abstract. Okay, this is a problem, right? Because if there's nothing more than the abstract then there's no paper. We said, but wait, what if we, instead of doing all of it, we did some of it? And that made the problem interesting and rich enough that we could actually write a paper from it. So there you are. Yeah, he's very good at that kind of thing. But that's one of the marks of this department is that I could work in some area different from the area I was really sort of properly in and find collaborators and it all worked out really well. I do wanna tell one anecdote, which probably is not well known here at Carnegie Mellon, though it took place here. Joe's PhD student, HT Kung, was also very assertive and he told his story at a celebration we had for Joe's 80th birthday so I'm not telling tales. They would get so angry at each other that they would snatch the chalk out of each other's hand. And finally, Joe in total exasperation said to this 67th generation descendant of Confucius, he said, you're not Chinese. If you were Chinese, you'd have some filial piety for me. Yeah. Yeah. So other ways in which the department was interesting and different and idiosyncratic. And I think this is really an implementation of the reasonable person principle. We were talking last night about the cheese co-op. Right, so this was a period in Pittsburgh when your basic grocery stores, basically the Giant Eagle, had a cheese department that featured Velveeta and that red block cheddar from some commercial factory. And that was cheese. If you wanted other kinds of cheese down in the strip, the strip was still the place that you would go in the morning because the trains came in and unloaded produce and so you could go down and buy a case of cabbages, if that was to your liking. Or 50 pounds of rutabagas, but not one pound of rutabagas. There was a cheese store as a cheese co-op that sold tens and hundreds of kinds of cheese, but you had to buy them by the wheel. Now, a wheel might be 40 pounds, that's a lot of cheese. So the graduate students wrote a program that would take orders for cheese. So you'd log in and say, I want two pounds of Yarlsburg and three pounds of blue. That's a lot of blue, isn't it? Or you can use the blue. And then the program would add these things up and it knew the wheel sizes and it would say, well, we have enough orders for blue to buy one wheel and we have enough orders for Yarlsburg to order one and three quarters wheel, so let's get two and everybody will get some extra. And then there was a big cheese cutting party where the cheeses were dismantled into pieces and then sorted and you'd come in the next morning and say, well, your order for two pounds of Yarlsburg and three pounds of blue turns out to be three pounds of Yarlsburg and two pounds of blue because that's how it worked out and there they are. But this was entirely welcome in the department and for the department to be a place where that was an approved activity just really kind of captures the spirit. Did you buy cheese at the cheese go up? Oh, always, always. And did you come to the cutting parties? I know. Rank has its privilege. You was a writer. Your writing has always been infused with computing and the computing that we recognize. The Santa Fe novels are populated by people that might just as well be in this room and the ideas and the people in those writings are very much part of this community and rolling back a little bit farther. Let's see, my best talk show host. You are, while you were in Pittsburgh, you wrote Machines Who Think. I did indeed. Which also sets that tone. You got from working with Fagan, Mom and Feldman on computers and thought to a point where your writing has really got all of this deeply embedded and indeed the titles of the Santa Fe novels are chaos and bounded rationality, thank you. What's it like to be a writer in a writer's community where your subject is so much more in this room? Oh, you're basically a pariah. You aren't a member of the community. If you were a proper writer, you would be writing about love and tragedy and so on and anybody who writes about this stuff, I mean, come on. In fact, that's been a continuing theme in my life that I've had to say to Pete. The book I'm working on now, which is a memoir, is entitled This Could Be Important. Because I spent most of my professional life pulling on the sleeves of the great intellectuals, the great public intellectuals in this country and saying artificial intelligence could be important. And they would, no, what are you talking about? It's still that very much. It's still that way now. And in the 1970s, you started thinking not just about artificial intelligence as a set of mechanisms, but as artificial intelligence as a part of human society and human culture. Much water has passed under the bridge since then. We're now in a situation where AI is pervasive and the drive to install more automation, more supposedly intelligent computation is very strong. How do you feel about the way that has progressed and the way it's balanced against societal needs? In five minutes? All right. Just because we can, does that mean we should? No, of course