In 1940, a 20-year-old science fiction fan from Brooklyn found that he was growing tired of stories that endlessly repeated the myths of Frankenstein and Faust: Robots were created and destroyed their creator; robots were created and destroyed their creator-ad nauseum. So he began writing robot stories of his own. "[They were] robot stories of a new variety," he recalls. The young writer's name, of course, was Isaac Asimov (1964), and the robot stories he began writing that year have become classics of science fiction, the standards by which others are judged.

In 1940, a 20-year-old science fiction fan from Brooklyn found that he was growing tired of stories that endlessly repeated the myths of Frankenstein and Faust: Robots were created and destroyed their creator; robots were created and destroyed their creator; robots were created and destroyed their creator-ad nauseum. So he began writing robot stories of his own. "[They were] robot stories of a new variety," he recalls. "Never, never was one of my robots to turn stupidly on his creator for no purpose but to demonstrate, for one more weary time, the crime and punishment of Faust. My robots were machines designed by engineers, not pseudo-men created by blasphemers. My robots reacted along the rational lines that existed in their'brains' from the moment of construction. " In particular, he imagined that each robot's artificial brain would be imprinted with three engineering safeguards, three Laws of Robotics: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law. The young writer's name, of course, was Isaac Asimov (1964), and the robot stories he began writing that year have become classics of science fiction, the standards by which others are judged. Indeed, because of Asimov one almost never reads about robots turning mindlessly on their masters anymore. But the legends of Frankenstein and Faust are subtle ones, and as the world knows too well, engineering rationality is not always the same thing as wisdom. M Mitchell Waldrop is a reporter for Science Magazine, 1333 H Street N.W., Washington D C. 2COO5. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

This panel, which met in Austin, Texas, discussed the "deep unease among AI researchers who have been around more than the last four years or so ... that perhaps expectations about AI are too high, and that this will eventually result in disaster."

The fact was there were a lot of failures. There I have been assigned the role of survivalist. First I want to were overruns and systems delivered past schedule. This ask, "Has AI paid its way?"... Or to put it another way, is certainly not unique to Naval Electronic System Command. "Have we earned our keep?" I have three answers to that: The most would be systems being acquired for the Yes, yes, and yes.