Talk:Kevin Warwick/Archive 1

NPOV

Just read the last 2 paragraphs of the last section... Genjix 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

In response to the request for a picture, I submit this image in particular for discussion. As may be clearly seen, but for the sake of celerity, it is the cover of an issue of Wired Magazine featuring him prominently. I believe it can easily be demonstrated to be fair use, as its sole purpose on this web page would be for the dual and legally justifiable purposes of illustrating the man's appearance, as well as his oft-cited tendency to court media attention. It works in this article on a number of different levels and I feel, as such, that it would make the ideal representation. However, I have no wish to be accused of copyright infringement, and so I here, as antesequently declared, submit it to the concerned Wikipedian community to determine its appropriateness. If it is rejected, there are dozens of other images of the man all over the internet, as may be expected, though I feel this one in particular, for the aforementioned reasons, is exceptional for the context. - jove

---

A question occurs to me. Kevin Warwick's futurist claims seem a bit silly even to me. However, the entry says people regard his experiments with extreme skepticism. Has anyone publicly accused him of not doing what he says he's done, empirically speaking, or denied that he plans to do what he says he plans to do? Or did the writer of that comment mean people doubt K.W.'s claims about the importance of his experiments? His futurist claims do not affect the truth or falsity of his experimental claims. His publicity-seeking does not affect the truth or falsity of either his futurist claims or his experimental claims. --Dan

Hi Dan - I can help with that question. The only experimental claims that were criticized were the ones that were either blown out of proportion or incorrectly reported by the media. In a nutshell, he had an rfid-like chip implemented in his arm. The chip only broadcasted a single id number, that's all. A series of computers with rfid-receivers across his office were programmed to react to that chip and do things like say his name or turn on the lights when he came close to them. That's the claim, and there's nothing special about it - everyone knows that's possible today. BUT, for some reason the media (especially the tabloids) reported the story incorrectly by stating that 'as soon as the chip was implemented, the office reacted to his presense and started talking to him, turning on the lights, etc'. Now that sounds silly of course, and unfortunately a few decent publication like the register believe this was the official line from KW, when it fact, it wasn't. KW is a victim of the media game he likes so much to play... but he's not a kook at all, in fact his work is quite interesting - but never really THAT groundbreaking. I hope this clear things up a bit! Adidas 21:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I should have added, he is also criticized for making wild claims such in 1997 claiming that robots with the intelligence of a cat where 'coming soon' and robots with the intelligence of humans potentially in '10 years'. We got 2 years left :). He also talks about a future where terminator-like machines would enslave the human race (he must have loved the matrix). The latest implant he had was controlled by an external bracelet which looked, well... cheesy. He also booked a plane ticket for his 'robot cat' which turned out to look like a 15yo mechano-based robotic home project (see for yourself) Adidas 22:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Warwick quote: 'In late August 1998, I had a silicon chip transponder surgically implanted into my left arm. With this in place, when I moved around the cybernetics building at Reading university, doors opened and lights came on automatically. The building's computer even said hello to me when I arrived in the morning.' Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3954989,00.html

How does this differ from carrying around an RF proximity-sensor key, or having an identifier tag implanted in a dog, or even wearing a coat with an RF store theft-detection tag?

Perhaps it has to do with having it inside the body, rather than outside? But implanted electronics is much older than that: heart pacemakers, to give one very serious example of a system which is nowadays not only implanted, but also often remotely reprogrammable.

So, in a world where people owe their continued lives to having isotope-powered computer-controlled remotely reprogrammable devices implanted near their hearts, how does having a proximity-sensor chip implanted subcutaneously make you into a cyborg?

But, if so, what about the people who use brain implants to control Parkinson's disease, and have a remote control unit to control their microprocessor-controlled brain implants? Surely, by Kevin Warwick's standards, these people are already 'true' cyborgs, far and away beyond anything Warwick has done to himself.

There are interesting and serious things being done in the area of machine/nervous system integration - see the work on growing nerve cells on silicon substrates, for example. But I'm not sure where Kevin Warwick fits in.

-- The Anome

I don't particularly care whether anyone calls Kevin Warwick a cyborg. I do feel interest in telepathy, but I reserve judgement on the experiment Warwick says he plans for Feb.

I take it no one's accused Kevin Warwick of falsifying empirically meaningful data?

