basicstud%oak.DECnet@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU ("OAK::BASICSTUD") (12/17/87)
I think the real problem is not a gap in knowledge, but the fear so many people have of technology. That fear has been around a long time. And when technology starts to advance more rapidly, you just get more people afraid of it faster. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid, or allows themselves to be dominated by the fear. An interesting example is a discussion some BBS users had locally, about AI. The question was whether or not an AI could have a soul. But most everyone (except those fairly experienced in programming) seemed to think that an AI could never be any more than a machine, and thus couldn't even be called intelligent. During the discussion, at least several people seemed to show some kind of general dislike towards machines (complaining about robots used in car manufacture, etc.) That sort of state of mind about technology is the real problem. What is probably going to happen is that over a period of time, when the new generation starts to become more dominate in society, the gap will start to close. But, at the same time, new technological developments will occur that will form a new gap, etc etc etc. (Jeff Mercer) ------
bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (12/17/87)
I think fear is a loaded word meant to disparage those who would resist the one true cause. It assumes that the technology is obviously beneficial and being applied in only positive ways for the good of all. Therefore, any resistance to this brave new world is "obviously" the result of irrational fears. What about uses like typing pools which now go on machines which monitor keystrokes? Or bureacracies which leave both the bureaucrat (who is not necessarily evil in intent) and the customer helpless to get their goals acheived because of an intractable computer (I remember arguing with the phone company because I overpaid one bill and hadn't paid another yet [I think I accidently paid one twice] so I asked if they could simply transfer the overpayment to the other account, of course not, there's no button to push to do that, we both agreed this was stupid.) One might write it off to "bad use of technology", but isn't that inevitable? For example, can we write off 50,000 automobile related deaths to "bad use of automobiles" and wash our hands of it? -B
fay@encore.UUCP (Peter Fay) (12/18/87)
In article <8712161659.AA25561@bu-cs.bu.edu> "OAK::BASICSTUD" <basicstud%oak.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu> writes: >[...] >intelligent. During the discussion, at least several people seemed to show >some kind of general dislike towards machines (complaining about robots used >in car manufacture, etc.) That sort of state of mind about technology is the >real problem. [...] >(Jeff Mercer) >------ No, the real problem is not "that state of mind about technology", but the social use of the technology. And of course, if the social use of technology is determined (in general) by the ownership of that technology (e.g. Ford owns the robots which replace the welders on the assembly line), then the root of the problem is really ownership. The 'fears' are neither irrational nor unfounded. They derive from the fact that technological advances in this society are first and foremost applied to the workplace to detriment of the worker. Is the reaction of the populace so hard to understand? After all, it has been going on for hundreds of years, starting with the Ludites in England at the beginning of the industrial revolution who went around burning down factories, to the formation of labor organizations in England 150 years ago to protect against the introduction of new machinery which _repeatedly_ brought with it longer working days and less pay, to this century in the U.S. where miners struck continually to prevent introduction of new mining equipment, dockworkers struck to prevent container cargo, autoworkers fought (successfully) to delay introduction of robots, farmworkers struck to stop introduction of tomato pickers, ad infinitum. The computer is one more advance in technology. It, in itself, is harmless. But it's effect in society is no less harmless than a robot on an assembly line. -- peter fay fay@multimax.arpa {allegra|compass|decvax|ihnp4|linus|necis|pur-ee|talcott}!encore!fay
nebezene@ndsuvax.UUCP (Todd Michael Bezenek) (12/22/87)
In article <8712161659.AA25561@bu-cs.bu.edu> "OAK::BASICSTUD" <basicstud%oak.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu> writes: > An interesting example is a discussion some BBS users had locally, about AI. >The question was whether or not an AI could have a soul. But most everyone >(except those fairly experienced in programming) seemed to think that an >AI could never be any more than a machine, and thus couldn't even be called >intelligent. I should think that the opposite would be the case here. I have found that people who do not have any experience with artificial intelligence programming techniques (This should be interpreted as "anything that has been used in AI".) are generally more willing to believe in the possiblity of a computer consciousness. What does this say about the knowledge gap? -- Todd M. Bezenek --=---+---=-- \___ Student of Electrical and ---=---+-I-=--- Electronics Engineering |\ ---=----+----=--- Bitnet: nebezene@ndsuvax | UUCP: uunet!ndsuvax!nebezene ^ Amateur Radio Station KO0N