Yup, I think we’re about done at this point. I do like that you’re optimistic about people wanting to know how things work—there’s just too much going into a device these days for anyone to know everything about it. And with machine learning, it’s going to be literally impossible. Instruments to deal with unkind humans is really important too. And I guess that means we’ll have to develop more structured ways to deal with unkind technology and the humans that control it.
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:26 AM Tomasz Rola <rto...@ceti.pl> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:00:21AM +0000, Ashim D'Silva wrote: > > Right, fair enough. Definitely a definitional difference then; that’s > > specifically the use of a particular meaning of the word kind. Kind > doesn’t > > need this active component you mention—a deed can be kind, or kind > regards, > > as can climate or detergent > > <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kind#source-ced2>, kind on your > hands. It > > does however come from “kin” and that leads more into whether you wish to > > have a kinship with your technology. Considering how much time we spent > > with technology, I think there is a strange kinship we already have. > > Yes. But I am afraid the extent and nature of this kinship is hardly > realized by majority of users. This gradually goes down to situation > when we have more and more powerful tools about which we have no > idea. Using expressions like "kind technology" is only going to lull > us into thinking that we control something or understand it. The only > way of dealing with technology that I can imagine is to understand as > much of it as possible. Once we start telling ourselves this > technology is kind, we may loose motivation (well, maybe not me) to > understand "how it works under the hood". > > > To that end, it is the designers, the people, that are actively > > considerate, but the medium through which they express their kindness is > to > > instil those values into the ways in which technology works. > > This is exactly how I would like things to be - people behind the > wheel and kindly considering needs of their fellows. > > > How active that kindness will be in the long run as machines make > > more decisions themselves is a continuing problem—the Asimov-esque > > question, is it kinder to confine you to your house so you are not > > harmed by the outside world…? > > I guess it would be kinder to confine me and cut off my Internet, so I > do not go on bragging on mailing lists... which makes me look like I > do not want to play nicely and flow with the flow without objecting > problematic ideas. > > > That decision though, will not come from technology directly, but > > from the values we give technology when making it. > > Here you seem to be extremely optimistic. > > > [...] Or we design technology that is inherently kinder, that is > > harder to be misused. > > I would have been very happy if this came to be. > > > Both humans and technology have the potential to be unkind, but by > ideally > > we only control one. > > We have instruments to deal with unkind humans. We are totally caught > by surprise each time technology does something it was not supposed > to. By claiming that it is kind, we are merely making it possible to > be harmed even more in a future, because nobody expects being hurt by > kind person - but technology is not kind and it is not a person, even > if we were calling it so. Just like a lion is not kind, even when > tamed and fed. > > > For an example, the automobile was designed without safety features as > > simple as seatbelts and crumple zones. Early lobbyists for the auto > > industry fought off safety research because they believed cars were > > inherently dangerous and was simply what the tool was. “Cars don’t kill > > people, drivers do.” We’ve since been able to improve the technology > itself > > to be kinder to the human body, even if the human driver and the crash > > speed is much worse. That is instilling the value of human life into the > > way a car reacts to an impact; I’d say that’s kind technology. > > This is very good example, but it also serves my purpose :-). See, > from time to time an airbag goes off (maybe because of an accident) > and sometimes it breakes driver's ribs, nose or jaw. All technology > comes with flaws. I do not think it would be good idea to claim that > "kind car broke someone's rib". Actually, if a person was very nice > for a whole year except this one day when he went around, picked a > passerby randomly (including his family members) and broke his nose, > then I could call him few words, but kind is not one of > them. Actually, describing such guy as "kind" smells very much like > Stockholm syndrome. > > Ok, I do not think we are going to agree on this, right? So be it. I > am done, unless you have some other argument to convince me. > > -- > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com ** > > -- Cheerio, Ashim D’Silva Design & build www.therandomlines.com instagram.com/randomlies
