I’ve noticed this too. Gordon Bell, Wes Clark, and Alan Kay have all been on record saying that they considered the LINC the first personal computer, as it was also designed for use by an individual (a biomedical researcher). Joe November’s excellent book goes into some detail on this. LINC inspired some of the creators of the Alto, both in terms of the user’s experience of controlling the entire machine, but also in some aspects of its hardware architecture. I certainly think LINC belongs in the pre-history of the personal computer, as does Engelbart’s NLS, but I would hesitate to call it a “personal computer” for precisely the reasons you’ve outlined for the IBM 610, which is even earlier. If one took the criteria to be that an individual had complete control over the machine while in use, then TX-0 or even Whirlwind might count as personal computers. The term begins to lack meaning at that point.

On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Allan Olley <allan.olley@utoronto.ca> wrote:

Hello, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/610.html The 610 was under development as the Personal Automatic Computer (acording to this website and according to Bashe et al. in the MIT book IBM's Early Computer, a prototype was operating by 1954 with commercial release by 1957) it was intended as a more real time less batch modey sort of machine unlike other machines of that time, but no one really seriously seems to claim it has any relation to any other "personal computer" either in terms of hardware details (it apparently had very ideosyncratic hardware) or even as vague inspiration. The key point I guess is that it pretty clearly has nothing to do with the microprocessor based computers of the 1970s and later that are usually called personal computers.

I have noticed that the idea of a personal computer and personal computing gets used to describe machines before the microprocessor machines of the 1970s. The website mentions the Bendix G-15 as another example of this (some apparently claim it as the first personal computer and it was released commercially in 1956). The issue here is that any computer an individual has complete control of regardless of its characteristics (size, intended use etc.) can become a personal computer in terms of how that user feels about it and interacts with it. So any computer can be a personal computer in that ambigious sense it seems to me. It also gets complicated because people's interactions with earlier transistor and vacuum tube machines influenced them in designing and using the microprocessor machines that are unambigiously personal computers. So there are connections that should be made that make it complicated.

-- Yours Truly, Allan Olley, PhD

http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, John Impagliazzo wrote:

...

Hi All,

Allegedly, some consider the IBM 610 Auto-Point computer (1959) the ‘first personal computer’. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/plugboard.html Is this true – even slightly true??

John

John Impagliazzo, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Hofstra University IEEE Life Fellow ACM Distinguished Educator

---

This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

Thanks for this discussion. Bashe et al., in their book IBM's Early Computers, explain that the IBM 610 was not developed to answer any market demand ; it reflected the internal needs of IBM’s growing staff of engineers and scientists who used desk calculators. Being not a priority, its development was delayed, but it inspired the successful IBM 1620… and perhaps many small computers marketed by competitors in the late 1950s. So we have a faily good idea of what use was envisioned : A scientist or engineer who needed to perform relatively simple calculations which did not justify the cost of waiting in line to use a mainframe. It would be interesting to know : - what competitive advantage the IBM 610 had over a good desk calculator ; - how the IBM 610 was renamed from Personal Automatic Calculator to Auto-Point Computer (the choice of Computer makes sense, but Auto-Point?) I have an alternative question (sorry if it is half off-topic !). In the early 1970s, the term micro-ordinateur [micro-computer] appeared in various development projects within the French Plan Calcul. It designated any « very small computer », whatever the technology – it was not necessarily related with microprocessors. Was the term micro-computer used in this broad sense in other locations, before 1975 when microprocessor-based micro-computers became the mainstream concept in this market segment ? Best, Pierre Pierre Mounier-Kuhn CNRS & Université Paris-Sorbonne L’Emergence d’une science: l’informatique http://koyre.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/1203/mounier_kuhn_cv_anglais.pdf https://cnrs.academia.edu/PierreMounierKuhn Le 3 mars 2016 à 01:38, Hansen Hsu <hansnhsu@gmail.com> a écrit :

I’ve noticed this too. Gordon Bell, Wes Clark, and Alan Kay have all been on record saying that they considered the LINC the first personal computer, as it was also designed for use by an individual (a biomedical researcher). Joe November’s excellent book goes into some detail on this. LINC inspired some of the creators of the Alto, both in terms of the user’s experience of controlling the entire machine, but also in some aspects of its hardware architecture. I certainly think LINC belongs in the pre-history of the personal computer, as does Engelbart’s NLS, but I would hesitate to call it a “personal computer” for precisely the reasons you’ve outlined for the IBM 610, which is even earlier. If one took the criteria to be that an individual had complete control over the machine while in use, then TX-0 or even Whirlwind might count as personal computers. The term begins to lack meaning at that point.

...

On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Allan Olley <allan.olley@utoronto.ca> wrote:

Hello, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/610.html The 610 was under development as the Personal Automatic Computer (acording to this website and according to Bashe et al. in the MIT book IBM's Early Computer, a prototype was operating by 1954 with commercial release by 1957) it was intended as a more real time less batch modey sort of machine unlike other machines of that time, but no one really seriously seems to claim it has any relation to any other "personal computer" either in terms of hardware details (it apparently had very ideosyncratic hardware) or even as vague inspiration. The key point I guess is that it pretty clearly has nothing to do with the microprocessor based computers of the 1970s and later that are usually called personal computers.

I have noticed that the idea of a personal computer and personal computing gets used to describe machines before the microprocessor machines of the 1970s. The website mentions the Bendix G-15 as another example of this (some apparently claim it as the first personal computer and it was released commercially in 1956). The issue here is that any computer an individual has complete control of regardless of its characteristics (size, intended use etc.) can become a personal computer in terms of how that user feels about it and interacts with it. So any computer can be a personal computer in that ambigious sense it seems to me. It also gets complicated because people's interactions with earlier transistor and vacuum tube machines influenced them in designing and using the microprocessor machines that are unambigiously personal computers. So there are connections that should be made that make it complicated.

-- Yours Truly, Allan Olley, PhD

http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, John Impagliazzo wrote:

...

Hi All,

Allegedly, some consider the IBM 610 Auto-Point computer (1959) the ‘first personal computer’. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/plugboard.html Is this true – even slightly true??