I'd like to see more on this nerve cell-silicon work you mentioned. --Dan

As a very quick answer to "where Kevin Warwick fits in", his ultimate aim is to have a chip directly interfacing with his nervous system - in fact, since your last comment, he has successfully had a second chip implanted with exactly this kind of interface. The first was just a proof-of-concept in terms of where they wanted the chip to go. Unlike Steve Mann, he does not claim to be the first cyborg, merely a new / experimental form of cyborg.

I will update / improve the article when I have a bit more time - I'm rather busy with some coursework for one of his colleagues at the moment...

- IMSoP 20:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

In case it ever comes back, the (currently dead) URL of the Kevin Watch site was http://www.kevinwarwick.org.uk - IMSoP 20:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, it's live - not updated, but viewable at least. I'll shove the link back in. - IMSoP 02:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I just thought I'd add a disclaimer, since I don't seem to have already, that although my main aim in editing this article has been to remove the overly negative PoV, I may be broadly biased in the opposite direction, having studied at Reading and therefore met him and been taught by him. He's certainly a bit of a poser, but I don't think he's deserving of anything quite so scathing as some people seem keen to publish... - IMSoP 15:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this OK / acceptable?

'He is also known to have claimed personal credit for robotics work of his graduate students on live television, only to backtrack and say it was a student project when the robot broke down on air. Various members of his department left in disgust and moved to the Cyberlife Technology company due to similar incidents.'

- I seem to recall the first event on daytime TV but I couldn't swear to it, not verifiable. - The bit about 'left in disgust' seems a bit strong and unsubstantiated. Kevinb 21:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it for the time being, because it does all seem rather hard to verify. It can always be reinserted later if we can obtain some strong supporting evidence. - IMSoP 18:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's SOP for supervisors to claim graduate work as their own, because in essence it is. Whenever an academic presents work, they present the work of the entire group they lead. AlecZorab 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for other fields, but in every area of Computer Science I've seen talks in, speakers are meticulous about presenting the names of all people involved in research. Whether this applies to non-academic presentation I can't say. 128.84.98.57 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion wars on this page

I've noticed a bit of a conflict going on between two different versions of this page, attempting to emphasis/de-emphasis certain points. I've tried to come up with a solution that adheres as closely as possible to verifiable facts and the Wikipedia policy of "Neutral Point of View". For instance: the fact that he is publically criticised for courting the media is undeniable, as is his general reputation for publicising his work; that he does so at the cost of serious research is, however, an opinion, and should be presented as such.

I would urge anyone who feels that the current version of the article is not fair and balanced to discuss their opinions here. Preferably, please create an account so you can be identified as a person and not a number (it really doesn't take more than 30 seconds; you only need type in a username and a password, and that's it). I look forward to some contructive discussion. - IMSoP 18:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I wish i could be his apprentice. *sighs* --Cyberman 02:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I actually got to email him. ^_^ --Cyberman 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Wonder what he's up to at the moment - also was there any damage to hand movement? - I notice on his site that it was being monitored but no result or link to result. Kevinb 00:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the Video of him speaking at WhatTheHack (link added below article), he seems to be doing fine (Juli,2005)

RFID & GPS

The statement at the end of the reference does in fact say that Already, global-positioning-system chips have become common accouterments on jewelry or clothing in Mexico. However, this is a mistake. GPS receivers are too large and power hungry to be used as "accouterments". Do you think Mexico would be a market leader in a field like this? Do you see them for sale in your area? The author has confused them with the RFID units which are the subject of the article. The RFID units use very little power, too little power to run a GPS receiver, which needs a fairly powerful microprocessor to do its calculations. Also GPS units cost way too much for this type of use. And GPS receivers are much more than just a "chip"— they need significant amounts of RAM, ROM, interface logic, battery, antenna, usually a display and user interface, etc. which belies the "chip" statement. You might want to take a look at the RFID and GPS articles, which clarify some of these points. The only proof I can offer, is that I am certain you will be unable to find company advertising a device as described in the article. --Blainster 23:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible solution to the problem: some types of jewelry are referred to as Gps-jewelry. However this term refers to gold plated silver. That could be what the reporter saw advertised and misunderstood. --Blainster 08:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I've had Kevin Warwick for lectures, one of which had the video of him having the nerve implant done, very gruesome. I think it's worth noting that most of his fellow lecturers are of the opinion that he drums up lots of publicity but not really much else.

