Vannevar Bush’s article As We May Think provides a very futuristic and hopeful view of what technology will provide for society. Taken on a literal context his predictions were inaccurate, but many of his concepts are similar to technology currently available. His predictions included better photography equipment, calculators that can do simple and fast arithmetic and a desk that has access to a wealth of information. Although the mechanics of these inventions were wrong, the basic ideas were essentially correct. He determined new technological advances by analyzing the necessity of the new technology, the demand for improved technology and the economy to sustain mass producing the new technology.
Both necessity and demand play a the determining role in what practical role technology will have in the future. During WWII the US government needed to be able to calculate trajectories and analyze firing ranges to destroy certain targets. Bush validates this, seeing how he was part of the Manhattan Project, and the creation of other technology to aid in national defense. However, Bush then goes into how demand influences technology. With the Memex (a desk that would store information and act as a library), doctors and lawyers will be able to efficiently access data regarding their patients and clients to better assist them. The Memex would also allow the majority of people to access information and knowledge on an immense scale. Although no such desk exists, there is a parallel between his idea for the desk and a computer sitting on a counter that has access to the internet. Also, Bush predicted that a card would exist in the future that would allow people to make fast and convenient purchases. Today, this is known as a credit or debit card and has allowed people to purchase goods more easily. Both the Memex and the credit/debit card are an example of a demand for either more efficient or convenient technology.
Last, economics has a vital role in what technology becomes defined as new media. Economics comes into play when Bush notes that phones could improve in the future, but the cost would be unreasonable to warrant the advancement. This is a really valid point when discussing new media. If a new breakthrough in technology comes through that could potentially redefine the world we life in but is too expensive or impractical for people to have, the technology will have no effect on either society or media. The technology must have enough practical use and widespread affluence to be considered media and influence society. Vannevar Bush analyzes new media by focusing on technological breakthroughs focused on necessity, demand and the economy.
I agree with you Kevin. Through societal needs a technology is developed and advanced in the most economic fashion. I would say that because Bush was able to correctly analyze some of the societal needs - like the need to better store and link information - he came up with ideas for future technology which are at least somewhat similar to the technology now present. Jaskaran Saggu
The economics point you brought up is something that is incredibly important. Many a time there have been new technologies that have become present but have made no real impact on society due to ridiculous costs. At one point in time the Segway was released and people thought it was going to be as big as the computer. Huge speculation and buzz was generated when the product known as "IT" was being spoken about and speculated on. After the release of the segway however, not many units were sold due to high costs and low necessity for the technology. Technologies can come out at one point in time but become popular and necessary at a much later point in time due to advances in technology which will result in the lower cost of the product. -Justin Japinga
“Can machines think?” Alan Turing had arguments on whether the machines that man has built can think. He uses an example of the mimic game, where an interrogator is to distinguish who is a man and who is a computer. Computers are programmed to do what we want them to do. They understand the words that are coming from us, but it sometimes does what you want, but what you didn’t want at the same time. For example, if I wanted to draw and elephant and I want the computer to do the work I would give it instructions to do so. Let’s say, I tell it to draw a circle for the body. Instead, the computer draws a tiny circle instead of the size I originally wanted. But it is in fact a circle. Therefore one questions if computers do think on their own if not in a different way in which they are programmed. One distinctive characteristic of the “artificial intelligence” is that it cannot make mistakes. Humans programmed it to do work in a sufficient manner for algorithms and calculation for us. So in a sense to my first point, it’s not wrong in doing to what you are saying, it’s just your fault for not describing it correctly. However, for this reason it is considered errors, errors of functioning and errors of conclusion. However humans wants to feel superior and always in control.But one thing that became interesting was that he stated what if vice versa a computer can become a man, or even better a child for it can have the ability to develop in knowledge. And it will progressively learn and when it does something right, it will have more possibly cause repetition and if it is wrong, it will adjust. And what if, it can develop speech and had eyes and legs to walk? For now it is unimportant, but if so, the world of the “Terminator” can one day be true. Maybe one day we can have one to act as guides for us, such as finding Alenda’s room in Moffit.
