the first point, there were discussions concerning
how unified long-term memory should be, and the
concept of a cognitive cycle, its parallelism versus
sequentiality, and its discrete versus continuous
nature. With respect to the second, there was general agreement that forms of these aspects are required,
but the discussions did not go quite far enough yet to
yield a consensus concerning what specifically
should be added to the standard model.
The third (half) day focused on two discussion ses-
sions, with the first assessing the overall status of the
effort to develop a standard model, given what tran-
spired at the symposium, and the second discussing
what the future of this effort should be. In the first
session, issues came up concerning how the standard
model needs additional refinement and expansion,
while avoiding over-constraint when not warranted;
how it should not be proscriptive but continue
instead to encourage alternative approaches; and
how the material at the symposium itself was not
well tied to either human data or real-world domains
(although it was based on a variety of cognitive archi-
tectures, each of which has been directly tied to one
or both of these). In the second session, the main
question was whether to proceed, which received
near-unanimous approval from those in attendance.
As to how to proceed, given the need for this to be a
community effort, the co-organizers of the sympo-
sium are to re-form themselves as an initial steering
committee, with a mailing list to be developed, and
discussions taking place via this list before major
decisions are made. Working groups dedicated to spe-
cific topics were proposed as a tractable mechanism
for evolving consensus. Venues for publication of
standard model advances were also discussed. In
addition, a variety of possibilities for future events at
which further progress could be made as a commu-
nity were discussed.
As organizers, we were pleasantly surprised by the
level of enthusiasm expressed for pursuing a com-munity-driven consensus for comprehensive models
of the mind. It appears the time is ripe for groups to
work together across many disciplines to develop,
refine, and test such a consensus.
Paul S. Rosenbloom, John E. Laird, and Christian
Lebiere served as cochairs of this symposium. The
papers of the symposium were published as AAAI
Press Technical Report FS-17-01.
Arjuna Flenner is a senior research physicist at NAVAIR,
Marlena R. Fraune is a PhD candidate at Indiana University.
Laura M. Hiatt is a researcher at the Navy Center for
Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence, part of the Naval
Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC.
Tony Kendall is a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School.
John E. Laird is a professor in the Computer Science and
Engineering Division of the Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science Department at the University of Michigan.
Christian Lebiere is a research faculty member in the Psychology Department at Carnegie Mellon University.
Paul S. Rosenbloom is a professor in the Department of
Computer Science, and director for cognitive architecture
research at the Institute for Creative Technologies, at the
University of Southern California.
Frank Stein is the director of the Analytics Solution Center
Elin A. Topp is a senior lecturer in computer science at
Lund University, Lund, Sweden, and affiliated with the
Lund University RobotLab shared between the Departments
of Computer Science and Automatic Control.
Vaibhav V. Unhelkar is a PhD candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ying Zhao is a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate
October 28–30, 2019
Skamania Lodge, Stevenson, WA USA
(Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area)
Edith Law (University of Waterloo) (Cochair)
Jenn Wortman Vaughn (Microsoft Research) (Cochair)