I read the article, “Stupidity of Computers,” by David
Auerbach. Auerbach starts the article by
stating that computers are, “near-omnipotent cauldrons of processing
power.” Sounds like a good thing, huh? I couldn't understand why he would call a good thing sutpid. Well, after reading further, I have several thoughts on why he called what sounds like a good thing (reads: a computer) stupid.
A popular saying goes "progress is a slow process; but, I don't have anything but time." To put it plainly, the saying means, "I must and am doing all of the good things that I want to do, just like I should." and, I'd like to add my conclusion to the old saying, "when I can think of more than one good thing, I move more slowly." I thought to speed up any process or processes would be a convenience. I didn't understand why a convenience would be talked about in a disrespectful or loathsome way.
Auerbach says computers have near-omnipotent processing power. That sounds like we could be doing God-like things with them. It sounds like we use them to achieve the things of our dreams.
But, in the next sentence he says computers have the inability to, "understand a simple English conversation."
When I go from the title (The Stupidity of Computers) to his statement about speaking in English, I thought he wanted the reader to believe he expected a computer to be able to understand a human conversation; and, if it couldn't it deserved to be labeled as stupid.
Well, computers can't understand a simple English conversation; and, after reading his article, I understand a computer is no match for a human, even though it can be taught to beat one at chess and even jeopardy. After reading this article, I understand we'll never be able to design a computer we'll want to have around forever, even if it still functioned. We'll always want a better, more powerful, one. In this blog, I'll explore if we should just give up on continuing their development and creation. After reading Auerbach's article, I think computers are killing us.
I think he's saying he thought a computer would be his best friend, after all of these years of technological advances and he's let down. But, I don't think he is ready to move on yet. I think after building himself up about how great computers were going to be and taking that hard fall and bouncing, his conscience told him a computer will never be anybody 's best friend. I guess the editor of the magazine understood Auerbach was saying something new.
I think Auerbach is sorry he's living in the computer age, because in this age, less and less people will know that learning takes place best at a slow pace. And that lack of knowledge will cause our demise since human correlations will be categorized and then digested and regurgitated at light speed until a flattening our our self-consciousnesses occurs across all of humanity, due to the use of the internet.
In his article, he talks about powerful website development strategies that took place within the span of a few years, changing the way the internet operated and was structured to the typical user and describes the specifics of that change. Auerbach brings in some social discussion, too.
He wants us to think about the fact that the choices we make will result from what we are exposed to online. He's not taking us down the road of our ethical devolutions online, but he's still warning us by telling us the computer's stupidity will be our own. Basically retelling the old saying -- "you are what you eat."
Auerbach is talking about how websites have changed and kept us happier and happier with them by changing their design, over the short amount of time they've existed.
But he only eluded to the political consequences that had or has on a our speech. And we all know our speech dictates our protection. What I understand from reading the article is that we are all playing with the internet a little too much. We allow free internet pornography sites to contain videos labeled as "forced sex" and "rape." That kind of pornography is free for the world to see. And as humanity, we are becoming numb to more and more atrocities. We are saying we feel as good about the world's values as we did before; however, we are letting a lot more issues remain unseen to the ethical radar.
The internet is a tool of communication, not a pair of pet dog. We cannot put our all into a beach ball, can we? I think we must use it like a stone and attach it to a piece of wood to make a hammer. I think we must control it; and, use it more efficiently as a tool of world-wide communication.
After reading this article I now think computers are a powerful evolutionary step; but, only for some people since eveybody will not have access to computers..
He says we love computers, just like we love shoes. We use them as tools and there is a great deal going on to make them better. He goes on to say we must have more and more of them. We need to make them smaller and put them everywhere. He says computers are like diamonds since they're forever.
A popular saying goes "progress is a slow process; but, I don't have anything but time." To put it plainly, the saying means, "I must and am doing all of the good things that I want to do, just like I should." and, I'd like to add my conclusion to the old saying, "when I can think of more than one good thing, I move more slowly." I thought to speed up any process or processes would be a convenience. I didn't understand why a convenience would be talked about in a disrespectful or loathsome way.
Auerbach says computers have near-omnipotent processing power. That sounds like we could be doing God-like things with them. It sounds like we use them to achieve the things of our dreams.
But, in the next sentence he says computers have the inability to, "understand a simple English conversation."
When I go from the title (The Stupidity of Computers) to his statement about speaking in English, I thought he wanted the reader to believe he expected a computer to be able to understand a human conversation; and, if it couldn't it deserved to be labeled as stupid.