In Alan Turing’s “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” the question “Can machines think?” is bought up in the first sentence. Turing goes on to change the wording of his question because he realizes that “think” is a very difficult term to define without getting into some sort of philosophical debate, and having it relate too much to humans. He also continues to show opposing viewpoints, that is points of view that don’t believe that computers can think, most of which try to make humans out as extremely different from the computer. He is able to craftily refute these counterarguments. Finally, he proposes that computers be programmed to resemble a human child’s brain, and that the computer could then “learn.” The main issue that is present during his whole article, however, is the distinction between human and computers.
As I was reading the article, the first thought that popped in my mind when I read “Can machines think?” was that of a robot. (C-3PO from Star Wars to be honest) I found this to be somewhat interesting because robots in a way are made to mimic humans, and I immediately associated the word ‘think ‘with a human, although a bit indirectly. And as mentioned earlier this point is central to his entire argument. Back when this article was written in 1950, I’m sure this must have been of great concern. Computers and machines for that matter were still relatively new to the general population and a fear must have arisen in them, of there being something superior or “smarter” than humans.
Now however, since we have had exposure to computers I don’t believe that people really have much of a problem with questioning if “machines can think,” as Turing suggested. When he was explaining the imitation game, I thought of the electronic 20 Questions game that we have now. In this game a person thinks of a thing, anything really, and the handheld device asks a series of question to try to guess what the person is thinking. It will then take a guess at the end of the 20 questions. I’ve played this game a number of occasions and have only been able to beat it once. After I am done playing this game I am always left wondering “How does it know what I’m thinking about?” The point being, that if you take a look at my last three sentences I continuously gave this little computer human abilities: asking, guessing, knowing. I believe that we have progressed in such a way that it is now safe for most of us to attribute the “thinking” with both humans and computers.
The article the History of Computing and Artificail intellegence provoked a number of responses from me. The most important response I think was the implications of power, politically and socially, that could result in the possible future world that is described in the article.
In no other place in the world, is technology and new things greeted more than here in America. With good reason, technology has bennifited us with a mobile society and a more affluent one as that. However the technology that has recently beniffited us, computers and subsequent research in artificial intellegence, are still tools that can be used for any purpose in the end. Infact the thing that worries me about this more is that the technology we are beniffiting from came from the iron triangle of the millitary industrial complex. While we enjoy the benifits of smarter computers and more interconnectivity through the internet, the airforce is using predator drones to fire missles at "alleged" Taliban targets, using related technology explained above. Using this technology, pilots now control their predator craft with a video monitor back in a bunker in the United States. Just like a video game, killing has become humane to the attacker, that person sitting in the bunker doesn't see anyone dying, he only sees a target on his screen and the resulting explosion that is translated as a succesfull hit. Meanwhile, innocent civilians on the other end of the gun have been dying because of the impersonal nature of predator drones, since the operator really can't distinguish on his screen who is friend or foe. Although this sort of warfare is only on a limited scale, the millitary industrial complex is still conducting research in the direction of making warfare, cold, logical, rational, impersonal, and devoid of any emotion. Once that is achieved, wars can be waged indefinently, without the populace knowing what their governments are causing in destruction, since it will all be seen through a TV screen and not with our own eyes.
When technology is developed, the creator always envisions a purpose for that technology. Sometimes technology may be used for different purposes contrary to its creators, but the technology from the millitary industrial complex has a millitary point of use in the begining. We need to be mindfull of the purposes of the creations around us and what their original uses were intended for, instead of blindly accepting technology as good for society. It is just a tool, a tool that can be abused.
The Independent = Alec, right? Your concerns here are eminently valid, but fortunately for us, historians like Edwards and artists like Trevor Paglen (http://www.paglen.com/pages/projects.htm) work to make these obscured origin stories and technological secrecies transparent.
Why does technology and media change?
