3 ms·

> An excellent argument in favour of including some humanities course in tech degrees at least. What are you seeing that I am not? It looks to me like the aut

> An excellent argument in favour of including some humanities course in tech degrees at least. What are you seeing that I am not? It looks to me like the author of the article went to a liberal arts school (Hampshire College) for a BA in cognitive science and philosophy before studying a PhD in neuroscience, and is a published fiction writer (both short-stories and a novel). I suppose what a tech degree is needs to be defined, but in Canada a computer science degree would involve "breadth electives" that cover humanities and the social sciences. It is at least two of each depending on if one is studying for a BSc or a BA (a BA would require more). Even a degree in computer engineering in Canada would require at least one course in the humanities. I think this applies in the US as well. I believe computer science and computer engineering are the stereotypical tech degrees people picture when the argument is made that tech is lacking in an understanding of the humanities and ethics. It seems that the author of the article is about as far from a typical tech degree as I've outlined above, but you may be seeing something else that I've missed?

quinnjh 5y ago
Church turing paradox but in comments ~ ;p - to elaborate One take is that it’s bollocks- a mechanistic measure for a mechanism to “win” at has nothing to do with human creativity. One would argue that the arts should be taught with stem to help engineers interface with humanity- especially the indefinables. Another take is to ask what it is the machine isnt quite doing. As i believe its been said before “tell me exactly what the program can’t do and i will make it do exactly that”. But where does it end? To satisfy the argument we will need to define creativity, humanity, arts, not to mention bicker on the semantics of building the necessary shared ontology! The synthesist in me thinks the next Shakespeare surely could benefit from n+1 “monkeys and typewriters”

quinnjh 5y ago

Church turing paradox but in comments ~ ;p - to elaborate One take is that it’s bollocks- a mechanistic measure for a mechanism to “win” at has nothing to do with human creativity. One would argue that the arts should be taught with stem to help engineers interface with humanity- especially the indefinables. Another take is to ask what it is the machine isnt quite doing. As i believe its been said before “tell me exactly what the program can’t do and i will make it do exactly that”. But where does it end? To satisfy the argument we will need to define creativity, humanity, arts, not to mention bicker on the semantics of building the necessary shared ontology! The synthesist in me thinks the next Shakespeare surely could benefit from n+1 “monkeys and typewriters”