3 ms·
> we implicitly trust and idolize the machines I think it's a strawman. Nobody I know idolizes machines. It's abundantly clear that software has its limitation
by eterevsky 4y ago
> we implicitly trust and idolize the machines
I think it's a strawman. Nobody I know idolizes machines. It's abundantly clear that software has its limitations and machines are only as good as they are programmed.
The examples that you are giving are usually treated as bugs. Nobody in their right mind would say that a somebody is not a person because they haven't been detected by some image recognition software. Everyone would just agree that that software sucks at recognition and should be fixed.
I'm not saying that they programs are always achieving the goal of fulfilling users' goals, but this is the general direction in which the programs are developed. Even if you are exclusively driven by greed, usually the best way to sell your program is to make it useful.
And yes, you can give examples where the best way of monetizing your program would incentivize doing something which is not user-friendly, but ultimately, if your program is not useful at its core, it will not be used, so making it useful is your first priority.
- csydas 4y agoI will grant that it's a broad generalization, but I don't think it's a straw man. The implicit sales point of a lot of software is that it removes the overheard of research and quantitative looks and provides hard data. If data is not questioned and checked, then there is an implicit trust. Yes, I would agree the above are bugs, but the point is more about: 1. How did the bug get there in the first place? 2. What is the time to resolve these bugs, if they ever are? 3. A program can be used for things it was never intended to that has harmful effects. This is the basis behind exploits where software doing exactly what it was designed to has an unintended effect. It's not about universal usefulness, it's about who the program actually helps.