Well, computers can't understand a simple English conversation; and, after reading his article, I understand a computer is no match for a human, even though it can be taught to beat one at chess and even jeopardy. After reading this article, I understand we'll never be able to design a computer we'll want to have around forever, even if it still functioned. We'll always want a better, more powerful, one. In this blog, I'll explore if we should just give up on continuing their development and creation. After reading Auerbach's article, I think computers are killing us.
I think he's saying he thought a computer would be his best friend, after all of these years of technological advances and he's let down. But, I don't think he is ready to move on yet. I think after building himself up about how great computers were going to be and taking that hard fall and bouncing, his conscience told him a computer will never be anybody 's best friend. I guess the editor of the magazine understood Auerbach was saying something new.
I think Auerbach is sorry he's living in the computer age, because in this age, less and less people will know that learning takes place best at a slow pace. And that lack of knowledge will cause our demise since human correlations will be categorized and then digested and regurgitated at light speed until a flattening our our self-consciousnesses occurs across all of humanity, due to the use of the internet.
In his article, he talks about powerful website development strategies that took place within the span of a few years, changing the way the internet operated and was structured to the typical user and describes the specifics of that change. Auerbach brings in some social discussion, too.
He wants us to think about the fact that the choices we make will result from what we are exposed to online. He's not taking us down the road of our ethical devolutions online, but he's still warning us by telling us the computer's stupidity will be our own. Basically retelling the old saying -- "you are what you eat."
Auerbach is talking about how websites have changed and kept us happier and happier with them by changing their design, over the short amount of time they've existed.
But he only eluded to the political consequences that had or has on a our speech. And we all know our speech dictates our protection. What I understand from reading the article is that we are all playing with the internet a little too much. We allow free internet pornography sites to contain videos labeled as "forced sex" and "rape." That kind of pornography is free for the world to see. And as humanity, we are becoming numb to more and more atrocities. We are saying we feel as good about the world's values as we did before; however, we are letting a lot more issues remain unseen to the ethical radar.
The internet is a tool of communication, not a pair of pet dog. We cannot put our all into a beach ball, can we? I think we must use it like a stone and attach it to a piece of wood to make a hammer. I think we must control it; and, use it more efficiently as a tool of world-wide communication.
After reading this article I now think computers are a powerful evolutionary step; but, only for some people since eveybody will not have access to computers..
He says we love computers, just like we love shoes. We use them as tools and there is a great deal going on to make them better. He goes on to say we must have more and more of them. We need to make them smaller and put them everywhere. He says computers are like diamonds since they're forever.
Auerbach wants us to understand that even though computers are a
powerful, important, and inescapable part of our lives, they have as much
intelligence as an ordinary carpenter’s hammer and we are the ones who are changing in a near-omnipotent way.
Auerbach’s article examines our efforts to transform computers
into conversation-understanding machines, too. Auerbach explores our efforts to use
computers to more efficiently complete our tasks. He talks about the history of some websites on the internet, including Ask Jeeves, Google, Amazon, Wikipedia and Facebook
as he discusses the way we use computers today vs. in the past. In addition, he says the tasks we use computers to accomplish, today, are a result of refining
computer technologies.
Auerbach describes some of the complex tasks a computer can
accomplish and talks about the fact a computer must be given complicated
instructions to do anything it does. He, also, states our internet today is
better than our internet of the past. He
continues that one of the greatest achievements in computer science was the
formulation of algorithms to complete complex tasks. Auerbach talks about where we are headed due
to the constant achievements in the field of computer science and explains specifically how we are entering into more flattened or simplified way of identifying ourselves.
Auerbach explains that computers are following in the footsteps
of Google, not Ask Jeeves. Decades ago,
Ask Jeeves was a popular search engine that sought to offer great search
results, relying on the user to ask it a question in a way another human would
understand. It wasn’t that great. Then, in the ‘90’s Google appeared giving the
world better search results, using a system that focuses on the amount of
connections a search term has to other websites (words in common), while omitting the process of
understanding the semantics of the language of the query (omitting digesting and understanding the query and then looking for websites with results specifically stating the information requested). Auerbach continues that computers using the
topology (geometrics) of the web rather than the semantics is genius.
Auerbach follows this line of thought by exploring other websites like Wikipedia, which use topology to assist users rather than semantics. Expanding on his talk on topology, Auerbach presents a discussion on the rise of ontologies. An ontology is a categorizing system that can have any number of hierarchical and nonhierarchical relationships between its entities. He describes the ontologies of Amazon.com that allow users to find information listed in categories then, he goes on to explain that due the emergence of social networking websites, such as Facebook and OkCupid, collecting huge amounts of personal informational data from their users, the categorizing we have done to objects is now being done to humans.