ReplyDeleteVannevar Bush’s article As We May Think provides a very futuristic and hopeful view of what technology will provide for society. Taken on a literal context his predictions were inaccurate, but many of his concepts are similar to technology currently available. His predictions included better photography equipment, calculators that can do simple and fast arithmetic and a desk that has access to a wealth of information. Although the mechanics of these inventions were wrong, the basic ideas were essentially correct. He determined new technological advances by analyzing the necessity of the new technology, the demand for improved technology and the economy to sustain mass producing the new technology.
Both necessity and demand play a the determining role in what practical role technology will have in the future. During WWII the US government needed to be able to calculate trajectories and analyze firing ranges to destroy certain targets. Bush validates this, seeing how he was part of the Manhattan Project, and the creation of other technology to aid in national defense. However, Bush then goes into how demand influences technology. With the Memex (a desk that would store information and act as a library), doctors and lawyers will be able to efficiently access data regarding their patients and clients to better assist them. The Memex would also allow the majority of people to access information and knowledge on an immense scale. Although no such desk exists, there is a parallel between his idea for the desk and a computer sitting on a counter that has access to the internet. Also, Bush predicted that a card would exist in the future that would allow people to make fast and convenient purchases. Today, this is known as a credit or debit card and has allowed people to purchase goods more easily. Both the Memex and the credit/debit card are an example of a demand for either more efficient or convenient technology.
Last, economics has a vital role in what technology becomes defined as new media. Economics comes into play when Bush notes that phones could improve in the future, but the cost would be unreasonable to warrant the advancement. This is a really valid point when discussing new media. If a new breakthrough in technology comes through that could potentially redefine the world we life in but is too expensive or impractical for people to have, the technology will have no effect on either society or media. The technology must have enough practical use and widespread affluence to be considered media and influence society. Vannevar Bush analyzes new media by focusing on technological breakthroughs focused on necessity, demand and the economy.
Kevin Campbell
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Kevin. Through societal needs a technology is developed and advanced in the most economic fashion. I would say that because Bush was able to correctly analyze some of the societal needs - like the need to better store and link information - he came up with ideas for future technology which are at least somewhat similar to the technology now present.
ReplyDeleteJaskaran Saggu
The economics point you brought up is something that is incredibly important. Many a time there have been new technologies that have become present but have made no real impact on society due to ridiculous costs. At one point in time the Segway was released and people thought it was going to be as big as the computer. Huge speculation and buzz was generated when the product known as "IT" was being spoken about and speculated on. After the release of the segway however, not many units were sold due to high costs and low necessity for the technology. Technologies can come out at one point in time but become popular and necessary at a much later point in time due to advances in technology which will result in the lower cost of the product.
ReplyDelete-Justin Japinga
“Can machines think?” Alan Turing had arguments on whether the machines that man has built can think. He uses an example of the mimic game, where an interrogator is to distinguish who is a man and who is a computer. Computers are programmed to do what we want them to do. They understand the words that are coming from us, but it sometimes does what you want, but what you didn’t want at the same time. For example, if I wanted to draw and elephant and I want the computer to do the work I would give it instructions to do so. Let’s say, I tell it to draw a circle for the body. Instead, the computer draws a tiny circle instead of the size I originally wanted. But it is in fact a circle. Therefore one questions if computers do think on their own if not in a different way in which they are programmed.
ReplyDeleteOne distinctive characteristic of the “artificial intelligence” is that it cannot make mistakes. Humans programmed it to do work in a sufficient manner for algorithms and calculation for us. So in a sense to my first point, it’s not wrong in doing to what you are saying, it’s just your fault for not describing it correctly. However, for this reason it is considered errors, errors of functioning and errors of conclusion. However humans wants to feel superior and always in control.But one thing that became interesting was that he stated what if vice versa a computer can become a man, or even better a child for it can have the ability to develop in knowledge. And it will progressively learn and when it does something right, it will have more possibly cause repetition and if it is wrong, it will adjust. And what if, it can develop speech and had eyes and legs to walk? For now it is unimportant, but if so, the world of the “Terminator” can one day be true. Maybe one day we can have one to act as guides for us, such as finding Alenda’s room in Moffit.