John

John Impagliazzo, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Hofstra University IEEE Life Fellow ACM Distinguished Educator

---

This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

To follow on Petri’s description, the 1960s saw the development of small, cheap digital machines designed to teach the fundamentals of binary circuits and calculation, typically at college level or in technical schools. Thus we may identify two lines of development: 1) Small computers whose archetype was the IBM 610, designed for individual use even if they cost the price of a big car, in a professional environment. 2) Cheaper, smaller « pedagogical » devices, which could be used collectively (such as in a classroom). Best, Pierre Le 3 mars 2016 à 11:35, Petri Paju <petpaju@utu.fi> a écrit :

Thanks Pierre and all. I hope you don’t mind but this reminded me of the minimal computers that some researchers, certainly in Europe, were focusing on in the mid-1950s. One such project was the G1a computer in Goettingen, West Germany, were the son of its developer Wilhelm Hopmann used the easy-to-use computer (that was not even finished at the time) from the first grades at primary school. Cornelio Hopmann, born 1950, wrote to me: ”So when I got my as excercises: calculate the following sums, products etc. (just the normal stuff of primary [school]), my father showed me that with a few keystrokes "his" computer could do the same calculation (just like you would use today a desk-calculator). Once the example of package was established, I was able to finish the other exercises of a package on my own.”

So the 6-7-year-old used this ‘personal computer’ for homework on a daily basis... (the interface being an IBM electric typewriter). In the Annals 2008, I wrote more on these minimal computer projects, including making a copy to Finland.

Best, Petri

Petri Paju PhD, Researcher in the project Towards a Roadmap for Digital History in Finland History of Industrialization & Innovation Group, Aalto University, and Department of Cultural History, University of Turku http://utu.academia.edu/PetriPaju

From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Mounier Kuhn Sent: 3. maaliskuuta 2016 11:53 To: members Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] IBM 610

Thanks for this discussion. Bashe et al., in their book IBM's Early Computers, explain that the IBM 610 was not developed to answer any market demand ; it reflected the internal needs of IBM’s growing staff of engineers and scientists who used desk calculators. Being not a priority, its development was delayed, but it inspired the successful IBM 1620… and perhaps many small computers marketed by competitors in the late 1950s. So we have a faily good idea of what use was envisioned : A scientist or engineer who needed to perform relatively simple calculations which did not justify the cost of waiting in line to use a mainframe. It would be interesting to know : - what competitive advantage the IBM 610 had over a good desk calculator ; - how the IBM 610 was renamed from Personal Automatic Calculator to Auto-Point Computer (the choice of Computer makes sense, but Auto-Point?) I have an alternative question (sorry if it is half off-topic !). In the early 1970s, the term micro-ordinateur [micro-computer] appeared in various development projects within the French Plan Calcul. It designated any « very small computer », whatever the technology – it was not necessarily related with microprocessors. Was the term micro-computer used in this broad sense in other locations, before 1975 when microprocessor-based micro-computers became the mainstream concept in this market segment ? Best, Pierre

Pierre Mounier-Kuhn CNRS & Université Paris-Sorbonne L’Emergence d’une science: l’informatique http://koyre.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/1203/mounier_kuhn_cv_anglais.pdf https://cnrs.academia.edu/PierreMounierKuhn

Le 3 mars 2016 à 01:38, Hansen Hsu <hansnhsu@gmail.com> a écrit :

I’ve noticed this too. Gordon Bell, Wes Clark, and Alan Kay have all been on record saying that they considered the LINC the first personal computer, as it was also designed for use by an individual (a biomedical researcher). Joe November’s excellent book goes into some detail on this. LINC inspired some of the creators of the Alto, both in terms of the user’s experience of controlling the entire machine, but also in some aspects of its hardware architecture. I certainly think LINC belongs in the pre-history of the personal computer, as does Engelbart’s NLS, but I would hesitate to call it a “personal computer” for precisely the reasons you’ve outlined for the IBM 610, which is even earlier. If one took the criteria to be that an individual had complete control over the machine while in use, then TX-0 or even Whirlwind might count as personal computers. The term begins to lack meaning at that point.

On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Allan Olley <allan.olley@utoronto.ca> wrote:

Hello, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/610.html The 610 was under development as the Personal Automatic Computer (acording to this website and according to Bashe et al. in the MIT book IBM's Early Computer, a prototype was operating by 1954 with commercial release by 1957) it was intended as a more real time less batch modey sort of machine unlike other machines of that time, but no one really seriously seems to claim it has any relation to any other "personal computer" either in terms of hardware details (it apparently had very ideosyncratic hardware) or even as vague inspiration. The key point I guess is that it pretty clearly has nothing to do with the microprocessor based computers of the 1970s and later that are usually called personal computers.

I have noticed that the idea of a personal computer and personal computing gets used to describe machines before the microprocessor machines of the 1970s. The website mentions the Bendix G-15 as another example of this (some apparently claim it as the first personal computer and it was released commercially in 1956). The issue here is that any computer an individual has complete control of regardless of its characteristics (size, intended use etc.) can become a personal computer in terms of how that user feels about it and interacts with it. So any computer can be a personal computer in that ambigious sense it seems to me. It also gets complicated because people's interactions with earlier transistor and vacuum tube machines influenced them in designing and using the microprocessor machines that are unambigiously personal computers. So there are connections that should be made that make it complicated.

-- Yours Truly, Allan Olley, PhD

http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, John Impagliazzo wrote:

Hi All,

Allegedly, some consider the IBM 610 Auto-Point computer (1959) the ‘first personal computer’. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/plugboard.html Is this true – even slightly true??

