5 ms·

Three Reviews of J. Weizenbaum’s Computer Power and Human Reason (1976) [pdf]

28 points by abrax3141 3y ago

hafiz221 3y ago
Hei
carapace 3y ago
I got in a huge (for me) argument the other day with a fella who was hell-bent on using AI to teach kids to read. I don't think I got through to him at all. It was all the more frustrating because he turned out to be a teacher! To me it seems obvious that we let the robots do the drudgery to free up our time to do the important things in life, like teaching our children.
- yinser 3y ago
  So would you agree with Weizenbaum that it’s immoral to have a computer teach a child to read? If the child doesn’t have a teacher available I assume you’d find that immoral as well but then who should suffer for that immorality?
  - carapace 3y ago
    > So would you agree with Weizenbaum that it’s immoral to have a computer teach a child to read? I'm not a moralist, so technically, no. As I pointed out in sib comment, you have to have a theory of "good" before you can have a moral structure to guide you to it, eh? That's the challenge I see AI (et. al.) raising for humanity: We have effectively defeated the prior order of things with science and technology, now what? What is good? What are people for? What IS the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything? > If the child doesn’t have a teacher available... Then that's the problem to solve, eh? Let the robots do the work and we can hang out with our families, eh?
- mcculley 3y ago
  Ever since I learned of Bloom’s 2 sigma problem, I have wondered how far we can advance humans with the aid of computer tutors. I would never suggest that AI should be a replacement for human teachers, but it could definitely supplement them. It seems to me that cultures that do this will maximize human capability better than cultures that do not.
  - carapace 3y ago
    > maximize human capability Ah, you've touched to the quick. The challenge of AI (and technology is general) is to answer "What are people for?" or, in other words, "What is good?" (Not to get ahead of the discussion, but I would suggest that this is a question no computer tutor can help answer, except perhaps in the negative?) ------ edit to add: "Bloom’s 2 sigma problem" I just looked that up on the wikipedia. The guy I was arguing with was a follower of Bloom. AFAICT I couldn't even begin to rattle him on the idea that Bloom's whole thing is goofy from first principles. I don't want to get into another argument on the subject of Bloom.
    - mcculley 3y ago
      It is not clear to me what you are trying to say. There are many humans not getting as much as enjoyment out of life as they could because there was not enough human teacher labor to help them. I, at 51 years old, am making use of GPT-4 as a tutor on topics I do not understand well enough. I have zero doubt that computer tutors will help many people flourish. edited to add: It sounds like you don't want to discuss this further, but I would love to understand what makes you think Bloom's findings are "goofy". I had to read his paper to form an opinion about it.
      - carapace 3y ago
        > It is not clear to me what you are trying to say. Two things, really. The first is an economic argument: We've got these machines that are [about to be] able to do anything a human can do (at least in terms of economic activity) and we have to figure out how to live with them, and I posit that they should be made to do the drudgery to free us up to do the good, human things, like teaching kids how to be human. The second point is epistemological. I don't think the purpose of education is to secure a place in the economic hierarchy ("Go to college to get a good job." however common, is wrong.) The purpose of education is to teach humans to be human, and that can only be done by interaction with other humans. We start out as talking apes, a kind of meat-robot, and we become self-aware beings, or at least we have the opportunity to so become, if we have good teachers around us. A machine can help you accumulate facts, but it can't educate you (in the sense that I'm talking about.) (And that's why Bloom is goofy to me: you can't measure "mastery" in any meaningful sense.) > There are many humans not getting as much as enjoyment out of life as they could because there was not enough human teacher labor to help them. I'd say that the problem is to supply more "human teacher labor", not replace it with ersatz. > I, at 51 years old, am making use of GPT-4 as a tutor on topics I do not understand well enough. I imagine at your age you've acquired the depth of character and education to make good use of its capabilities. Cheers! > I have zero doubt that computer tutors will help many people flourish. If the machines turn out to be inexpensive inexhaustible excellent teachers (and dare we hope, psychologists!?) I'll be delighted to be proved wrong. I still think it's preferable to have human tutors, and I'm excited by the possibility of machines relieving people of drudgery to free them up to spend more time with their families, and so on...
xhkkffbf 3y ago
This was a big book at the time. It's kind of amazing that we're still having the same debates about AI so many years later. Almost 50 years later.
- abrax3141 3y ago
  Almost 75, if you start at Turing’s 1950 Mind paper.

