5 ms·

"Information Is Cheap, Meaning Is Expensive"

56 points by gruseom 15y ago

sausax82 15y ago
Great quote "When you look at your iPhone to get directions, are you asking the phone where to go or is the phone telling you where to go?"
- Joakal 15y ago
  Isn't it both? Can you explain why it's a great quote?
  - SkyMarshal 15y ago
    He may be implying it's a filter bubble effect: http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ http://www.thefilterbubble.com/
  - gwern 15y ago
    It seems to me like he's just trying to sound deep, as opposed to be deep ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/ ).
    - gruseom 15y ago
      I can see why you'd say that about the quote, but I'm pretty sure he's not pretentious in that way.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - morrow 15y ago
    I'm going to do a bad job of explaining what I think the value of this quote is, but here's what I thought upon reading it: He's not asking for the technical difference between consulting a phone and having the phone direct you, but in a deeper sense (I guess maybe of some false depth, according to some), posing the question of where the line is crossed before which computers are simply tools used by humans and beyond which computers/technology in general must be considered a separate entity or life-form of some kind. I think the "giving directions" example was sort of a poor choice, because people will think "yeah, a GPS 'commands' you, but it isn't actually 'commanding', it's simply information delivered in a command-like format so that you don't have to interact with it while driving". I think this was simply supposed to be an example of a more general philosophical question of at what point do we program-in such layers of thought, abstraction, problem-solving, etc. into technology that the resulting intelligence cannot be considered anything but another form of life (you could argue that as it exists right now, it is a very primitive version of that).
    - partition 15y ago
      Even in the GPS example, it's not a poor choice. What if there are places you decide to visit or not visit, based on the availability of GPS? For example, exploring a new city in your car; if I didn't have my iPhone so I could search interesting locations (where the definition of "interesting" is not up to me) and find directions for them immediately, I probably wouldn't go through the trouble of exploring in a lot of cases. So even with this example, it's already not clear who is "commanding" who.
- partition 15y ago
  This touches on an ethical problem that is also briefly mentioned in the book "Programming by Demonstration," which I think restates the problem in the best way: http://acypher.com/wwid/FrontMatter/index.html#Foreword http://acypher.com/wwid/FrontMatter/index.html#Foreword "In any case, I think the most important issues regarding end-user programming and its subbranch of programming by example are pedagogical and ethical. There is no question that a human with a goal wants to have the sub-goals ready made and at hand. One shouldn't have to learn about Carnot cycles of internal combustion engines--or even just hand cranking it--in order to drive an automobile. And agents that can be told goals and can go off and solve them have been valuable and sought after for as long as humanity has endured. On the other hand, it takes a very special value system for children and adults to be able to exist as learning creatures--indeed as humans at all--in the presence of an environment that does all for them. 20th century humans that don't understand the hows and whys of their technologies are not in a position to make judgments and shape futures. At some point it is necessary to understand something about thermodynamics and waiting until then to try to learn it doesn't work. Nature's rule is "use it or lose it"--most social systems that have incorporated intelligent slaves or amanuenses have "lost it". In fact most never gained it to lose. In a technopoly in which we can make just about anything we desire, and almost everything we do can be replaced with vicarious experience, we have to decide to do the activities that make us into actualized humans. We have to decide to exercise, to not eat too much fat and sugar, to learn, to read, to explore, to experiment, to make, to love, to think. In short, to exist. Difficulties are annoying and we like to remove them. But we have to be careful to only remove the gratuitous ones. As for the others--those whose surmounting makes us grow stronger in mind and body--we have to decide to leave those in and face them."
ivanzhao 15y ago
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" T.S. Eliot, 1934
- gruseom 15y ago
  This is in the tradition of the critique of modernity, which holds that mankind is losing something of great value along with our technical progress. It is a minority tradition - like a dissenting opinion in a court case - and has been pretty well drowned out by now. A notable figure in this tradition is the French thinker Simone Weil, who combined intellectual rigor and spiritual depth in a particularly compelling way. It's probably apropos that you posted this in an article about George Dyson, since Dyson's theme is uncovering the origins and recesses of that technical progress, but very much from within the modern view. I love Eliot. His English is exquisite, especially his diction, which is incomparable. Everything he wrote seems to be in a state of timeless balance. This quote turns out to be from a play called The Rock (1934): O perpetual revolution of configured stars, O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons, O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying! The endless cycle of idea and action, Endless invention, endless experiment, Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness; Knowledge of speech, but not of silence; Knowledge of words, and ignorance of The Word. All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance, All our ignorance brings us nearer to death, But nearness to death no nearer to God. Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries Bring us farther from God and nearer to the Dust. That's really something. He's talking about modernity, but in a way that reads like a translation from Sanskrit, with something of the Greek chorus about it as well. Here's someone trying to get perspective on the present through the language of the past. I never thought of that before.
  - kiba 15y ago
    What do you speak of when we lose something of great value along with our technical progress?
    - 15y ago
wensing 15y ago
completely inanimate objects to RNA Has this been mapped out in detail? (Please pardon my ignorance. I'm not an evolutionist but like to stay current).