John

John Impagliazzo, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Hofstra University IEEE Life Fellow ACM Distinguished Educator _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

Dear Deborah, The crucial book is Hubert L. Dreyfus, What computers still can't do. A critique of artificial reason (MIT, 1972. 1992). The original What computers can't do, is basically a philosophical argumentation. The revised edition has an ample introduction offering a most readible historical view of the debate as it evolved. AI from its very inception in the 1950s has been accompanied with debates. These debates may have been different in Europe from the US; just like the automation debate in the 1950s was predominantly a socio-economic debate in the US, and when it landed in Europe it had turned into a cultural debate. Our colleague Dick van Lente (University of Rotterdam) published on these issues. I do read Dreyfus with graduate students. For undergraduates I find J. David Bolter, Turing's man (from 1984!) still very readible. To students in CS or AI it will always serve as an eye-opener to the worldviews implicit in their discipline - which to me is the key element of an ethical reflection course. Kind regards, Gerard Alberts, University of Amsterdam ________________________________ Van: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] namens Deborah Douglas [ddouglas@mit.edu] Verzonden: maandag 23 april 2018 3:21 Aan: members Onderwerp: [SIGCIS-Members] Some suggestions on the early history of the ethics of AI I am appealing to the collective for some quick recommendations to help one of my undergraduates interested in the early history of ethics and artificial intelligence. What sorts of articles or books have others used in their classes with undergraduates to help them understand the key issues and concerns? Many thanks, Debbie Douglas Deborah G. Douglas, PhD • Director of Collections and Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum, Room N51-209 • 265 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 • http://web.mit.edu/museum • http://museum.mit.edu/150 • ddouglas@mit.edu<mailto:ddouglas@mit.edu> • 617-253-1766 phone • 617-253-8994 fax

Dear Debbie I teach an undergrad survey course designed to be accessible to non-CS students. For some years I used, as my main required reading to support the class on AI history, Chapter 5 of Daniel Crevier's /AI: the Tumultuous History of the Search for Artificial Intelligence/ (1993) – not an academic text, but I found it to be at just the right level for the points I was trying to put across about early challenges to the effectiveness or advisability of AI implementation, with particular attention to Dreyfus and to Weizenbaum. I also demonstrate ELIZA in class, and would agree with Kevin that it's an excellent way into exploration of the issues, and one that students at all levels of experience can get something out of. All best James On 23/04/2018 14:05, Kevin Driscoll wrote:

Dear Debbie,

I've found that some familiarity with the ELIZA chatbot is helpful for students learning about the history of AI. ELIZA appears often in later literature and provides a generative starting point for thinking about the social and political consequences of AI in society.

In a media studies course about programming, I ask students to compare passages from Weizenbaum's 1966 paper and 1976 follow-up book: - Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA: A Computer Program for the Study of Natural Language Communication Between Man and Machine. Commun. ACM, 9(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168 - Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation (1st edition). San Francisco: W H Freeman & Co.

There are also lots of ELIZAs living on the web for them to play with, e.g.: - http://www.masswerk.at/elizabot/ - https://www.smallsurething.com/implementing-the-famous-eliza-chatbot-in-pyth...

Plus, the racist meltdown of Microsoft's Tay in 2016 offers an extension into the present: - https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist

Best of luck to you and your student!

Kevin Driscoll University of Virginia

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Alberts, Gerard <g.alberts@uva.nl <mailto:g.alberts@uva.nl>> wrote:

Dear Deborah, The crucial book is Hubert L. Dreyfus, /What computers still can't do. A critique of artificial reason/ (MIT, 1972. 1992). /The original What computers can't do/, is basically a philosophical argumentation. The revised edition has an ample introduction offering a most readible historical view of the debate as it evolved. AI from its very inception in the 1950s has been accompanied with debates. These debates may have been different in Europe from the US; just like the automation debate in the 1950s was predominantly a socio-economic debate in the US, and when it landed in Europe it had turned into a cultural debate. Our colleague Dick van Lente (University of Rotterdam) published on these issues.

I do read Dreyfus with graduate students. For undergraduates I find J. David Bolter, /Turing's man/ (from 1984!) still very readible. To students in CS or AI it will always serve as an eye-opener to the worldviews implicit in their discipline - which to me is the key element of an ethical reflection course. Kind regards, Gerard Alberts, University of Amsterdam

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Van:* Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] namens Deborah Douglas [ddouglas@mit.edu <mailto:ddouglas@mit.edu>] *Verzonden:* maandag 23 april 2018 3:21 *Aan:* members *Onderwerp:* [SIGCIS-Members] Some suggestions on the early history of the ethics of AI

I am appealing to the collective for some quick recommendations to help one of my undergraduates interested in the early history of ethics and artificial intelligence.  What sorts of articles or books have others used in their classes with undergraduates to help them understand the key issues and concerns?

Many thanks,

Debbie Douglas

*Deborah G. Douglas, PhD* • Director of Collections and Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum, Room N51-209 • 265 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 • http://web.mit.edu/museum  • http://museum.mit.edu/150 • ddouglas@mit.edu <mailto:ddouglas@mit.edu> •  617-253-1766 phone  •  617-253-8994 fax

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://sigcis.org>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/> and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

I would add the seminal text by AI and HCI pioneer Terry Winograd and his colleague Fernando Flores: https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Computers-Cognition-Foundation-Design/d... And of course the seminal paper below: https://hearingbrain.org/docs/letvin_ieee_1959.pdf On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Jamie Cohen-Cole <jcohencole@gwu.edu> wrote:

Hi Kevin, Debbie

I also pair the two Weizenbaum texts. For the book I use chapters 1,6 (on computer models of the mind), and the last (on dangers of instrumental reason). When I have seniors then the chapter on programmers as gambling addicts has worked well to stimulate discussion especially after they have read Dreyfus’ Rand paper.

Which chapters do you use, Kevin?

Jamie Cohen-Cole Associate Professor Department of American Studies George Washington University 2108 G Street Washington, DC 20052 ph: 202-994-7244 fax: 202-994-8651

On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Kevin Driscoll <kdriscoll@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Dear Debbie,

I've found that some familiarity with the ELIZA chatbot is helpful for students learning about the history of AI. ELIZA appears often in later literature and provides a generative starting point for thinking about the social and political consequences of AI in society.

In a media studies course about programming, I ask students to compare passages from Weizenbaum's 1966 paper and 1976 follow-up book: - Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA: A Computer Program for the Study of Natural Language Communication Between Man and Machine. Commun. ACM, 9(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168 - Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation (1st edition). San Francisco: W H Freeman & Co.

There are also lots of ELIZAs living on the web for them to play with, e.g.: - http://www.masswerk.at/elizabot/ - https://www.smallsurething.com/implementing-the-famous- eliza-chatbot-in-python/

Plus, the racist meltdown of Microsoft's Tay in 2016 offers an extension into the present: - https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist

Best of luck to you and your student!

Kevin Driscoll University of Virginia

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Alberts, Gerard <g.alberts@uva.nl> wrote:

...