More to the point, the comments about locators in Mexico do not mention Warwick and thus don't belong on this page. They belong in the See Also section at best. Ashmoo 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Funding

Can I get help tracking down the funding sources for Kevin Warwick's research? I can't find any reference to a funding body (which should always be acknowledged, according to standard procedures in science, and usually according to the terms and conditions of the funding body). Perhaps it is all funded by himself? - In which case I think this should be noted on the page. segurador 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indophile

Is the term "Indophile" an accepted expression? If it's referring to a quote he made, then it should be something like "Professor Warrick enjoys visiting India so much as to describe himself as an "indophile". " If it's neither a quotation, nor an accepted expression, then can the article be edited suitably. Thanks peterismeok 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

An accepted expression? Its a word. Yes, you will find it in a dictionary. An expression has to be a phrase. One word can not really be termed an expression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, wiktionary has definitions for expression as "a particular way of phrasing an idea" and "a colloquialism or idiom". Since the word "indophile" is an idiomatic formation from the suffix -phile, I would say the question of whether this is an "accepted expression" is a good one - i.e. how colloquial or informal is this term?

My feeling is that words like this (in a formal article, rather than a direct quotation) have the unhelpful habit of making something sound technical or academic, without having any recognised academic meaning. - IMSoP (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision at 16:53, 31 August 2007

I reverted revision 154836483, by Dicklyon, which was itself a revision because I could see no reason for it. It didn't seem malicious, just odd and in some cases it actually broke links to other articles. If there was a good reason, go ahead and revert my revision of the earlier revision but please explain your reasoning. Thanks. AdamBMorgan 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have explained. See my comments at User_talk:147.32.80.9, review his contribs, and see if you agree that this single-purpose editor is in a clear conflict of interest situation; probably it's Warwick himself, given all the personal details that he is posting. Without reliable sources for verification, this stuff is not appropriate. Dicklyon 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bioethics and other information

Some details, with better/appropriate references, from above, seem sensible to be included - others, e.g. other interests, seem questionable. Volunteers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.1.161 (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Temporary removed from the article ... and replaced

I temporary removed the following three items from the article because I don't think these kind of items should be in a wikipedia article in it's current from. (I Have removed those items because they are an invitation to tell the story twice of even three or four time. An article has to have a clear and lasting structure that avoids these things - Mdd 10:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Present Research

As well as his implant studies Warwick presently heads an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council supported research project which investigates the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques in order to suitably stimulate and translate patterns of electrical activity from living cultured neural networks in order to utilise the networks for the control of mobile robots. Hence a biological brain actually provides the behaviour process for each robot. It is expected that the method will be extended to the control of a robot head.

Along with Tipu Aziz and his team at John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, Warwick is helping to design the next generation of Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease . Instead of stimulating the brain all the time, the aim is for the device to predict when stimulation is needed and to apply the signals prior to any tremors occurring to stop them before they even start.

Warwick also heads the Reading University team in a number of European Community projects such as FIDIS looking at issues concerned with the future of identity and ETHICBOTS which is considering the ethical aspects of robots and cyborgs.

Other activities

As well as the Project Cyborg work, Warwick has been involved in several of the major robotics developments within the Cybernetics Department at Reading. These include the "seven dwarves", a version of which was given away in kit form as Cybot on the cover of Real Robots Magazine.

He is a self confessed Indophile and has been to India five times. On two of his visits he has delivered lectures at Techfest , the annual science and technology extravaganza of Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.

He also presented the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures in 2000 on the theme of robots, using examples from research at Reading and at other British universities.

Warwick's claims that robots that can program themselves to avoid each other while operating in a group raise the issue of self-organisation, and as such might be the major impetus in following developments in this area. In particular, the works of Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana, once in the province of pure speculation now have become immediately relevant with respect to synthetic intelligence. Cyborg-type systems not only are homeostatic (meaning that they are abe to preserve stable internal conditions in various environments) but adaptive, if they are to survive. Testing the claims of Varela and Maturana via synthetic devices is the larger and more serious concern in the discussion about Warwick and those involved in similar research. "Pulling the plug" on independent devices cannot be as simple as it appears, for if the device displays sufficient intelligence and assumes a diagnostic and prognostic stature, we may ultimately one day be forced to decide between what it could be telling us as counterintuitive (but correct) and our impulse to disconnect because of our limited and "intuitive" perceptions. Warwick's robots seemed to have exhibited behavior not anticipated by the research, one such robot "committing suicide" because it could not cope with its environment. In a more complex setting, it may be asked whether a "natural selection" may be possible, neural networks being the major operative.

