Comment: In situations that require

(See in situ)


In situations that require

In situations that require speed and efficiency in performing operations on lists of information, computers perform well. In the real world, where the information cannot be given in discreet practical lists, computers are retarded. Most six-year-olds can easily outperform the best computers in basic conversation.

When i read the above piece, I thought of claims in medical science that life expectancy would continue to increase and disease would be eradicated. Then I thought of how antibiotics were becoming less and less effective and how 30 years from now, a simple cut may be cause for real alarm, as we reenter a pre-anitbotic age. With all the spectacular advances in medical technology and the amazing diagnostics tools, most advances in life expectancy are a product of reduced infant mortality, clean water, refrigeration, antibiotics, etc.

And what about the standard of living and the advent of commonly available computing power? In many ways, as technology advances, people get poorer because of the failure, greed and stupidity of man. How much computing power does the Federal Reserve have? Can a computer "learn" how to avoid economic collapse? Can a computer make decisions regarding what information should be collected by the NSA, and in what way it should be collected so as to minimize the destruction of human liberty?

For better or worse, man is still in charge and will be for a long time. A computer is just a tool, like a really sophisticated jack hammer; a blunt force instrument. No doubt they will have their effect, but computers will not be effective in controlling the chaos that computers bring until they learn to really think and feel.

So my only point is that we may tend to underestimate future forecasts of technological progress, we also tend to overestimate that progress as a means of fundamentally changing man's experience.