Monday, January 28, 2013
Machine-based Knowledge
The first two sets of readings seem to effectively pin us down to two ends of a progression of mechanized thought; starting from basic arithmetic and ending (now) in what is arguably mechanized memory storage, not just of fact but also, increasingly, of experience. While this could be characterized as a slippery slope, I think they may be quite analogous to each other, and this progression may not warrant the extremely negative view some take.
Comparing the difference engine to the arithmetical capabilities of clerks, few would deny the superiority of the machine. Increased accuracy and speed had the potential to vastly increase the utility of mathematics that were being used to explore the world and explicate geography and astronomy. But one can easily imagine some old clerk, hearing about Babbage's machine, and bemoaning the loss of intellect resulting from human reliance on machines to do arithmetic; a precursor to current fears about Google's effect on human memory.
A positive comparison may be more apt, however. Although the progress was delayed for a number of decades after Babbage's first desings; the advances of mechanical computing allowed for more complicated calculations than could be feasibly accomplished by humans with pen and paper; in the grand scheme of things, machines took over the "lower" math functions, enabling humans to focus on more advanced ideas, and fueling more rapid understanding of the universe by giving scientists much better mathematical tools. Similarly, the current migration of facts from the memory banks of neurons to memory banks of magnetic patterns on disks can allow minds to spend their resources doing better things. There remains a significant gap - the interface isn't ready yet, there's still a major difference in retrieval between the things we "know" and the things we can look up, and this gap translates into a gap in usability, assimilation, and ultimately into a failure of knowledge; but if this gap were to be closed, and the information from the vast pool of data to be integrated to our thought processes similarly to the way our memories are, "Human Knowledge" will have taken a huge step forward. This is not without problems, or risks, but fighting against change has seldom succeeded; while channeling and directing the change has a better track record.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mike, I appreciate your ability to see the transition from human to machine computing as something more than a disastrous descent into machine-supplemented stupidity. Of course, these fears will likely never be fully dissipated, and the rhetoric we use is often designed to make us feel safer, or more in control of the tools we use--thus, "machine-assisted" work or McLuhan's "extensions" of man.
ReplyDeleteAs for the interface between human and machine still falling far short of what is possible, you're in line with the "brain in the vat" arguments of Hans Moravec and science/science-fiction writers who are interested in the "singularity"... might be worth a look!