In Alan Turing’s “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” the question “Can machines think?” is bought up in the first sentence. Turing goes on to change the wording of his question because he realizes that “think” is a very difficult term to define without getting into some sort of philosophical debate, and having it relate too much to humans. He also continues to show opposing viewpoints, that is points of view that don’t believe that computers can think, most of which try to make humans out as extremely different from the computer. He is able to craftily refute these counterarguments. Finally, he proposes that computers be programmed to resemble a human child’s brain, and that the computer could then “learn.” The main issue that is present during his whole article, however, is the distinction between human and computers.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the article, the first thought that popped in my mind when I read “Can machines think?” was that of a robot. (C-3PO from Star Wars to be honest) I found this to be somewhat interesting because robots in a way are made to mimic humans, and I immediately associated the word ‘think ‘with a human, although a bit indirectly. And as mentioned earlier this point is central to his entire argument. Back when this article was written in 1950, I’m sure this must have been of great concern. Computers and machines for that matter were still relatively new to the general population and a fear must have arisen in them, of there being something superior or “smarter” than humans.
Now however, since we have had exposure to computers I don’t believe that people really have much of a problem with questioning if “machines can think,” as Turing suggested. When he was explaining the imitation game, I thought of the electronic 20 Questions game that we have now. In this game a person thinks of a thing, anything really, and the handheld device asks a series of question to try to guess what the person is thinking. It will then take a guess at the end of the 20 questions. I’ve played this game a number of occasions and have only been able to beat it once. After I am done playing this game I am always left wondering “How does it know what I’m thinking about?” The point being, that if you take a look at my last three sentences I continuously gave this little computer human abilities: asking, guessing, knowing. I believe that we have progressed in such a way that it is now safe for most of us to attribute the “thinking” with both humans and computers.
The article the History of Computing and Artificail intellegence provoked a number of responses from me. The most important response I think was the implications of power, politically and socially, that could result in the possible future world that is described in the article.
ReplyDeleteIn no other place in the world, is technology and new things greeted more than here in America. With good reason, technology has bennifited us with a mobile society and a more affluent one as that. However the technology that has recently beniffited us, computers and subsequent research in artificial intellegence, are still tools that can be used for any purpose in the end. Infact the thing that worries me about this more is that the technology we are beniffiting from came from the iron triangle of the millitary industrial complex. While we enjoy the benifits of smarter computers and more interconnectivity through the internet, the airforce is using predator drones to fire missles at "alleged" Taliban targets, using related technology explained above. Using this technology, pilots now control their predator craft with a video monitor back in a bunker in the United States. Just like a video game, killing has become humane to the attacker, that person sitting in the bunker doesn't see anyone dying, he only sees a target on his screen and the resulting explosion that is translated as a succesfull hit. Meanwhile, innocent civilians on the other end of the gun have been dying because of the impersonal nature of predator drones, since the operator really can't distinguish on his screen who is friend or foe. Although this sort of warfare is only on a limited scale, the millitary industrial complex is still conducting research in the direction of making warfare, cold, logical, rational, impersonal, and devoid of any emotion. Once that is achieved, wars can be waged indefinently, without the populace knowing what their governments are causing in destruction, since it will all be seen through a TV screen and not with our own eyes.
When technology is developed, the creator always envisions a purpose for that technology. Sometimes technology may be used for different purposes contrary to its creators, but the technology from the millitary industrial complex has a millitary point of use in the begining. We need to be mindfull of the purposes of the creations around us and what their original uses were intended for, instead of blindly accepting technology as good for society. It is just a tool, a tool that can be abused.
The Independent = Alec, right? Your concerns here are eminently valid, but fortunately for us, historians like Edwards and artists like Trevor Paglen (http://www.paglen.com/pages/projects.htm) work to make these obscured origin stories and technological secrecies transparent.
ReplyDelete