I wonder why "it is productive to ask four questions in analyzing AI characterizations and theories of information-processing phenomena"? I was disappointed by the lack of a "huh?" question in addition to the "Why?", "What?", "How?", and "When?" questions.

      When describing the Syn system, it is unclear what a familiar design is. I was surprised that no statement of Syn being a creative design system or not appeared while it did for the other systems. I was also confused by the use of the term "reminding" by which the author seems to mean "retrieving". Goel does use the term "retrieve" when describing his own system though. Is this meant to point out some fundamental difference between his system and the other's mentioned in the article?

      I would have liked to see a better explanation of the differences between Ideal's structure-behavior-function model and Dssua's function-behavior-structure model. Another thing that bothered me about this article (and many others we've covered) was the interchangeable use of the terms "system" and "theory". Many authors describe systems and then say the described a theory but they seem like very different things to me.

      Should I be surprised that while the description of Syn used two columns and Dssua used three and a half columns, that the author's own system, Ideal, used a total of six? I found most of the diagrams concerning Ideal to be of no help.

      All that negativity aside, I found this article very interesting and well layed out. The goals of the article were clear and the article covered what it said it would cover.