Dear Deborah, The crucial book is Hubert L. Dreyfus, *What computers still can't do. A critique of artificial reason* (MIT, 1972. 1992). *The original What computers can't do*, is basically a philosophical argumentation. The revised edition has an ample introduction offering a most readible historical view of the debate as it evolved. AI from its very inception in the 1950s has been accompanied with debates. These debates may have been different in Europe from the US; just like the automation debate in the 1950s was predominantly a socio-economic debate in the US, and when it landed in Europe it had turned into a cultural debate. Our colleague Dick van Lente (University of Rotterdam) published on these issues.

I do read Dreyfus with graduate students. For undergraduates I find J. David Bolter, *Turing's man* (from 1984!) still very readible. To students in CS or AI it will always serve as an eye-opener to the worldviews implicit in their discipline - which to me is the key element of an ethical reflection course. Kind regards, Gerard Alberts, University of Amsterdam

------------------------------ *Van:* Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] namens Deborah Douglas [ddouglas@mit.edu] *Verzonden:* maandag 23 april 2018 3:21 *Aan:* members *Onderwerp:* [SIGCIS-Members] Some suggestions on the early history of the ethics of AI

I am appealing to the collective for some quick recommendations to help one of my undergraduates interested in the early history of ethics and artificial intelligence. What sorts of articles or books have others used in their classes with undergraduates to help them understand the key issues and concerns?

Many thanks,

Debbie Douglas

*Deborah G. Douglas, PhD* • Director of Collections and Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum, Room N51-209 • 265 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 • http://web.mit.edu/museum • http://museum.mit.edu/150 • ddouglas@mit.edu • 617-253-1766 phone • 617-253-8994 fax

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

Luke, If you want to stretch their minds, I would suggest you screen "Colossus: The Forbin Project", one of the earliest cinematic examples of the genre. -- Ian On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Luke Fernandez <luke.fernandez@gmail.com> wrote:

I have also found that students like playing with Eliza. And actually attempting to emulate Turing tests in the classroom can be fun as well.

No social history of the ethics of a.i. would be complete without also examining how these ethical anxieties have been treated by Hollywood. Students usually already come in with some of their own cultural referents (I Robot is popular). But few are familiar with 2001, the original Blade Runner, HER or Ex Machina. They are all provacative forums for examining a.i. ethical anxieties as well as and the larger social forces that shape these worries.

Luke lfernandez.org

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 8:54 AM Yosem Companys <companys@stanford.edu> wrote:

...

I would add the seminal text by AI and HCI pioneer Terry Winograd and his colleague Fernando Flores:

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Computers- Cognition-Foundation-Design/dp/0201112973

And of course the seminal paper below:

https://hearingbrain.org/docs/letvin_ieee_1959.pdf

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Jamie Cohen-Cole <jcohencole@gwu.edu> wrote:

...

Hi Kevin, Debbie

I also pair the two Weizenbaum texts. For the book I use chapters 1,6 (on computer models of the mind), and the last (on dangers of instrumental reason). When I have seniors then the chapter on programmers as gambling addicts has worked well to stimulate discussion especially after they have read Dreyfus’ Rand paper.

Which chapters do you use, Kevin?

Jamie Cohen-Cole Associate Professor Department of American Studies George Washington University 2108 G Street Washington, DC 20052 ph: 202-994-7244 fax: 202-994-8651

On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Kevin Driscoll <kdriscoll@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Dear Debbie,

I've found that some familiarity with the ELIZA chatbot is helpful for students learning about the history of AI. ELIZA appears often in later literature and provides a generative starting point for thinking about the social and political consequences of AI in society.

In a media studies course about programming, I ask students to compare passages from Weizenbaum's 1966 paper and 1976 follow-up book: - Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA: A Computer Program for the Study of Natural Language Communication Between Man and Machine. Commun. ACM, 9(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168 - Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation (1st edition). San Francisco: W H Freeman & Co.

There are also lots of ELIZAs living on the web for them to play with, e.g.: - http://www.masswerk.at/elizabot/ - https://www.smallsurething.com/implementing-the-famous- eliza-chatbot-in-python/

Plus, the racist meltdown of Microsoft's Tay in 2016 offers an extension into the present: - https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft- chatbot-racist

Best of luck to you and your student!

Kevin Driscoll University of Virginia

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Alberts, Gerard <g.alberts@uva.nl> wrote:

...

Dear Deborah, The crucial book is Hubert L. Dreyfus, *What computers still can't do. A critique of artificial reason* (MIT, 1972. 1992). *The original What computers can't do*, is basically a philosophical argumentation. The revised edition has an ample introduction offering a most readible historical view of the debate as it evolved. AI from its very inception in the 1950s has been accompanied with debates. These debates may have been different in Europe from the US; just like the automation debate in the 1950s was predominantly a socio-economic debate in the US, and when it landed in Europe it had turned into a cultural debate. Our colleague Dick van Lente (University of Rotterdam) published on these issues.

I do read Dreyfus with graduate students. For undergraduates I find J. David Bolter, *Turing's man* (from 1984!) still very readible. To students in CS or AI it will always serve as an eye-opener to the worldviews implicit in their discipline - which to me is the key element of an ethical reflection course. Kind regards, Gerard Alberts, University of Amsterdam

------------------------------ *Van:* Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] namens Deborah Douglas [ddouglas@mit.edu] *Verzonden:* maandag 23 april 2018 3:21 *Aan:* members *Onderwerp:* [SIGCIS-Members] Some suggestions on the early history of the ethics of AI

I am appealing to the collective for some quick recommendations to help one of my undergraduates interested in the early history of ethics and artificial intelligence. What sorts of articles or books have others used in their classes with undergraduates to help them understand the key issues and concerns?