not. But I really am a technological optimist as the subtitle of one of my books says, I think artificial intelligence is just great. It has, I have some misgivings about some parts of it. You have misgivings about some parts of it. But on the whole, I think this will be a great release for humankind, that it will take much of the burden and solve many of the problems that we can't seem to solve for ourselves. Now how's that for technological optimism? I had a moment, a great moment of insight one night. Harold Cohen who used the principles of architecture to make art and I, I wrote a book about his work. He and I were sitting around one night and a few glasses of wine had passed our lips and he said to me, why, what drew you to artificial intelligence? And I gave him the answers that I always give to people which is the most intelligent people I know are doing it therefore it must be good. It is the most interesting thing to come along since I was born, maybe before that, all these things. And then I said, and I hoped it would put to rest once and for all what I had grown up with as a young woman that men are by definition smarter than women. Now you may think that's bizarre but that's what I grew up with and all women of my generation grew up with that idea. We were talking just a little bit earlier about how women who did extraordinary things during World War II in terms of code breaking and so on got no recognition for it. They were just sent back to the nursery. Ada Lobley's has had to be almost resuscitated to appreciate what she did. Girls couldn't come here. It was really a boys' club. And it was that way not just in computing but in every field. And I resented that. I was an ardent, not to say crazy feminist in the 70s. Herb Simon thought it was one of my great failings. He came around, he came around I must say. No, I wanted artificial intelligence to put an end to that. And unfortunately Silicon Valley has told us that no, that's not how it's gonna be. But there's still hope, so. There's still. But you mentioned one of the intelligent people working in artificial intelligence and Phil alluded to the sherry trap. So let's not let that go unanswered. After a few years of living in an apartment on Fifth Avenue, Joe and I bought a house on the intersection of Forbes and Northumberland. Now it happened that my desk with my typewriter faced out onto Northumberland. It happened that Herb Simon would walk home every night along Northumberland. His house was maybe two miles further along. And I would just be putting my cover on my typewriter when I would see a hat going by the hedge. And in the summertime it was a black beret. In the winter it was a Peruvian tuia, which is one of those knit caps that comes down over your ears and has a little tassel. Now I knew Herb Simon was under that hat. So I would lean out the door and I would say, Herb, would you like a sherry? And Herb would always like a sherry. So he came in and we would spend sometimes an hour, two hours, one time three hours just dishing the dirt. Well, we talked about everything. We talked about everything. We talked about artificial intelligence, of course. But Herb was such a polymath that we could talk about art. We could certainly talk about literature. He read in search of time past twice, all six volumes in the original French, not me, I read it in translation, and so on and so on and so on. I mean, it was a joy to have this guy drinking my sherry. And yes, it happened about once a week. I didn't realize it was happening once a week so I went back and read my journals and I thought, oh, my goodness, I spent a lot of time with Herb's. All of it, very joyous, very wonderful. Let's move on to how you got into collecting machines and I'll let Keith take it. Thank you, you got the cue. So one of the tremendous things that we are benefiting from is your gift of the Trout-Nikardoc collection of machines that didn't go pinging because they were pre-digital calculating and computing devices. How did that start? Oh, well, of course it started with Joe who said, we are too late to collect impressionists. So what can we do that's affordable for a couple of academics? And we were very friendly with Gwen and Gordon Bell. Gwen was Gordon's wife at the time and Gwen had started a collection of such instruments at the Digital Equipment Corporation. That then moved to the Boston Wharf where it was the Boston Computer Museum and subsequently out to Silicon Valley. And she said, Joe, even you can afford this stuff. Which was true. I mean, nobody thought it had any consequence and that's how we began collecting because we could. So I'm going to bring Julia into the conversation. So two of the jewels in the collection as most people have heard by now are a three and a four wheel rotor enigma machine. And Julia, during the Second World War you became involved in code breaking. So can you tell us a bit about how you got there, some of your experiences? Yeah, I will say my philanthropy started with $5 toward a new library at Carnegie Mellon. When I graduated, we had a. And one week later, the headlines of the paper said Hunt Donates Millions For One. I figured that was a