Interesting quote found on quitfacebook... "Our brains are no match for our technology". But our technology is a direct result of our brains. So, put it very simply, is it matching when we do good things with it and not matching when we do bad things? Any thoughts?
Login or register to reply
Technology lets us concentrate and combine mental energy. I could beat any chess AI if the developer were only allowed 30 seconds to write it, but if the developer has weeks or months to concentrate chess/AI strategy and persist it in a well tested program... The invested mental energy adds up and overcomes the natural condition.
Do you think it will be possible one day to code something simple for a few minutes and then let it go and see it auto-rewrite itself to a high AI level? Makes me think again about cellular automata, starting simple to end up very complex.. Or simplexity ; but I'm not sure the term could apply in that case as it is more in relation to chaos theory and strange attractors (if I remember correctly)...
Our brains are complex. Kahneman points out two different thinking systems on his book Thinking fast and slow. They operate differently depending on situation.
Minsky believed or minds were organized into many of what he described as "columns" where each column functioned slightly differently in terms of it's approach to processing of information. I believe he was speaking specifically about the pre-frontal cortex which I believe is organized into hierarchies.
It's funny that you mention that. I think part of my attraction to the idea of a "text only" social media site is due to the fact that the presence of image or video content somehow drowns out my attention with regard to the text content of sites. One trick that I've discovered is that when browsing with the Lynx or Elinks text mode browsers I find myself spending all of my time reading rather than being sucked in by various multimedia.
Technology is an extension of thought and "nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." One just chooses how one wants to think, this creates the value judgement.
Technology is a form of art, formalized after N iterations. I doubt we can judge technology only in terms of STEM (utility). Morality is disconnected from technology per se as it's only a result of using it. Therefore, I would extend your argument into question whether human is inherently evil because he finds a way to misuse technology?
Depends on your theory of art: what if it's just conspicuous consumption of productive capacity? What if, as Adam Savage recently said, there is no differentiation between making [ie, the use and creation of technology] and art?
I wouldn't say we are evil _because_ of that. There are probably (anthropological) predispositions for violence but I think it's overshadowed by environmental factors, same as for predispositions to diseases. Those factors include culture, education, etc. And the resulting state and sanity of a given human society. Can we organize ourselves to the point of not giving up in "primordial" behavior, leading us to misuse technology? Maybe that will require a new evolutionary step.
If we only found ways to misuse it I'd say we are evil. If misusing technology makes us inherently evil wouldn't good use of technology make us inherently good? Since we do both I'd say we can't be totally either.
This when user experience field started, user interfaces weren't enough to tackle all human-computer interactions.
On the subject of bad user interfaces, flawed human interactions and decision making linked to past experiences, the case of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident is a perfect illustration of that. Must watch (if you have time): youtube.com/watch?...