Many thanks,

Debbie Douglas

*Deborah G. Douglas, PhD* • Director of Collections and Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum, Room N51-209 • 265 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 • http://web.mit.edu/museum • http://museum.mit.edu/150 • ddouglas@mit.edu • 617-253-1766 phone • 617-253-8994 fax

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

-- Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate The Information School <http://ischool.uw.edu> Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical Narrative Through a Design Lens Principal Investigator, "Reflections on Early Computing and Social Change", UW IRB #42619 Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal <http://tribunalvoices.org> Value Sensitive Design Research Lab <http://vsdesign.org> University of Washington There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

Since the request was regarding ethics of AI, I'll add my recommendation for Weizenbaum's _Computer Power and Human Reason_. I've had good results with senior CS majors reading it--where they've needed help is with the post-Vietnam context that undergirds the chapters on responsibility. You might also want to look at John McCarthy's review, which is available from several sources, but probably easiest to get from ACM SIGART Bulletin Issue 58, June 1976 Pages 4-13 https://doi.org/10.1145/1045264.1045265 There is also Weizenbaum's letter to the editor of CACM regarding computer models of psychiatric disorders, which appears in Communications of the ACM Volume 17 Issue 7, July 1974 Page 425 https://doi.org/10.1145/361011.361081 (That's not easily located via online search.) Cary Gray

Alberts, Gerard <g.alberts@uva.nl> writes:

The crucial book is Hubert L. Dreyfus, What computers still can't do. A critique of artificial reason (MIT, 1972. 1992). The original What computers can't do, is basically a philosophical argumentation. The revised edition has an ample introduction offering a most readible historical view of the debate as it evolved.

For more historical context on Dreyfus's role as AI critic, I like a recent retrospective paper he wrote. This one focuses on the constructive flipside of his famous critique of AI, his less-famous efforts to cultivate, through collaborations with AI researchers, a different kind of AI that would be responsive to his critiques. He doesn't think the efforts were successful, but in my opinion it's an interesting postmortem of that line of work: Hubert L. Dreyfus (2007). Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Artificial Intelligence 171(18): 1137-1160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.10.012 More solidly on the original ethics point, one of the Dreyfus-influenced AI researchers, Phil Agre, has a nice article on how to reconceive of AI research as a "critical technical practice" (admittedly not quite the same way of framing things as the "ethics" frame, but related): Philip E. Agre (1997). Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI. In: Bridging the Great Divide: Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work, Erlbaum, 1997. http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/critical.html -Mark -- Mark J. Nelson The MetaMakers Institute Falmouth University http://www.kmjn.org

Hi Debbie (and all), I'd suggest Safiya Noble's _Algorithms of Oppression_. Chapters of it have been excerpted around the web--in Time magazine and Wired--if you want to give just a small section to your undergrads. I'd also suggest the article about CCM in the Atlantic by Sarah Roberts, which I use in my classes--it's important for students to understand how AI gets implemented and trained. Cynthia B. Lee, a computer scientist at Stanford is also working on these issues and may have some articles that would work for an undergraduate audience. Then there's Meredith Broussard's new _Artificial Unintelligence_ and Virginia Eubanks's _Automating Inequality_. Simone Browne's _Dark Matters_ is useful since the history of AI is also a history of surveillance, relying as it does on categorization and data collection. Latanya Sweeney also has several good articles about the racial and gender biases that construct google search. I also often have my undergrads read Alan Turing's 1950 article in Mind, and talk about how Turing's life and the context of postwar Britain affected his work. I find that giving them the context of early AI research (codebreaking, queerness) alongside the article really helps them recognize the stakes--and that so many of the "new" issues we're confronting today aren't really new at all. Also keep an eye on the work of Luke Stark: https://starkcontrast.co/book And, within a year or two there will be a new edited volume called Your Computer is On Fire published by MIT Press (coedited by Tom Mullaney, Kavita Philip, Ben Peters, and myself) pitched towards undergrads and the general public that looks at the history of everything from Siri's accent imperialism to transphobic algorithmic bias. Best, Mar --written from my phone while traveling, please excuse errors-- ______________________ Marie Hicks, Ph.D. Asst. Professor, History of Technology Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL USA mhicks1@iit.edu | mariehicks.net | @histoftech Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing www.programmedinequality.com On Apr 22, 2018, at 8:21 PM, Deborah Douglas <ddouglas@mit.edu> wrote: I am appealing to the collective for some quick recommendations to help one of my undergraduates interested in the early history of ethics and artificial intelligence. What sorts of articles or books have others used in their classes with undergraduates to help them understand the key issues and concerns? Many thanks, Debbie Douglas Deborah G. Douglas, PhD • Director of Collections and Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum, Room N51-209 • 265 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 • http://web.mit.edu/museum • http://museum.mit.edu/150 • ddouglas@mit.edu • 617-253-1766 phone • 617-253-8994 fax _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