Personal opinions

Warwick is known for taking opportunities to publicise his work, and often appears on radio and TV interviews. He also has very outspoken views on the future, particularly with respect to artificial intelligence and its impact on the human species: he is a proponent of the strong AI view that machines will eventually become at least as intelligent as human beings, and argues that we will need to use technology to enhance ourselves in order to avoid being overtaken. He also points out that there are many limits, such as our sensorimotor abilities, that we can overcome with machines, and is on record as saying that he wants to gain these abilities: "There is no way I want to stay a mere human."

His tendency to court the media has led some of Warwick's critics to accuse him of concentrating on publicity at the cost of research, grossly exaggerating the importance and implications of his "experiments." For example, the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour complained to the organisers of the 2000 Christmas Lectures about their choice of Kevin Warwick, prior to his appearance. They claimed that "he is not a spokesman for our subject and allowing him influence through the Christmas lectures is a danger to the public perception of science."

The Register nicknamed him "Captain Cyborg". There was also a now-defunct website called Kevin Warwick Watch, logging his media appearances. His supporters assert that the publicity he courts around his research is also important as it generates interest in his work and helps to inform the public, as well as skeptical academics as to some of the possibilities and ethical concerns. It is also claimed to be valuable outreach for the field of Cybernetics as a whole.

What to do with these items

The facts of these three items can be implemented into the new structure of the article. - Mdd 09:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will sone implement these proposed changes into the article myselve. - Mdd 09:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented the info from these three sections into the article, as far as it concerned notable biographical info. - Mdd 11:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proponent of the strong AI view?

According to the article: "Warwick has very outspoken views on the future, particularly with respect to artificial intelligence and its impact on the human species: he is a proponent of the strong AI view that machines will eventually become at least as intelligent as human beings, and argues that we will need to use technology to enhance ourselves in order to avoid being overtaken."

I had a lecture with Kevin Warwick today and he specifically said he is not a proponent of the strong AI view. However, this sentence does not seem to actually concern the strong AI view at all; rather it concerns the idea of machines becoming as intelligent as humans. The strong AI view is that AI can be made by causing computers to think the same way as humans, not that they will become as good at it. It refers to the method of being intelligent, not the level of intelligence. If there are no objections, I will change this sentence to read: "Warwick has very outspoken views on the future, particularly with respect to artificial intelligence and its impact on the human species, and argues that we will need to use technology to enhance ourselves in order to avoid being overtaken." This edit will remove the erroneous statement that Warwick favours the strong AI view, and also removes the incorrect definition of strong AI. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this suggested mod - sensible correction. Go ahead. - Bradka 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Modifications 11 Oct

Reverted to 8 Oct version - all these points were dealt with in the overhaul previously carried out by User:Mdd - User:Bradka —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, unless by "dealt with" you mean "were swept under the carpet". A visitor reading this whitewashed page would have no idea of the firestorm amongst AI academics caused by Warwick's selection for the Christmas Lectures, nor would they know about his over-exposure in the media making him a target for satire (for example, like the page on Tony Slattery is happy to state). The page as it stands reads like a puff-piece for Warwick. 192.18.1.36 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was never my intention to "swept anything under the carpet". I merely tried to wikify the article to a more standard structure. I do think that the text you added (given here below) and was removed... was a little to explicit for an encyclopedia. But I'm no expert in this field. - Mdd 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Warwick's regular media appearances led not only to scathing coverage in The Register, but also Need To Know, which opened a website called Kevin Warwick Watch to sarcastically chronicle his media appearances. This website is now defunct.

Criticism

Warwick's tendency to court the media has led some of his critics to accuse him of concentrating on publicity at the cost of research, grossly exaggerating the importance and implications of his "experiments". For example, the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour complained to the organisers of the 2000 Christmas Lectures about their choice of Kevin Warwick, prior to his appearance. They claimed that "he is not a spokesman for our subject and allowing him influence through the Christmas lectures is a danger to the public perception of science."

