(jsinapov@iastate.edu)
"HCI 585X: Proposal Reviews".
1. Proposal
      #9

2. Should this proposal be considered for the Best Proposal prize? (yes/no)
      no

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the proposal? (1-10)?
7

4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? (1-10)
    8


     The proposal is written in many different narrative explanations. It seems like this proposal was written by two different people who never saw the other person’s part of the
proposal. It switches from I, to we, to us several times and it is unclear in the timeline section who is going to accomplish what. It specifically states what is going to be
done, but it doesn’t go into the explanation of which person of the team is going to actually do the projects proposed. The paper has a specific syntax that seems like it was
setup to be written following a framework and each person that was a part of the team tried to fit their information into each section. It was actually a little repetitive as far
as the timeline and goals were written out.

    The proposal is very specific as far as the guidelines were concerned. The writers were clear to tell the reader who is capable of what task that needs to be completed.
However as stated above there is some confusion in the actual timeline as to which teammate will be doing which section of the project. This project is unique in that it doesn’t
require any subject (i.e.: robot or human) it is almost purely a data analysis project. This still fits within the framework of the class. It is seems like a task that might be
too difficult to accomplish in the allotted time. There also is great use for this type of project if it successful. Getting a model built of any information the way it might be
perceived in the neo-cortex can be useful and can be applied to digital information of any kind. It is a very interesting idea.
   
     This type of model can be used to help design a CPU and controller of a robot that is capable of learning. As it currently stands there are very few robots used in the AI
field that have the capability of building upon the projects fed in and processed offline through the robot. With a better understanding of how humans process a
thought/image/idea/etc… through the neo-cortex might allow robots to be built that can be taught something and maybe even recall that something during a later project. A robot with
this capability would be very valuable. If it was being taught something by a student it could reference the current project to a previous one and can continue to learn through
this process, which would ultimately make programming and teaching these machines an easier task as well.

     The best part of this proposal is that it is undeniably generic in the information that it will process and track the processes of. This could be scaled well to other ideas.
As an example showing a picture of an apple to the robot could let the robot find the pattern in the raw data and pass it up the hierarchy of the neo-cortex to process the
movement pattern of the raw image pattern, this could all be happening while it is processing the image of the apple.   The vague description of the algorithms that are going to
be used. The thing that threw the whole proposal off is the lack of explanation of why they are using the algorithms that are being used. The project doesn’t really state a good
understanding of what would be considered a success or a failure. It would be nice to state what and why success would be in the output.
     The project doesn’t seem like something that can be accomplished in a little over one month. The project seems a little more difficult than the capabilities of the
individuals propose. One of the most important details is left out. According to the whole project they will feed info into the system and follow the trail of processing that the
algorithms follow. However, there is no mention the proposal at all, of what type of information is going to be fed into the program. All the technologies in the proposal that are
going to be used are available to the team members and the only question id whether or not the students doing the proposal know how to use and access the features of the
technology they are proposing to use. It doesn’t necessarily discuss which person will do which part of the project, so there is no way to tell whether the individuals have the
capability to do the tasks suggested.

      As stated above a great way to improve this proposal and project is to be more consistent with the writing of the paper. Before finalizing the paper it is a good idea to sit
and read the whole paper slightly audibly to yourself to make sure that you can catch any of the typos and grammatical errors. If this would have been done it might have caught
more as well, such as the flow problems that this paper had while reading it. It was necessary to go back and reread something written in the paper several times.
     The biggest problem that this paper had was the references/work cited section. The section was there but none of the individual works that were sited actually had notes next
to it. The whole text read through without a single citation not. But at the end of the paper was several citations. It seems, as stated above, that the paper was not written
together, as this would have been caught had it been written together and not in two separate sections that were just combined and printed.