seed that started things going. But the Hut was really, it was a social library, but it was very inadequate, very inadequate. But on the other hand, it had everything we needed to get through college. And the war had started in December of 1941. I was graduating in the spring in 42. They pushed our graduation up a month because they wanted the boys that were in the ROTC to get into the army. So they eliminated all our finals. And that was the only time I ever made the Dean's List. Which was good. But I wanted to do something. All the boys were gone. Men were gone. There was nobody left. It was just, Pittsburgh was just devoid of, I was so jealous because everybody wanted to do something. And I did get a job with army ordinance that had a gauge laboratory in the Marfield departments on Murray Avenue. And that was interesting, but it got to be a routine thing. But while there, I did get to go into the steel mills which women were never allowed to do before. This was bad luck. But now Rosie the Riveters had taken over and women were allowed in. So I did get to see a steel mill. We were checking gauges that were used to measure the shells that they were making in the steel mills. And they would come out of measurement, whatever you call it, every so often and have to be reset. And that's what we were doing. But it got to be a a long line thing that was not interesting. So I saw in the paper that the Navy was taking women. And if you had gone to college and had your degree, which I had, you could walk in as an officer. And that sounded good to me. So I applied and they accepted me. And I went and while sitting in the Navy Chapel, somebody said, does anybody know German? And I said, I had two years of high school German in Wilkinsburg. 15 years ago, whatever it was. And that was it. So I was sent immediately to the U-boat section of the communications building on Massachusetts and Avenue, Massachusetts and Nebraska avenues in Washington Northwest. And it's still there. The communications annex is still there. And they have even more antennas and buildings and marine guards and everything else that they had when I was there. So obviously they're still decoding, madly. But this was a whole new world to me. The British had gotten overwhelmed with their traffic. They were short of men. They were short of machines. They were short of everything. And they asked if somehow, I guess, I don't know, Roosevelt and Churchill probably decided that it should be a cooperative affair. So we got the U-boat traffic. Now I don't know who did the surface traffic. I never heard that. And somebody the other day when I was here asked how did the ships communicate with each other? How did the submarines communicate? And I said, I have no idea. I know they could not have broken radio silence just to call over and say, do you have an extra cup of sugar or something? It was not that kind of thing. So I don't know how they did that. But it's an interesting thought. But our work involved the Enigma machine. We had one in the office. It was the four-rotor machine. And I did not personally send or decode or undecode messages. I was a crib. We called them cribs. We had to decide what was going to be put in the machines to break the traffic for the day. And it was frustrating and interesting. It was a fascinating job. We didn't do the translation. They had professional translators who did all that sort of thing. But it was our chore to try to decide what happened and when. And if we decided a message said something, maybe it did, maybe it didn't, we would write it up, send it to the computers, which were huge machines. I don't know if you've ever seen the, can't think of the name of it, the Museum on the Grounds of Old Fort Mead National. So the one that has this a lot of. The National Library. Yeah, yeah. Anyway, they have copies of that, of the old computers and they're huge. And when you think now that everything can be in a wristwatch or a ring, it's just amazing, just amazing. So earlier today, you had a chance to see the Enigma machines in Hunt Live early. How did that feel? It was exciting. It really was. They're just such an amazing machine. I just can't imagine how anybody could have ever thought of doing it and I am assuming that the insides of the computers are probably equally fascinating. But this was a long, these were invented somewhere in the 20s, 1920s, something like that. The first patent was 100 years ago this year. So 1918, and they were designed for industrial communication initially, so that companies could share business intelligence. But it was perfect for the Germans' purposes. And fortunately for the Americans and the allies, I should say. Some ship, on a British ship sank a submarine and before it landed, landed before it sunk. Sank? Sank sunk. The crew was already gone. They had put on their life vests and were off in the water somewhere. And British sailors got into the room on the submarine before it sank. And got the enigma machine and the code books that were only good for three months. But this was a great three months for them. And this was before we were in the war. This was the spring of 41. I think it was, or 42, I