These are very good references. I’ve been teaching a class on AI within a history of digital media courses and one thing that I found useful to let students tinker with the problem of ethics is to let them do in class the Moral Machine test developed at MIT: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ Similar to what has been suggested for ELIZA, students usually are entertained and interested by this, and it helps them reflect on the links between the historical discussions and present concerns. Best Simone *** Dr. Simone Natale Lecturer in Communication and Media Studies Loughborough University Department of Social Science Leicestershire LE11 3TU United Kingdom Phone (work): (+44) (0) 1509223380 Institutional webpage: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/socialsciences/staff/natale-simone.html Academia.edu: https://lboro.academia.edu/SimoneNatale Latest publication: “There are no old media” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12235/abstract From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Luke Stark Sent: 24 April 2018 19:17 To: members Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Some suggestions on the early history of the ethics of AI I’ll repay Mar’s kind shoutout with a plug for her own excellent Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing, which among many other contributions articulates how concepts and discourses of “intelligence” are always gendered (especially in the history of computing/AI). I’ll also plug Jacob Gaboury’s series of articles in Rhizome from several years ago on the queer history of computing along similar lines: http://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/feb/19/queer-computing-1/ More broadly, I think (along with many, some of whom Mar and others have named) it’s valuable to consider “ethics” as a capacious term. The “ethos” of a society covers a lot (social mores, culture, habits, customs, biases, etc etc)! On Apr 24, 2018, at 1:55 PM, M. Hicks <mhicks1@iit.edu<mailto:mhicks1@iit.edu>> wrote: Hi Debbie (and all), I'd suggest Safiya Noble's _Algorithms of Oppression_. Chapters of it have been excerpted around the web--in Time magazine and Wired--if you want to give just a small section to your undergrads. I'd also suggest the article about CCM in the Atlantic by Sarah Roberts, which I use in my classes--it's important for students to understand how AI gets implemented and trained. Cynthia B. Lee, a computer scientist at Stanford is also working on these issues and may have some articles that would work for an undergraduate audience. Then there's Meredith Broussard's new _Artificial Unintelligence_ and Virginia Eubanks's _Automating Inequality_. Simone Browne's _Dark Matters_ is useful since the history of AI is also a history of surveillance, relying as it does on categorization and data collection. Latanya Sweeney also has several good articles about the racial and gender biases that construct google search. I also often have my undergrads read Alan Turing's 1950 article in Mind, and talk about how Turing's life and the context of postwar Britain affected his work. I find that giving them the context of early AI research (codebreaking, queerness) alongside the article really helps them recognize the stakes--and that so many of the "new" issues we're confronting today aren't really new at all. Also keep an eye on the work of Luke Stark: https://starkcontrast.co/book<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstarkcontrast.co%2Fbook&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397310934&sdata=2OVpt3VaY6DPhNS1sK3R4p%2FT1vUT1VC5OwlhTZ3wk3w%3D&reserved=0> And, within a year or two there will be a new edited volume called Your Computer is On Fire published by MIT Press (coedited by Tom Mullaney, Kavita Philip, Ben Peters, and myself) pitched towards undergrads and the general public that looks at the history of everything from Siri's accent imperialism to transphobic algorithmic bias. Best, Mar --written from my phone while traveling, please excuse errors-- ______________________ Marie Hicks, Ph.D. Asst. Professor, History of Technology Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL USA mhicks1@iit.edu<mailto:mhicks1@iit.edu> | mariehicks.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mariehicks.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397310934&sdata=fFjmAbX8yD%2Fged590iSlQ5Ua73j3A5jj9iU4GmR8G9Q%3D&reserved=0> | @histoftech<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhistoftech&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397310934&sdata=fVj86SoOtR2plABsGNg7py0xKur444WYCFoTmuxrKdU%3D&reserved=0> Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing www.programmedinequality.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.programmedinequality.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397310934&sdata=udp4EAFOF5wwwcjjOId6sVydfHAbjn%2BnQLJ5UBt24dI%3D&reserved=0> On Apr 22, 2018, at 8:21 PM, Deborah Douglas <ddouglas@mit.edu<mailto:ddouglas@mit.edu>> wrote: I am appealing to the collective for some quick recommendations to help one of my undergraduates interested in the early history of ethics and artificial intelligence. What sorts of articles or books have others used in their classes with undergraduates to help them understand the key issues and concerns? Many thanks, Debbie Douglas Deborah G. Douglas, PhD • Director of Collections and Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum, Room N51-209 • 265 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 • http://web.mit.edu/museum<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2Fmuseum&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397310934&sdata=5vXtBkOBRNfMImZF31Un%2FPg4yB99JQrSicrYwC1vbqA%3D&reserved=0> • http://museum.mit.edu/150<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmuseum.mit.edu%2F150&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397467191&sdata=aR%2B7GgL4tcjRxejqAQoJ5SCCy%2Fm4G320hpO3i8B9WJ8%3D&reserved=0> • ddouglas@mit.edu<mailto:ddouglas@mit.edu> • 617-253-1766 phone • 617-253-8994 fax _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsigcis.org&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397467191&sdata=%2BZLVjoDby%2FBWfALGFdCbr7UJ320UOvWTFDLgMuADS90%3D&reserved=0>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis.org%2Fpipermail%2Fmembers-sigcis.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397467191&sdata=80qdkOQi%2B%2FtFejFKDEFNbMAJTuAR8xdBT7Wrqr7FbE0%3D&reserved=0> and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fmembers-sigcis.org&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397467191&sdata=ZjEXvSPH0kuy2e3UG6J2Fm84RBzE9Fypnj6Ix%2FHS%2Bak%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis.org%2Fpipermail%2Fmembers-sigcis.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397467191&sdata=80qdkOQi%2B%2FtFejFKDEFNbMAJTuAR8xdBT7Wrqr7FbE0%3D&reserved=0 and you can change your subscription options at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fmembers-sigcis.org&data=02%7C01%7Cluke.stark%40dartmouth.edu%7C3ae33c10871d4f4d7a0608d5aa0c961f%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636601893397467191&sdata=ZjEXvSPH0kuy2e3UG6J2Fm84RBzE9Fypnj6Ix%2FHS%2Bak%3D&reserved=0

The 1620 had very few logic circuits; it looked up sums in a table instead. It’s nickname was “CADET”: “can’t add; doesn’t even try!” There is a 1620 preserved at the American Computer Museum in Bozeman, Montana. A few years ago, Ted Hoff was given an award by the museum. As he walked by the 1620, he remarked that had used one, and that the machine’s creative use of memory in place of logic convinced him that it would be possible to create a processor on a sliver of silicon—what became the Intel 4004. Paul Ceruzzi ceruzzip@si.edu<mailto:ceruzzip@si.edu> 202-633-2414 From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Murray Turoff Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 12:06 PM To: Mounier Kuhn <mounier@msh-paris.fr> Cc: members <members@sigcis.org> Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] IBM 610 Ahhh! I worked on the IBM 1620 for IBM in san jose for a year 1960-1961. It was a "personal computer" about the size of a desk. It had a continuous memory and you could set up the word length you wanted. Memory was based upon our standard digital system to the base 10. At that point in time there was only three machines at the San Jose plant and a group of us were working on applications. I wrote a guide to machine level programming and debugging and worked with others on a Fortran System as well a numerical control application package. It was a fun machine to work with. At the San Jose plant a lot of sales people were brought in to be educated in new but not yet released products. They always sang IBM songs to start the meeting. I think somehwere i have burried an IBM song book. They were extremely loyal as some them were with IBM in 1929 and it was only IBM and ATT that did not fire any professional during that recession. Many had nothing much to do so they started a song writing contest which resulted in the song book. I have never checked if the song book is online anywhere.