Auerbach follows this line of thought by exploring other websites like Wikipedia, which use topology to assist users rather than semantics. Expanding on his talk on topology, Auerbach presents a discussion on the rise of ontologies. An ontology is a categorizing system that can have any number of hierarchical and nonhierarchical relationships between its entities. He describes the ontologies of Amazon.com that allow users to find information listed in categories then, he goes on to explain that due the emergence of social networking websites, such as Facebook and OkCupid, collecting huge amounts of personal informational data from their users, the categorizing we have done to objects is now being done to humans.
He discusses the OkTrends
blog, managed by OkCupid (a dating website), which illuminates the human correlations
they have been able to draw from their large database of personal data. Concluding his article, he talks about his forcast for the future.
In his forcast for the future, Auerbach says, “First, we will bring ourselves to
computers." The small- and large-scale convenience and efficiency of
storing more and more human correlations (reads: parts) of our lives online will increase the hold that
formal ontologies have on us, since we rely on the contextual parts of information about a person when engaging in the most meaningful relationships, as opposed to abiding by abstract connections. In addition, he states, “We will increasingly
see ourselves in terms of these ontologies and willingly try to conform to
them. For example, we will conform to use the same words. This will bring about a flattening of
the self—a reversal of the expansion of the self that occurred over the last
several hundred years.
The second part of his two-fold forcast was that “We will bring
computers to us.” He states as “processing power increases and the size and cost of
computers shrink to the point of microscopic disposability, they can be
embedded into everything: roads, paper, clothing, skin, organs, medicines,
food.”
He finishes his article
by stating the good news and the bad news.
The good news is that since computers can never understand language,
they will never take over the world.
He says that the bad news is that since we need computers and they are just as stupid as hammers, as we continue to define and regiment our lives (reads: make the same sounds and say the same words), including our social lives and perceptions of ourselves in ways that are conducive to what a computer can understand and the stupidity of computers will become ours. I think he has noticed an increased lack of common sense and I think he's suggesting we don't stray too far away from social noms.
He says that the bad news is that since we need computers and they are just as stupid as hammers, as we continue to define and regiment our lives (reads: make the same sounds and say the same words), including our social lives and perceptions of ourselves in ways that are conducive to what a computer can understand and the stupidity of computers will become ours. I think he has noticed an increased lack of common sense and I think he's suggesting we don't stray too far away from social noms.
This article implies that we will continue
to give computers the credit, where credit isn’t due. We build them and integrate them into our
lives, however, we created them and we must continue to admit their
shortcomings are our own. We make them
better and better each yeah, and will until the end of time, just like when we
invented the telephone. They are important
to us and shape our lives, however, they can be better. Also, they will never be as
good as a human, no matter what.
I scoured the internet for other
examples of this type of discussion; and, I found an interesting article by Tom
Risen of USA Today called, “Google: Your Computer Is Stupid.” In the article Risen discussed that building
a computer that can understand language is the holy grail; however, since a
computer like that is hundreds, if not more, years away they’ll settle for a
computer that can act like a human. Risen
discussed the Turing test.
The Turing tests builds upon the
fact that computers can’t understand language, but asks the question of if it
can make ethical choices. It tries to answer
whether a computer can mimic human behavior, and, it asks whether a computer can
understand the implications of making a good or evil choice. A computer will never be able to make a judgement. Judgement is a human characteristic, presently
Another article, “Why Computers MakeUs Stupid,” by Patrick Henry Winston added to what Auerbach said about the
stupidity of computers becoming ours but in a different way. Winston was focused on computers being bad for us because they make us lazy. Winston mentioned that computers make us stupid by encouraging
looking up answers, rather than practicing the art of heuristic problem solving.
It's true a computer has as much life in it as an ordinary carpenter's hammer; but, it can do some much more. After reading this article my suggestion to people is that they be careful with computers and if you feel like they aren't for you, they probably aren't.
Brandon Coltress
Masters of Public Administration Student
University of Alabama at Birmingham
It's true a computer has as much life in it as an ordinary carpenter's hammer; but, it can do some much more. After reading this article my suggestion to people is that they be careful with computers and if you feel like they aren't for you, they probably aren't.
Brandon Coltress
Masters of Public Administration Student
University of Alabama at Birmingham
References
Auerbach, D. N+ 1 Magazine. The
Stupidity of Computers. (Winter 2012). https://nplusonemag.com/issue-13/essays/stupidity-of-computers/
Risen, T. US News And World Report. Google:
Your Computer Is Stupid. (January 1, 2015). Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/01/google-your-computer-is-stupid
Winston, P. H. MIT Alumni. Why
Computers Make Us Stupid. (March 6, 2011). Retrieved from https://alum.mit.edu/slice/why-computers-make-us-stupid
Comments
Post a Comment