Is it possible to add a properly justified and cited "Criticisms" section? I'm aware that there is plenty, especially reading the talk page, but I'm probably negatively biassed to make a fair go at it and I don't want to start mucking about what looks like some repeated reversions have gone on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.17.100 (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very sensible suggestion. However immediate criticisms do not normally appear on a named Wiki page directly (already Warwick's page contains some) but rather on a separate Wiki entry under Criticisms - see Noam Chomsky as an example. So a new entry entitled "Criticisms of Kevin Warwick" would follow these lines, if it is felt to be warranted. I agree though about the "properly justified and cited" comment - this must be the case. Mdd did a thorough (difficult) job at making this article Wiki friendly and providing a more balanced output. User:PhilDWraight 14.26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is brought to my attention that the this removed text is again added to this article, see here, with an extra source, see here. Now after Bradka removed the text, at first Flummi35 restored the text, see here claiming: There is no consensus for keeping out this well-sourced critique. Now I tend to agree that this critique is well-sourced. The timeshighereducation.co.uk website could be considered a very reliable source, given the numerous times this source is already used in Wikipedia, see here. I however disagree with Flummi35's first suggestion: There is a consensus here among the registered users (Bradka, Mdd, PhilDWraight) to keep this critique out. This particular text should stay out, unless some kind of consensus is reached here. Just adding back the text with an extra reference is unacceptable, because there is more at hand here, as the previous discussion shows. -- Mdd (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring by Bradka

It's too bad that Bradka is edit warring to keep out this perfectly acceptable inclusion under WP guidelines of well-sourced criticism, and with insulting and misleading edit summaries ("vandalism") to boot. (I have reported Bradka on the relevant noticeboard.) The suggestion above that criticism of Warwick belongs in a separate article titled "Criticism of [Name]" is wrong. This may be done in exceptional cases where there is so much controversy and criticism that including it all would explode the article. In this case, the suggestion is totally pointless.

I hope all editors will see the light and stop resisting the inclusion of this reported criticism. Even then, the article will remain lopsided in its glowing recounting of Warwick's achievements. In truth, the man is held in ridicule by much of the computer science community. See, for example, the comments following this article in The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/17/captain_cyborg_on_radio_4/. Flummi35 (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't convince me. You mention theregister.co.uk, while the Wikipedia article about that site states: "The Register occasionally runs articles satirising selected people e.g., Captain Cyborg (Kevin Warwick), and Jimbo Wales, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees..." This seems hardly to prove that "much of the computer science community helds the man in ridicule...!? It seems to me you are manipulating things here. The fact that your accusation of Bradka on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring was based on three false assumptions, doesn't make it any better. -- Mdd (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What "three false assumptions"?? Never mind, you win. You got your admin buddy 2over0 to hand you a resounding victory. He ignored Wikipedia rules by not sanctioning Bradka for edit warring and incivility, by taking sides improperly, by excluding IP editors from this article, by intervening in a content dispute, mandating that the criticism of Warwick be kept out until judgment day or until the coterie of Warwick acolytes (if not Warwick himself) deigns to allow it in (whichever comes last). Congratulations, enjoy your triumph. I will have nothing more to do with this website.Flummi35 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