The Computer History Museum restored an IBM 1620 to working order back in 2004. It was exhibited frequently in a specially-designed ‘computer lab’ as one might have looked in 1965. Visitors could enter programs directly at the IBM Model B typewriter used as in the input device, print out their results, then take them home as a souvenir. You can read a full project description here: Dag Spicer, "The IBM 1620 Restoration Project", IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, vol.27, no. 3, pp. 33-43, July-September 2005, doi:10.1109/MAHC.2005.46 Dag On Mar 3, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family@gmail.com<mailto:dave.walden.family@gmail.com>> wrote: On 3/3/2016 12:21 PM, Ceruzzi, Paul wrote: The 1620 had very few logic circuits; it looked up sums in a table instead. It’s nickname was “CADET”: “can’t add; doesn’t even try!” There is a 1620 preserved at the American Computer Museum in Bozeman, Montana. A few years ago, Ted Hoff was given an award by the museum. As he walked by the 1620, he remarked that had used one, and that the machine’s creative use of memory in place of logic convinced him that it would be possible to create a processor on a sliver of silicon—what became the Intel 4004. Hoff and the 1620 influence on the 4004 is discussed at http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Oral_History/Intel_4004_2/... _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

Here is the text http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/tripping-through-ibms-astonishingly-... And if you just want to hear Ever Onward--THE IBM song have a listen here http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/tripping-through-ibms-astonishingly-... Enjoy! On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Murray Turoff <murray.turoff@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahhh! I worked on the IBM 1620 for IBM in san jose for a year 1960-1961. It was a "personal computer" about the size of a desk. It had a continuous memory and you could set up the word length you wanted. Memory was based upon our standard digital system to the base 10. At that point in time there was only three machines at the San Jose plant and a group of us were working on applications. I wrote a guide to machine level programming and debugging and worked with others on a Fortran System as well a numerical control application package. It was a fun machine to work with.

At the San Jose plant a lot of sales people were brought in to be educated in new but not yet released products. They always sang IBM songs to start the meeting. I think somehwere i have burried an IBM song book. They were extremely loyal as some them were with IBM in 1929 and it was only IBM and ATT that did not fire any professional during that recession. Many had nothing much to do so they started a song writing contest which resulted in the song book. I have never checked if the song book is online anywhere.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Mounier Kuhn <mounier@msh-paris.fr> wrote:

...

Thanks for this discussion. Bashe et al., in their book *IBM's Early Computers,* explain that the IBM 610 was not developed to answer any market demand ; it reflected the internal needs of IBM’s growing staff of engineers and scientists who used desk calculators. Being not a priority, its development was delayed, but it inspired the successful IBM 1620… and perhaps many small computers marketed by competitors in the late 1950s. So we have a faily good idea of what use was envisioned : A scientist or engineer who needed to perform relatively simple calculations which did not justify the cost of waiting in line to use a mainframe.

It would be interesting to know :

- what competitive advantage the IBM 610 had over a good desk calculator ;

- how the IBM 610 was renamed from Personal Automatic Calculator to Auto-Point Computer (the choice of *Computer* makes sense, but *Auto-Point*?)

I have an alternative question (sorry if it is half off-topic !). In the early 1970s, the term* micro-ordinateur* [*micro-computer*] appeared in various development projects within the French Plan Calcul. It designated any « very small computer », whatever the technology – it was not necessarily related with microprocessors. Was the term *micro-computer *used in this broad sense in other locations, before 1975 when microprocessor-based micro-computers became the mainstream concept in this market segment ?

Best, Pierre

Pierre Mounier-Kuhn CNRS & Université Paris-Sorbonne L’Emergence d’une science: l’informatique <http://pups.paris-sorbonne.fr/catalogue/centre-roland-mousnier/linformatique-en-france-de-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale-au-plan-calcul> http://koyre.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/1203/mounier_kuhn_cv_anglais.pdf <http://koyre.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/400/cv_mounier_kuhn.pdf> https://cnrs.academia.edu/PierreMounierKuhn

Le 3 mars 2016 à 01:38, Hansen Hsu <hansnhsu@gmail.com> a écrit :

I’ve noticed this too. Gordon Bell, Wes Clark, and Alan Kay have all been on record saying that they considered the LINC the first personal computer, as it was also designed for use by an individual (a biomedical researcher). Joe November’s excellent book goes into some detail on this. LINC inspired some of the creators of the Alto, both in terms of the user’s experience of controlling the entire machine, but also in some aspects of its hardware architecture. I certainly think LINC belongs in the pre-history of the personal computer, as does Engelbart’s NLS, but I would hesitate to call it a “personal computer” for precisely the reasons you’ve outlined for the IBM 610, which is even earlier. If one took the criteria to be that an individual had complete control over the machine while in use, then TX-0 or even Whirlwind might count as personal computers. The term begins to lack meaning at that point.

On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Allan Olley <allan.olley@utoronto.ca> wrote:

Hello, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/610.html The 610 was under development as the Personal Automatic Computer (acording to this website and according to Bashe et al. in the MIT book IBM's Early Computer, a prototype was operating by 1954 with commercial release by 1957) it was intended as a more real time less batch modey sort of machine unlike other machines of that time, but no one really seriously seems to claim it has any relation to any other "personal computer" either in terms of hardware details (it apparently had very ideosyncratic hardware) or even as vague inspiration. The key point I guess is that it pretty clearly has nothing to do with the microprocessor based computers of the 1970s and later that are usually called personal computers.

I have noticed that the idea of a personal computer and personal computing gets used to describe machines before the microprocessor machines of the 1970s. The website mentions the Bendix G-15 as another example of this (some apparently claim it as the first personal computer and it was released commercially in 1956). The issue here is that any computer an individual has complete control of regardless of its characteristics (size, intended use etc.) can become a personal computer in terms of how that user feels about it and interacts with it. So any computer can be a personal computer in that ambigious sense it seems to me. It also gets complicated because people's interactions with earlier transistor and vacuum tube machines influenced them in designing and using the microprocessor machines that are unambigiously personal computers. So there are connections that should be made that make it complicated.

-- Yours Truly, Allan Olley, PhD

http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, John Impagliazzo wrote:

Hi All,

Allegedly, some consider the IBM 610 Auto-Point computer (1959) the ‘first personal computer’. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/plugboard.html Is this true – even slightly true??

