3 ms·

You use the word explore. I like that and definitely agree we should pursue tools for exploration. To me, knowledge and music do seem like infinite landscapes,

You use the word explore. I like that and definitely agree we should pursue tools for exploration. To me, knowledge and music do seem like infinite landscapes, and I'm excited by the idea of ways to extend the range and speed of exploring that infinity. But to many people - I dare say a majority - that's not how they use technology. They want right answers. Correct opinions. Curated lists. Approved facts. Selected content channels... And our industry has shaped itself to "deliver" that, in cheap convenient forms. Or rather, that's not what technology allows them. An additional layer has grown over the top; People who have opinions on what others should think, say, do and listen to, and those critics, censors, pundits, marketers, influencers and companies who fence-off the roads and place their signposts decide what may or may not be explored. To call that exploration is a stretch. The tools they end up with, perhaps from choice, are not a pith hat, map and compass for exploration. Not a hitchhikers guide. Not even a taxi service. They are strapped into a roller-coaster and spun around a track by someone who has decided their "user experience". Exploration is risky. Explorers freeze to death, or are eaten by lions. I don't see a lot of call for that, sadly. Given what we've built in entertainment I am a little pessimistic about extending that to knowledge engineering. The idea that computers might bring that same culture of constraint and approval to the very act of thought, a kind of thinking-on-rails, is depressing.

CrypticShift 4y ago
> Nobody can create a transparent "tool for thought" that doesn't impose hidden values on the operator > That computers might bring that same culture of constraint and approval to the very act of thought, a kind of thinking-on-rails, is depressing. Well, these are exactly the kind of problems the "tft community" need to engage in more. For others, the naming (tool for thought) should not obscure the real implication of this domain : there will be 300 million college educated people by 2030, and a lot of them will be staring right at these kind of tools for hours every day.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > the "tft community" need to engage in If there's a way I can help them please tell me more (PM me) via Digital Vegan. One thing I stress a great deal in my lectures is the difference between AI and IA. Intelligence Amplification, to me, is the original purpose of computing, and while AI can aid IA, most current thinking goes the opposite way, toward usurping or minimising human intelligence. I often point to the existence of a UIX culture in which book titles like "Don't make me think" have become a tagline for an entire industry.
  - CrypticShift 4y ago
    the "tft community" is a nebulous (like thought itself) thing centred mostly around twitter as a space, and around (again, mostly) note-taking tools as a subject. I'm not part of it. This HN article is a nice summary. If you want a deep hyperdive into their "ways of thinking and linking" (IA is actually not that far), you can follow some rabbit holes on are.ena like this one https://www.are.na/krish/tools-for-thought-lnujvshtshi https://www.are.na/krish/tools-for-thought-lnujvshtshi
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      Thanks for the pointers and the exchange Cryptic respex
selfhoster11 4y ago
> But to many people - I dare say a majority - that's not how they use technology. They want right answers. Correct opinions. Curated lists. Approved facts. Selected content channels... And our industry has shaped itself to "deliver" that, in cheap convenient forms. Tough luck. Scientists and those who want to go off-road still need tools for their thought. I'm happy to let the majority hold onto their 'curated exprience', but we need to have our needs met too.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  You will, if you can pay for them. Unfortunately, the number of entertainment or corporate IT dollars available is way way more than the number of research grant dollars, so your tools will probably be worse since less can be spent creating and maintaining them. Alternatively, researchers can try to use the same digital tools that entertainment consumers or corporate knowledge workers use. They might be less suited, but can potentially make up for it with extra polish.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    Another interesting wrinkle in this whole conversation is that research tools that are useful for normal people tend to eagerly escape the lab. This happened with (off the top of my head only): SQL/RDBMS, the Internet, Email, garbage collected languages, object-orientation/actor model, research UNIX, and the WWW. The list is endless. When this happens, the researchers (who were the initial user base) basically lose control of the technology. This process can benefit the researchers or not, but is basically indifferent to their needs.

CrypticShift 4y ago

> Nobody can create a transparent "tool for thought" that doesn't impose hidden values on the operator > That computers might bring that same culture of constraint and approval to the very act of thought, a kind of thinking-on-rails, is depressing. Well, these are exactly the kind of problems the "tft community" need to engage in more. For others, the naming (tool for thought) should not obscure the real implication of this domain : there will be 300 million college educated people by 2030, and a lot of them will be staring right at these kind of tools for hours every day.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> the "tft community" need to engage in If there's a way I can help them please tell me more (PM me) via Digital Vegan. One thing I stress a great deal in my lectures is the difference between AI and IA. Intelligence Amplification, to me, is the original purpose of computing, and while AI can aid IA, most current thinking goes the opposite way, toward usurping or minimising human intelligence. I often point to the existence of a UIX culture in which book titles like "Don't make me think" have become a tagline for an entire industry.
- CrypticShift 4y ago
  the "tft community" is a nebulous (like thought itself) thing centred mostly around twitter as a space, and around (again, mostly) note-taking tools as a subject. I'm not part of it. This HN article is a nice summary. If you want a deep hyperdive into their "ways of thinking and linking" (IA is actually not that far), you can follow some rabbit holes on are.ena like this one https://www.are.na/krish/tools-for-thought-lnujvshtshi https://www.are.na/krish/tools-for-thought-lnujvshtshi
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Thanks for the pointers and the exchange Cryptic respex

selfhoster11 4y ago

> But to many people - I dare say a majority - that's not how they use technology. They want right answers. Correct opinions. Curated lists. Approved facts. Selected content channels... And our industry has shaped itself to "deliver" that, in cheap convenient forms. Tough luck. Scientists and those who want to go off-road still need tools for their thought. I'm happy to let the majority hold onto their 'curated exprience', but we need to have our needs met too.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
You will, if you can pay for them. Unfortunately, the number of entertainment or corporate IT dollars available is way way more than the number of research grant dollars, so your tools will probably be worse since less can be spent creating and maintaining them. Alternatively, researchers can try to use the same digital tools that entertainment consumers or corporate knowledge workers use. They might be less suited, but can potentially make up for it with extra polish.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Another interesting wrinkle in this whole conversation is that research tools that are useful for normal people tend to eagerly escape the lab. This happened with (off the top of my head only): SQL/RDBMS, the Internet, Email, garbage collected languages, object-orientation/actor model, research UNIX, and the WWW. The list is endless. When this happens, the researchers (who were the initial user base) basically lose control of the technology. This process can benefit the researchers or not, but is basically indifferent to their needs.