56 points by gruseom 15y ago

Great quote "When you look at your iPhone to get directions, are you asking the phone where to go or is the phone telling you where to go?"

Joakal 15y ago
Isn't it both? Can you explain why it's a great quote?
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  He may be implying it's a filter bubble effect: http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ http://www.thefilterbubble.com/
- gwern 15y ago
  It seems to me like he's just trying to sound deep, as opposed to be deep ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/ ).
  - gruseom 15y ago
    I can see why you'd say that about the quote, but I'm pretty sure he's not pretentious in that way.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- morrow 15y ago
  I'm going to do a bad job of explaining what I think the value of this quote is, but here's what I thought upon reading it: He's not asking for the technical difference between consulting a phone and having the phone direct you, but in a deeper sense (I guess maybe of some false depth, according to some), posing the question of where the line is crossed before which computers are simply tools used by humans and beyond which computers/technology in general must be considered a separate entity or life-form of some kind. I think the "giving directions" example was sort of a poor choice, because people will think "yeah, a GPS 'commands' you, but it isn't actually 'commanding', it's simply information delivered in a command-like format so that you don't have to interact with it while driving". I think this was simply supposed to be an example of a more general philosophical question of at what point do we program-in such layers of thought, abstraction, problem-solving, etc. into technology that the resulting intelligence cannot be considered anything but another form of life (you could argue that as it exists right now, it is a very primitive version of that).
  - partition 15y ago
    Even in the GPS example, it's not a poor choice. What if there are places you decide to visit or not visit, based on the availability of GPS? For example, exploring a new city in your car; if I didn't have my iPhone so I could search interesting locations (where the definition of "interesting" is not up to me) and find directions for them immediately, I probably wouldn't go through the trouble of exploring in a lot of cases. So even with this example, it's already not clear who is "commanding" who.
partition 15y ago
This touches on an ethical problem that is also briefly mentioned in the book "Programming by Demonstration," which I think restates the problem in the best way: http://acypher.com/wwid/FrontMatter/index.html#Foreword http://acypher.com/wwid/FrontMatter/index.html#Foreword "In any case, I think the most important issues regarding end-user programming and its subbranch of programming by example are pedagogical and ethical. There is no question that a human with a goal wants to have the sub-goals ready made and at hand. One shouldn't have to learn about Carnot cycles of internal combustion engines--or even just hand cranking it--in order to drive an automobile. And agents that can be told goals and can go off and solve them have been valuable and sought after for as long as humanity has endured. On the other hand, it takes a very special value system for children and adults to be able to exist as learning creatures--indeed as humans at all--in the presence of an environment that does all for them. 20th century humans that don't understand the hows and whys of their technologies are not in a position to make judgments and shape futures. At some point it is necessary to understand something about thermodynamics and waiting until then to try to learn it doesn't work. Nature's rule is "use it or lose it"--most social systems that have incorporated intelligent slaves or amanuenses have "lost it". In fact most never gained it to lose. In a technopoly in which we can make just about anything we desire, and almost everything we do can be replaced with vicarious experience, we have to decide to do the activities that make us into actualized humans. We have to decide to exercise, to not eat too much fat and sugar, to learn, to read, to explore, to experiment, to make, to love, to think. In short, to exist. Difficulties are annoying and we like to remove them. But we have to be careful to only remove the gratuitous ones. As for the others--those whose surmounting makes us grow stronger in mind and body--we have to decide to leave those in and face them."

ivanzhao 15y ago

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" T.S. Eliot, 1934

gruseom 15y ago
This is in the tradition of the critique of modernity, which holds that mankind is losing something of great value along with our technical progress. It is a minority tradition - like a dissenting opinion in a court case - and has been pretty well drowned out by now. A notable figure in this tradition is the French thinker Simone Weil, who combined intellectual rigor and spiritual depth in a particularly compelling way. It's probably apropos that you posted this in an article about George Dyson, since Dyson's theme is uncovering the origins and recesses of that technical progress, but very much from within the modern view. I love Eliot. His English is exquisite, especially his diction, which is incomparable. Everything he wrote seems to be in a state of timeless balance. This quote turns out to be from a play called The Rock (1934): O perpetual revolution of configured stars, O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons, O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying! The endless cycle of idea and action, Endless invention, endless experiment, Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness; Knowledge of speech, but not of silence; Knowledge of words, and ignorance of The Word. All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance, All our ignorance brings us nearer to death, But nearness to death no nearer to God. Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries Bring us farther from God and nearer to the Dust. That's really something. He's talking about modernity, but in a way that reads like a translation from Sanskrit, with something of the Greek chorus about it as well. Here's someone trying to get perspective on the present through the language of the past. I never thought of that before.
- kiba 15y ago
  What do you speak of when we lose something of great value along with our technical progress?
  - 15y ago

wensing 15y ago

completely inanimate objects to RNA Has this been mapped out in detail? (Please pardon my ignorance. I'm not an evolutionist but like to stay current).