John

John Impagliazzo, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Hofstra University IEEE Life Fellow ACM Distinguished Educator

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

--

*please send messages to murray.turoff@gmail.com <murray.turoff@gmail.com> do not use @njit.edu <http://njit.edu> addressDistinguished Professor EmeritusInformation Systems, NJIThomepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff <http://is.njit.edu/turoff>*

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

-- James W. Cortada Senior Research Fellow Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota jcortada@umn.edu 608-274-6382

Don Rex, IBM San Jose original ME, has a good memory - still intact as he approaches his 91st birthday. I'd be happy to ask for Don's input if you think he might have been associated with the 610 effort at San Jose. I don't have a good feel for how quickly the San Jose lab grew from a handful of folks to many departments and multiple buildings. We have recordings of the IBM band with chorus at Endicott and Glendale, the longest running corporate band in the US - started at ITR. Alas the originals were recorded by a boom box on a chair; we have cleaned up the files (removing street noise from lunch time plaza concerts), but there is no sparkle in the sound. If anyone is interested in low quality audio files, please let me know. Playlist attached. Susan On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Murray Turoff <murray.turoff@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahhh! I worked on the IBM 1620 for IBM in san jose for a year 1960-1961. It was a "personal computer" about the size of a desk. It had a continuous memory and you could set up the word length you wanted. Memory was based upon our standard digital system to the base 10. At that point in time there was only three machines at the San Jose plant and a group of us were working on applications. I wrote a guide to machine level programming and debugging and worked with others on a Fortran System as well a numerical control application package. It was a fun machine to work with.

At the San Jose plant a lot of sales people were brought in to be educated in new but not yet released products. They always sang IBM songs to start the meeting. I think somehwere i have burried an IBM song book. They were extremely loyal as some them were with IBM in 1929 and it was only IBM and ATT that did not fire any professional during that recession. Many had nothing much to do so they started a song writing contest which resulted in the song book. I have never checked if the song book is online anywhere.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Mounier Kuhn <mounier@msh-paris.fr> wrote:

...

Thanks for this discussion. Bashe et al., in their book *IBM's Early Computers,* explain that the IBM 610 was not developed to answer any market demand ; it reflected the internal needs of IBM’s growing staff of engineers and scientists who used desk calculators. Being not a priority, its development was delayed, but it inspired the successful IBM 1620… and perhaps many small computers marketed by competitors in the late 1950s. So we have a faily good idea of what use was envisioned : A scientist or engineer who needed to perform relatively simple calculations which did not justify the cost of waiting in line to use a mainframe.

It would be interesting to know :

- what competitive advantage the IBM 610 had over a good desk calculator ;

- how the IBM 610 was renamed from Personal Automatic Calculator to Auto-Point Computer (the choice of *Computer* makes sense, but *Auto-Point*?)

I have an alternative question (sorry if it is half off-topic !). In the early 1970s, the term* micro-ordinateur* [*micro-computer*] appeared in various development projects within the French Plan Calcul. It designated any « very small computer », whatever the technology – it was not necessarily related with microprocessors. Was the term *micro-computer *used in this broad sense in other locations, before 1975 when microprocessor-based micro-computers became the mainstream concept in this market segment ?

Best, Pierre

Pierre Mounier-Kuhn CNRS & Université Paris-Sorbonne L’Emergence d’une science: l’informatique <http://pups.paris-sorbonne.fr/catalogue/centre-roland-mousnier/linformatique-en-france-de-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale-au-plan-calcul> http://koyre.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/1203/mounier_kuhn_cv_anglais.pdf <http://koyre.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/400/cv_mounier_kuhn.pdf> https://cnrs.academia.edu/PierreMounierKuhn

Le 3 mars 2016 à 01:38, Hansen Hsu <hansnhsu@gmail.com> a écrit :

I’ve noticed this too. Gordon Bell, Wes Clark, and Alan Kay have all been on record saying that they considered the LINC the first personal computer, as it was also designed for use by an individual (a biomedical researcher). Joe November’s excellent book goes into some detail on this. LINC inspired some of the creators of the Alto, both in terms of the user’s experience of controlling the entire machine, but also in some aspects of its hardware architecture. I certainly think LINC belongs in the pre-history of the personal computer, as does Engelbart’s NLS, but I would hesitate to call it a “personal computer” for precisely the reasons you’ve outlined for the IBM 610, which is even earlier. If one took the criteria to be that an individual had complete control over the machine while in use, then TX-0 or even Whirlwind might count as personal computers. The term begins to lack meaning at that point.

On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Allan Olley <allan.olley@utoronto.ca> wrote:

Hello, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/610.html The 610 was under development as the Personal Automatic Computer (acording to this website and according to Bashe et al. in the MIT book IBM's Early Computer, a prototype was operating by 1954 with commercial release by 1957) it was intended as a more real time less batch modey sort of machine unlike other machines of that time, but no one really seriously seems to claim it has any relation to any other "personal computer" either in terms of hardware details (it apparently had very ideosyncratic hardware) or even as vague inspiration. The key point I guess is that it pretty clearly has nothing to do with the microprocessor based computers of the 1970s and later that are usually called personal computers.

I have noticed that the idea of a personal computer and personal computing gets used to describe machines before the microprocessor machines of the 1970s. The website mentions the Bendix G-15 as another example of this (some apparently claim it as the first personal computer and it was released commercially in 1956). The issue here is that any computer an individual has complete control of regardless of its characteristics (size, intended use etc.) can become a personal computer in terms of how that user feels about it and interacts with it. So any computer can be a personal computer in that ambigious sense it seems to me. It also gets complicated because people's interactions with earlier transistor and vacuum tube machines influenced them in designing and using the microprocessor machines that are unambigiously personal computers. So there are connections that should be made that make it complicated.

-- Yours Truly, Allan Olley, PhD

http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, John Impagliazzo wrote:

Hi All,

Allegedly, some consider the IBM 610 Auto-Point computer (1959) the ‘first personal computer’. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/plugboard.html Is this true – even slightly true??

John

John Impagliazzo, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Hofstra University IEEE Life Fellow ACM Distinguished Educator

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

--

*please send messages to murray.turoff@gmail.com <murray.turoff@gmail.com> do not use @njit.edu <http://njit.edu> addressDistinguished Professor EmeritusInformation Systems, NJIThomepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff <http://is.njit.edu/turoff>*

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

-- Susan Sherwood, Executive Director Center for Technology & Innovation 321 Water Street, Binghamton, NY 13901 Future home of TechWorks! Experience Innovation - past, present, & future Telephone 607-723-8600 Website www.ctandi.org