ccw@nvuxr.UUCP (christopher wood) (03/16/90)
In article <TOM.90Mar13150813@babar.amara.uucp> tom@amara.uucp (Tom Doehne) writes: > > Chris Wood and JoSH have overlooked a serious risk of using expert >systems to substitute for human judgement: we learn better judgement >by exercising it. I think along the same lines; I just didn't express it very well. There is a difference between using judgement and using rules. Expert Systems use rules. Beurocrats use (or abuse, as the case may be) rules mostly, and very rarely judgement. My first response to JoSH included "sometimes you gotta break the rules", a burger king slogan, but a truism in human judgement. Judgement is not applying rules, it is deciding when the rules available should be applied, when new rules that are beneficial should be created, and so forth. There will always be room for judgement, because others are always reacting to rules to better their positions. (in fact, this is an analysis that lawmakers all to often ignore - but that's another subject). [trimmed; the difference between rules and judgement explains most of Tom's concerns] > My own guess is that expert systems will be useful in domains >which no longer progress rapidly, or that they will come with >substantial teaching and explaining facilities and will be used as >assistants and training tools but not depended upon. >Tom Doehne I'll agree with the former, and say hmmm, maybe to your latter point. -- Chris Wood Bellcore ...!bellcore!nvuxr!ccw or nvuxr!ccw@bellcore.bellcore.com
ccw@nvuxr.UUCP (christopher wood) (03/16/90)
In article <2392@kodak.UUCP> doering@kodak.com (Paul F. Doering) writes: >Chris Wood and J Storrs Hall are engaged here in a dialog about whether the >imposition of rules -- represented in one form by AI -- is eliminating the >prerogative of humans to make judgments. (Well, Wood and Hall may not totally >agree on exactly the subject of their dialog, but I think that's what Hall is >trying to discuss. :-) ) Good summary. I'll agree. [comments on rules not working well trimmed. the line counter does encourage this behavior; but we've all seen the other reaction - line counter fodder.] >I concur with Wood's observation that computers are freeing humans from >drudgery and enabling us to address loftier concerns. Hall agrees but worries >about intrusion on even those more human tasks. Rest easy. We're good at >defending our turf; it just takes us a while to rise up. Thanks for concurring, but I think your complacency may be a little premature. Change is always directed at making the valuable less so; the value provided by those applying the old methods are threatened when new methods come along that do it for less. A weaver put out of work by an automatic loom. Luddites. Farmers in the great depression kicked off their farms by the boss with a tractor. Those displaced by a new technology will defend their turf, cause difficulties, and eventually be passed by. Middle managers may be the next victims of technology. The only moral I can think of is: get used to change. Don't specialize in any field too much; specialize in BECOMING A SPECIALIST in new fields. Don't grow roots, or become too attached to what you do. > ========================= ============================================ > Paul Doering (for self) Why must they force their particular hell, > doering@kodak.com their particular Devil, on us? > ========================= ==================== -Carl Sandburg ======= -- Chris Wood Bellcore ...!bellcore!nvuxr!ccw or nvuxr!ccw@bellcore.bellcore.com
jdb9608@ultb.isc.rit.edu (J.D. Beutel) (03/16/90)
In article <2392@kodak.UUCP> doering@kodak.com (Paul F. Doering) writes: >Rest easy. We're good at >defending our turf; it just takes us a while to rise up. Many workers are not in a position where they can defend their turf. -- -- J. David Beutel 11011011 jdb9608@cs.rit.edu "I am, therefore I am."