don't remember. But I was not there then, of course. But this was the first chance that the allies had to have a machine and find out how it was made and what they could do with it. So this was great. And the Germans had no clue. They thought the submarine had sunk with everything on board. They were supposed to have thrown it all into the water, but they didn't. They got themselves out. And that was our, unfortunately, the regular back to get more things and two men did drown with the submarine. It didn't sink. But that was our first chance to get hold of an enigma machine. So. So I know that you're a bridge player. Is there a set of overlapping skills or habits of mind that relate to bridge and corporate? I think it probably is because it's a communications sport, if you want to call it a game. And you have to know what someone else is implying or getting to, whatever. So we were day after day trying to decide what was in this message. And sometimes we got it. Sometimes we didn't. But we would send what we wanted to the machinery which would then send it down to the computers. They would send back all possible wheel orders for the day. The machine that would be run backwards to give us the original copy of the decoding thing if it worked. But unfortunately sometimes more times it didn't work than did work, but that was how we got them. And the last bit that we had on the decoding was to make a spreadsheet of all the messages that we'd gotten for two weeks. And we hadn't broken the traffic for three or four days. And here at the bottom at night was a little message, just a little one from the same spot on the Atlantic coast that said the weather in the Bay of Biscay till Monday, Tuesday, whatever day it was will be. And that was enough of a crib to break the traffic. And the Germans, my theory was that they had gotten down to people who were not properly trained perhaps, but they sent the same message every night, the same group count, the same time. And it said the same thing worded the same way. So this gave us our crib and this helped to bring around the end of the war because from then on we could break the traffic as it came in after midnight, unfortunately. But that was about seven o'clock our time, something like that, that was our contribution. So that was- Wonderful, thank you. So it's probably time to bring in the fifth member of our panel and I really appreciated the Roosevelt Churchill comment because I was just computing that there are more British born people on the panel than there are US born people. I'll hand over to another British born person, Andrew. So I just have to make a comment to Julie. My mother was born in Portsmouth, England. My father in Clacton, both in the South Coast, both of them had their houses destroyed by bombs and they were lucky to escape with their lives and they both talked to me about the day the war ended as being such an amazing part of their lives and it was heroes like yourself who did that. And this is gonna go down in history so I have to thank you sincerely for what you did. Now, going back to Pamela, I want to talk a little bit more about some of your books. You, one of the things I really liked about machines who think is you went from the past to the future and I think that's an excellent way to talk about the future is to begin there in the past. What do you think? I'm actually having to face this decision now that many of my students are asking for more history. Do you think it's important to talk about the history of artificial intelligence, the history of computer science for people who are studying to build stuff in the future? Oh, I am delighted to hear that they're asking for more history because that, yeah, sell books of course, the field has traditionally been a historical and I put the question to several people how come AI isn't interested in its own history? I mean, it just wasn't. And the first answer I got, and it may have been tongue-in-cheek from Raj Reddy was, it's a lot easier to go ahead and invent what you want instead of trying to go and see if somebody else did it already. That's a Raj answer, right? Which is very different, say, from mathematics where the culture is such that you must cite the people who have gone before and contributed to what you're doing. It's just part of the culture and that's not part of the culture in AI. Then Bill Wolf said to me, oh, well, you know, it's about fundraising. If you say so-and-so had this idea but I can now implement it because the technology is better, funding agencies don't wanna hear that. They wanna hear that this is really a new special idea and they're not gonna look it up so you're perfectly free to go ahead and say this is fresh to me. Very good. I was aghast, but that's what I heard. Yeah, I think it's really important to think about the history of what the implications of each step are. We can't know all the implications, impossible, but the implications that we might imagine really, really important. Very good, I completely agree. Another way that you affected my life before I ever knew I would ever meet you is from the fifth generation book, which did have a very significant effect on