Government Sponsorship and Secrecy

According to the Edwards reading, the government and military’s interest in developing computing technology rapidly accelerated research and collaboration, but also hindered some of the flow of new information due to the need for wartime secrecy. After the wars ended, there was less of a need for secrecy, but the political will to push research forward also lessened. Vast increases in funding during the wars played an obvious role in increasing research, but more interesting to me was the new infrastructure the government created to promote collaboration between academic, industrial, and military scientists. Hearing about those three very different communities working together was a bit surprising, since I often think of them as being at odds with each other, especially academics with the other two. That might be completely off base, but I was hoping someone with more background could add to the discussion. Now, different companies doing their own research wouldn’t want to share ideas until they have a product to sell, and I imagine the government wouldn’t for the same reasons as during wartime. So that leaves academics, but are universities still leaders in developing new technology? Actually, I feel a bit silly now that I’ve written this - I have no idea how all of this stuff actually happens! Also, if national security was the reason computer research exploded originally, what is pushing it forward today? Industry has an interest in creating consumer goods, but that seems rather petty in comparison to protecting a country. We hear about amazing projects Google is working on, but it’s interesting to think about how different our technology could be given different political and cultural circumstances.

Computers and the War

Fun Fact: Did anyone know this Hollywood film on Turing was coming out?


The essay "Why Build Computers?..." describes WWII's direct link to the need for better weapon technology and the advancement of computers through the ENIAC project, etc. The military's involvement in computer research and the desire to be the most advanced during the war was so great that it is why we have computers today. We have come a long way from those beginning stages and unfortunately this has created ideological problem for those in the military wielding these advanced "computer-weapons."

Something very interesting about the advancement of computers in warfare is the separation, provided by automated weapons systems, between the war makers and those attacked. Computers are a vital part of technological weapons systems that take away soldiers from the blood and agony of fighting a war. Bombing, crew-less vehicles, and other techniques have increasingly removed soldiers and officers from the formal scene of the fighting. This separation makes it more bearable for some to create destruction with less consciousness of their results as opposed to seeing the horrific consequences directly. This is not to say that all soldiers behind automated weapons are mindless killers, but the fact that the direct contact can be eliminated is very frightening for the future of warfare. 
 

Turing Tests

The only capacity in which I had heard the term “Turing” was in relation to a “Turing test.” To be honest, I did not even realize that the name belonged to someone. The idea seemed preposterous to me at first, how could someone mistake a computer for a human? But when you break down the digital machine into its base components (store, executive unit, control), what makes it so different from the human brain? The way that we learn, process, and call upon information, Turing believed, could be mimicked by a machine, an intelligent machine.

Look at the technology we have today. We have machines that compete with people on Jeopardy. We have phones that can recognize our voice and respond in a quick and precise manner. Not only have we surpassed Turing’s idea to create a machine that could play chess at a simple level, we have built chess-playing machines that are unbeatable. Our view of digital machines has changed drastically since Turing’s time. We used to view them as novel, but ultimately unnecessary, extensions of our own abilities. Now we revere these machines. We rely heavily on them to guide us through our lives. We find no greater pleasure than in machines that learn our preferences; that adapt to suit our individual personas.

But we keep them at arm’s length. We have to confine this artificial intelligence into contexts that are decidedly artificial. That is the whole point of the Turing test, isn’t it? To make sure that we can still determine between human and inhuman. We say that if a computer can fool us, then it has passed the test. But that begs the bigger question: do we want them to pass?

Digital Minds

The explanation that digital computers are designed to mimic human computers leads to potentially interesting consequences. Cognitive science has revealed much about human thought in the past 20 years, and while it still has a lot to discover, we understand the basics of how our brains work. A comparison between digital computers and the human brain may seem bizarre, but should at least be considered.

Decisions and emotions (in the brain) are formed by neurochemical interactions, shaped by genetic predisposition and chemical interactions during brain development both in utero and later. Information is stored, and retrieved; conscious thought is both separate from and influenced by the unconscious mechanisms at work, and the whole apparatus can adapt to solve any kind of problem. The unexamined superstitious comparison between the mind and a computer predispose this idea to rejection, but the structure is certainly similar to a digital computer - with a memory store, an executive unit, and a control system. Ultimately, though, the most interesting question isn't, "Is the human mind is the same as a digital computer?"; it's "How close can the digital computer get to being a human mind?"

Did the Fear of War Create the Computer?

             The modern day computer, which most of the world population appreciates because of its usefulness of resources and communication, was not conceived by the motivation for search of knowledge, but by fear of war. In an eerie thought, if the country/government weren’t involved with wars, we probably wouldn’t have our modern day tech. The need for enhancing our defense via technology is a necessity in order for ourselves and the country to feel safe. With that said, this can go a little too far by having weapons developed using technology, we don’t want The Terminator to be our future. I can see the potential good warfare has created for new computer system where a soldier’s life isn’t in peril. With these new advances, it soon becomes the archetype for a newer safer computer system for everyday people to use as a tool.

            Creating the early computer didn’t just help America win wars, it also created nationalism among its people. When the American government funded universities to help develop new computing systems, this allowed hundreds of people who didn’t work for the government contribute in becoming stronger. Government and technology may lead to a dark path (fighting wars), but it also can lead to a better way of life with its positive effects of further researching science and engineering. What helps the government further these studies is the people who help create, learn, and gain national pride by working together. Who else, but the original computer (humans) can help create a computing system.

Two roads diverged in computing history...

I’m still working on differentiating between an analog and a digital computer. Radar, though called an analog technology, was largely based on electronic equipment. I understand that analog technology also used electricity, but I’m struggling to understand where the dividing line between the technologies is placed. Is the distinction based on moving vs. fixed parts, method of processing data, or something else? For example, the ENIAC, being programmed using “switches and plug boards,” seems like a hybrid between digital and analog in some capacity, as it appears to make use of both. Surprisingly, the ENIAC is referred to on page 67 as “a wartime investment in digital computing…” which leads me down a rabbit trail of defining concepts. I hope we have a moment in class to touch on this.

It is unsurprising that entrenched interests resisted the emerging digital paradigm. Although analog computing was the status quo, it’s interesting to note that starting in the 60’s, ARPA’s exploration into AI and computer networking seems to be far more digital in nature.  Although it represents a subset of computing, it seems as though these ideas held some of the greatest potential impact, and hinted at a direction computing could follow. 

Alenda's Office Hours, Wed 12-2

Hello everyone,

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to post my official office hours for the semester, but at long last I've found a time and space for them. I'll be in our usual classroom, the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons (340 Moffitt) from 12:00-2:00PM every Wednesday, unless otherwise announced.

Please feel free to drop in or schedule a particular appointment. We can discuss the readings, assignments, blog posts, whatever! I'm happy to help.

Alenda