relationship with our tools? NO.
RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2
Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:35:01 +0800
I'm sorry that I'm so inflammable that I respond to this garbage.
> TUNES is not a being. It isn't any more alive than Linux is. TUNES is a
> dynamic, evolving software project. That means it only evolves at the
> whim of its users and coders. We should not desire the computer to take
> control of its own evolution. It might be a fun experiment, but the
> purpose of TUNES is to make a useful system. If the system is not
> completely controllable by the user at all times, how is it useful?
Get an imagination! Tunes is an age-old idea which has been waiting for
devices which could propel it into reality. Tunes is not about software,
it's a kind of relationship between people and linear machines (in the sense
of Turing machines being abstract notions). It's about how people think
about _things_. Computers don't and can't _control_ anything. They are
expressions in the space of linear thinking. Complete control is an
illusion, unless the context transcends our paradigm of control.
> The desire to create artificially intelligent (autonomous) computer
> software is the REASON why existing systems are so stupid! If you assume
> your product will be SELF CAPABLE, why make it easy for the user to get
> inside it and change what's going on? Programmers design their programs
> to be complete solutions to a problem, unchangeable by users, because of
> their ego! So the moment things change, their work is obsolete. This
> could be as soon as a user gives the program some input the coder didn't
No assumption there, unless of course you realize that my product is not
something which will fit on a linear machine! The user takes part, and the
key to the success of this interface is the kind of analysis that I am doing
> I think, like TV, many people get confused about computers. They believe
> their TV is a real person. They have a relationship with it. It teaches
> them. These people are deluded.
Cybernetic reality is relative. Hence delusion is relative.
> HAL is the worst example to use if you are wishing to emulate sentience.
> HAL was a murderer. Because the designers tried to make it/him
> autonomous. They should have known better than to not send someone who
> knew everything about the inner workings of HAL, so it/he could be
> reprogrammed when problems came up.
A question merely of cybernetics. I've answered this long ago.
> Tools are an extension of thought (in the reaching out sense, not in the
> truth value sense). If you depend on your tools without thinking (HINT:
> Worship them), then you bring ruin, because the tools depend on thought.
And I'm arguing for a revolution in _thought_, in your ontology.
> TUNES is not about establishing a "partnership" with the computer. It is
> establishing new partnerships with other *people*. The computer is a
> means to an end, not an end itself (the only thing that is an end in
> itself is a human being, said Kant). The computer should be as invisible
> as the telephone. The telephone transports a person's voice as if it were
> in the room. Likewise we should think of our software as transporting
> people's ideas to us. The mechanism to do such should be invisible, and
> that mechanism is what we are designing now. We need to minimize
> interaction with the computer itself and allow direct access to ideas and
> people. Otherwise computers are useless.
You don't call your relationship to a telephone a partnership? The
telephone, by being part of your implicit context, shapes you, just as
humans shape the telephone's role in society.