At the moment this particular criticism (discussed above), based largely on the citation given, is excluded from the page. As I understand it, that is how it will remain unless there is a consensus to the contrary. There is obviously strong feeling one way or the other. It would help if we could keep any discussion civil, balanced and as factual as possible. It would also help if Wikipedia users contributed rather than input from anon IP addresses. My own input is (1) the strength of the criticism, including quotes, is entirely in the letter cited. (2) the citation is actually a letter written by an individual, Simon Colton. The letter resides on a web page owned by Simon Colton, it does not reside on the web site of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour which is an impression given in the criticism. (3) No reference to this letter or the criticism is given on the Simon Colton page. -- Bradka (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I agree with User:Bradka that the strength of the criticism lies entirely in the cited letter, which is from Simon Colton. I have issue with quite a few points in the letter. As an example, in response to Warwick's claims that computers could be creative, Colton wrote in his letter the AI community has done real science to reclaim words such as creativity and emotion which they claim computers will never have. I believe, from his web site that Colton has published widely in Computational Creativity and indeed his job title appears to be Reader in Computational Creativity. Does that mean Colton said one thing in the letter but actually agrees with Warwick rather than, as he put it the AI community? On another point, Colston has, on his web site, this important letter as dated 22nd December 2001 - certainly I am looking at it now and that's what it says. Yet Warwick's Christmas lectures were given in December 2000. I hope in the meantime that the date in the letter is not altered, otherwise we cannot be sure about any of its contents. Then there are issues with how he describes Warwick's implant experiment incorrectly - way off in fact - see the Kevin Warwick Wikipedia page. Overall I therefore feel very strongly that this criticism should not be included. I presume User:Bradka feels the same, but he didn't say.-- PhilDWraight (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I was a student with Simon Colton and attended his lectures, I enjoyed them very much. He presented the work of Kevin Warwick and we discussed it at length. I have read the letter on his web site and notice that he said "We are particularly worried about the education of the nation's children through the forthcoming Royal Institute Christmas Lectures, to be presented by Kevin Warwick". I understand from this that Simon doesn't/didn't want Warwick to present his own material, but that it is OK for Simon to present it. This seems to be hypocritical. Simon's lectures, which include discussion of and references to Warwick's work are clear for all to see on his web site. I actually also enjoyed Warwick's Christmas Lectures, which were about robotics, AI was, I remember, just part of one lecture, and was quite a brief overview. It was good to get it on TV. Where Simon says about Warwick in his letter "we feel that he is not a spokesman for our subject and allowing him influence through the Christmas lectures is a danger to the public perception of science". I don't see why anyone would or should be a spokesperson for AI if they are presenting any subject in the Christmas Lectures, after all AI, of some kind, appears in many aspects of science now. This would be a strange hurdle indeed. Simon Colton's lectures on Computational creativity are good, but Warwick's Christmas Lectures were also very good - you just have to read the Wikipedia page to see they inspired at least one scientist. I therefore feel that the criticism is not appropriate at all. .-- Lesgriffin (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to PhilDWraight for pointing out my lack of clarity - I feel that the criticism in question has a validity which depends entirely and solely on Simon Colton's letter on his web page. If the letter stands up then so does the criticism, if the letter falls then so does the criticism. I believe that the letter is seriously misguided and in many ways morally indefensible (and as a consequence so is the criticism). As an example, in his letter Colton, who is based at Imperial College London calls Warwick's research, "flimsy science". Yet at the time of his Christmas lectures, Warwick had already been awarded a DSc through, by coincidence perhaps, Imperial College London. On the Imperial College London web pages it says "A DSc (Higher Doctorate) is awarded only for published work of an exceptional standard containing original contributions to the advancement of knowledge and learning". Presumably a DSc is obtained as a result of serious peer review scrutiny and is not awarded for 'flimsy science'. Colton's personal opinion therefore appears to deviate from that of his peers. Has Colton also been awarded a DSc? I would like to thank Lesgriffin for pointing out that Colton discusses Warwick's work in his own lectures, this is one reason why I find his letter indefensible. -- Bradka (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Research Output - Colton has so far published 4 papers in quality peer reviewed SCI Impact Factor (IF) journals, the highest IF being 2.38. Warwick has published 80 such papers, the highest IF being 6.31. Warwick has papers in IEEE Trans Neural Nets, Artificial Intelligence Review, Minds and Machines and IEEE Trans Evolutionary Computation (IF=4.59) - pretty central to AI. Colton's comments about Warwick's flimsy science are not appropriate at all. Although Colton is younger than Warwick, at his present (post-PhD) rate of publishing Colton will need to live to be well over 200 years old if he is to catch up with Warwick's present total. -- Rangline (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Update - with the new (2010) IF scores, Colton's highest Impact Factor now appears to be 1.60, whereas Warwick's has become 7.11. -- Rangline (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit 8 July, 2011

I have taken the statement: Warwick's tendency to court the media has led some of his critics to accuse him of concentrating on publicity at the cost of research, grossly exaggerating the importance and implications of his "experiments". For example, the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour complained to the organisers of the 2000 Christmas Lectures about their choice of Kevin Warwick, prior to his appearance. They claimed that "he is not a spokesman for our subject and allowing him influence through the Christmas lectures is a danger to the public perception of science. and (a) put it in context as a comment to do with Warwick's Christmas Lectures, (b) indicated positive feedback for the lectures with a citation, (c) also introduced a citation for the comment, which was missing, (d) removed the first line, which seems to be taken directly from The Register, the citation does not say anything like this and I cannot find anything that does, apart from The Register, (e) removed reference to SSAISB of which I am a member, (f) retained the main statement made in terms of the earlier comments re Consensus, (g) included further comments from the cited item as pointed out by PhilDWraight. I hope that this is a helpful step forward - Smoperator (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

techlepathy

There is no such word in the dictionary as "techlepathy". It simply redirects to telepathy in wiki so I see no reason to have it included with a link. If someone can post a reason why it is even a word, then let us reintroduce it. There is something odd about the interest this generates. I asked about this man at a University of Minnesota Computer Science lecture and got a lot of people laughing. What is the real deal here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)