me and I was really upset when I read it and I'll tell you why. I think I was like 16 or 17 in high school and really upset to see how cool this stuff was and that I was too young but I would not get a chance to be involved in artificial intelligence because it was all about to be done before I even get to college. So, but it did, that reading about that was for me and I think this is true for many other folks and that was when I decided this is what I wanted to do because it wasn't just cute, fun stuff, this was going to affect the world economy and it had some meaning to it. I think that was accidental on your part. When I read it, I thought I was reading something written by, and I pictured you guys as like these big American sort of Texan looking sort of geopolitical strategists who are sort of moving pawns around on the board because of course I didn't know better back then and it was mainly a policy book to be read by sort of diplomats and folks but really I think it hit a lot of us personally as individuals. When you wrote it, which level were you aiming at? Oh, what an interesting question. We were really interested in the technology but we knew that we had to make, we, my co-author was Ed Feigenbaum, Ed Loom's large in my life as you can see. Ed and I wrote this because he called me and he said, hey, the Japanese are doing something really interesting. Let's write a book about it and he sent me the papers. Yeah, this is really interesting. So we thought if we're going to light a fire under American funders, we gotta make sure that they see what the Japanese have in mind and we tried to be as honest as we could. The hype, and there was plenty of hype around the book was about, was frankly due to the publisher who wanted to sell books, that's their job. They like to sell books. So I remember the first ad, my first and only full page ad in the New York Times book review was something to the effect of the next generation of computers are going to speak Japanese. Okay, we didn't say that but it's all books. So we were trying to get a public reaction as opposed to talking to our colleagues and the book was kind of breezy in a way for that reason. I kept putting breezy things in and Ed said, no, take that out, take that out. And in several ways I prevailed with the breeze. Okay, pretty good. It certainly had a big effect on me and my buddies and I'd never knew that in another 30 years I'd be sitting here talking to one of the authors. It's just amazing. So I've got a practical question for you. How would you like us to use your collection? Oh, I hope that it enhances everybody's understanding of where this feel comes from, that it didn't happen in 1956, it didn't happen in 1965, it didn't happen in 1988, that it has a wonderful rich history. And each of these machines has its own history of the humans that surrounded it and what the humans hoped to do with these machines. Joined a wonderful stream of human intellectual activity. Thank you. If you don't mind I'd like to add my own editorial comment here. Something which I think this is meaningful for and the reason I want all my freshmen to go and see these is when we look back and see this. You see who we're remembering in the early days and it was the people who took technology to actually save lives and save the world. I have an issue right now which is that my freshmen come in with exactly that desire. Some of them get scooped up by places like Facebook or other folks like that who they're fine but they're mostly about advertising and entertainment and I need some folks to actually go out and make history for national security and for saving lives in healthcare and so forth. So that's one of the things that I personally hope that we get out of this is to show people in 100 years or 50 years this is what we remember. Oh, well done. Okay. So thank you. So that's probably a good point to begin to draw this to a conclusion. I'm happy for if the panelists are willing for them to stay and mingle and have a conversation with you but hopefully we've whetted your appetite to come and see this collection. It's in the Hunt Library, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday it's open for anyone to come and have a look. Mary Kay is here somewhere, I think. Mary Kay looks after the collection carefully. We do have extended opening hours over the carnival weekend so if you can work your way past funnel cakes and Dunk of Dean challenges and find yourself in Hunt Library you will have a great chance to look at this remarkable collection. So in wrapping up I'd like to thank Mary Kay for her careful stewardship of the collection. Thank the panelists for entertaining and informing us. Once again thank Pamela for her very generous gift. Thank you for being with us. One final early sneak preview announcement is that we have recently extended an offer to someone who's currently working at the Library of Congress to join us as a postdoctoral fellow for the next two years. His special field is the preservation of computers of the 20th century and he will be a great asset in helping us understand this collection and make more of it. Thank you very much. Good afternoon.