Hi Alan, Is the gift really that bad? It certainly is an interesting question.
I'm a frequent blogger on the topic of what could probably be described as the ongoing 'software crisis'. We definitely build bigger systems these days, but the quality has likely been declining. There is great software out there, but the world is littered with lots of partially working code that causes lots of problems. Perhaps one could lay this on the feet of better documentation. That is, when I started coding it was hard to find out any information so I spent a lot of time just playing with the underlying pieces to really understand them and figure out how to use them appropriately. These days, the "kids" do a quick google, then just copy&paste the results into the code base, mostly unaware of what the underlying 'magic' instructions actually do. So example code is possibly a bad thing? But even if that's true, we've let the genie out of the bottle and he is't going back in. To fix the quality of software, for example, we can't just ban all cut&paste-able web pages. I definitely agree that we're terrible thinkers, and that for the most part as a species we are self-absorbed and often lazy, so I don't really expect that most programmers will have the same desire that I did to get down to really understanding the details. That type of curiosity is rare. The alternate route out of the problem is to exploit these types of human deficiencies. If some programmers just want to cut&paste, then perhaps all we can do is too just make sure that what they are using is high enough quality. If someday they want more depth, then it should be available in easily digestible forms, even if few will ever travel that route. If most people really don't want to think deeply about about their problems, then I think that the best we can do is ensure that their hasty decisions are based on as accurate knowledge as possible. It's far better than them just flipping a coin. In a sense it moves up our decision making to a higher level of abstraction. Some people lose the 'why' of the decision, but their underlying choice ultimately is superior, and the 'why' can still be found by doing digging into the data. In a way, isn't that what we've already done with micro-code, chips and assembler? Or machinery? Gradually we move up towards broader problems... Paul. Sent from my iPad On 2013-09-08, at 10:45 AM, Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Paul > > When I said "even scientists go against their training" I was also pointing > out really deep problems in humanity's attempts at thinking (we are quite > terrible thinkers!). > > If we still make most decisions without realizing why, and use conventional > "thinking tools" as ways to rationalize them, then technologists providing > vastly more efficient, wide and deep, sources for rationalizing is the > opposite of a great gift. > > Imagine a Google that also retrieves counter-examples. Or one that actively > tries to help find chains of reasoning that are based on principles one -- or > others -- claim to hold. Or one that looks at the system implications of > local human desires and actions. > > Etc. > > I'm guessing that without a lot of training, most humans would not choose to > use a real "thinking augmenter". > > Best wishes, > > Alan > > From: Paul Homer <paul_ho...@yahoo.ca> > To: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com> > Cc: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org> > Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 7:34 AM > Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? > > Hi Alan, > > I agree that there is, and probably will always be, a necessity to 'think > outside of the box', although if the box was larger, it would be less > necessary. But I wasn't really thinking about scientists and the pursuit of > new knowledge, but rather the trillions? of mundane decisions that people > regularly make on a daily basis. > > A tool like Wikipedia really helps in being able to access a refined chunk of > knowledge, but the navigation and categorization are statically defined. > Sometimes what I am trying to find is spread horizontally across a large > number of pages. If, as a simple example, a person could have a dynamically > generated Wikipedia page created just for them that factored in their current > knowledge and the overall context of the situation then they'd be able to > utilize that knowledge more appropriately. They could still choose to skim or > ignore it, but if they wanted a deeper understanding, they could read the > compiled research in a few minutes. > > The Web, particularly for programmers, has been a great tease for this. You > can look up any coding example instantly (although you do have to sort > through the bad examples and misinformation). The downside is that I find it > far more common for people to not really understanding what is actually > happening underneath, but I suspect that that is driven by increasing time > pressures and expectations rather than but a shift in the way we relate to > knowledge. > > What I think would really help is not just to allow access to the breadth of > knowledge, but to also enable individuals to get to the depth as well. Also > the ability to quickly recognize lies, myths, propaganda, etc. > > Paul. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 2013-09-08, at 7:12 AM, Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Hi Paul >> >> I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view, >> and I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in >> this direction. >> >> However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and >> especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their >> training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire and >> environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here -- but >> it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Alan >> >> From: Paul Homer <paul_ho...@yahoo.ca> >> To: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing >> <fonc@vpri.org>; Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org> >> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> >> Hi Alan, >> >> I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I >> think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but >> individually people still make important choices based on too little >> knowledge. >> >> In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of >> 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards >> reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by >> individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the >> classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by >> giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not >> a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be >> used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would >> have made normally. >> >> To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs >> to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't >> keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it >> appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the >> ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural >> model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long >> way off, but I've always thought it was possible... >> >> Paul. >> >> From: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com> >> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> >> Hi Jonathan >> >> We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others >> on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan >> >> From: Jonathan Edwards <edwa...@csail.mit.edu> >> To: fonc@vpri.org >> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> >> That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a >> problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to >> work on or are you soliciting proposals? >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> From: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com> >> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org> >> Cc: >> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT) >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> Hi Dan >> >> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, >> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. >> >> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and >> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my >> time for the last 5-6 months. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan >> >> From: Dan Melchione <dm.f...@melchione.com> >> To: fonc@vpri.org >> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM >> Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> >> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or >> put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