28 points by abrax3141 3y ago

Hei

I got in a huge (for me) argument the other day with a fella who was hell-bent on using AI to teach kids to read. I don't think I got through to him at all. It was all the more frustrating because he turned out to be a teacher! To me it seems obvious that we let the robots do the drudgery to free up our time to do the important things in life, like teaching our children.

yinser 3y ago
So would you agree with Weizenbaum that it’s immoral to have a computer teach a child to read? If the child doesn’t have a teacher available I assume you’d find that immoral as well but then who should suffer for that immorality?
- carapace 3y ago
  > So would you agree with Weizenbaum that it’s immoral to have a computer teach a child to read? I'm not a moralist, so technically, no. As I pointed out in sib comment, you have to have a theory of "good" before you can have a moral structure to guide you to it, eh? That's the challenge I see AI (et. al.) raising for humanity: We have effectively defeated the prior order of things with science and technology, now what? What is good? What are people for? What IS the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything? > If the child doesn’t have a teacher available... Then that's the problem to solve, eh? Let the robots do the work and we can hang out with our families, eh?
mcculley 3y ago
Ever since I learned of Bloom’s 2 sigma problem, I have wondered how far we can advance humans with the aid of computer tutors. I would never suggest that AI should be a replacement for human teachers, but it could definitely supplement them. It seems to me that cultures that do this will maximize human capability better than cultures that do not.
- carapace 3y ago
  > maximize human capability Ah, you've touched to the quick. The challenge of AI (and technology is general) is to answer "What are people for?" or, in other words, "What is good?" (Not to get ahead of the discussion, but I would suggest that this is a question no computer tutor can help answer, except perhaps in the negative?) ------ edit to add: "Bloom’s 2 sigma problem" I just looked that up on the wikipedia. The guy I was arguing with was a follower of Bloom. AFAICT I couldn't even begin to rattle him on the idea that Bloom's whole thing is goofy from first principles. I don't want to get into another argument on the subject of Bloom.
  - mcculley 3y ago
    It is not clear to me what you are trying to say. There are many humans not getting as much as enjoyment out of life as they could because there was not enough human teacher labor to help them. I, at 51 years old, am making use of GPT-4 as a tutor on topics I do not understand well enough. I have zero doubt that computer tutors will help many people flourish. edited to add: It sounds like you don't want to discuss this further, but I would love to understand what makes you think Bloom's findings are "goofy". I had to read his paper to form an opinion about it.
    - carapace 3y ago
      > It is not clear to me what you are trying to say. Two things, really. The first is an economic argument: We've got these machines that are [about to be] able to do anything a human can do (at least in terms of economic activity) and we have to figure out how to live with them, and I posit that they should be made to do the drudgery to free us up to do the good, human things, like teaching kids how to be human. The second point is epistemological. I don't think the purpose of education is to secure a place in the economic hierarchy ("Go to college to get a good job." however common, is wrong.) The purpose of education is to teach humans to be human, and that can only be done by interaction with other humans. We start out as talking apes, a kind of meat-robot, and we become self-aware beings, or at least we have the opportunity to so become, if we have good teachers around us. A machine can help you accumulate facts, but it can't educate you (in the sense that I'm talking about.) (And that's why Bloom is goofy to me: you can't measure "mastery" in any meaningful sense.) > There are many humans not getting as much as enjoyment out of life as they could because there was not enough human teacher labor to help them. I'd say that the problem is to supply more "human teacher labor", not replace it with ersatz. > I, at 51 years old, am making use of GPT-4 as a tutor on topics I do not understand well enough. I imagine at your age you've acquired the depth of character and education to make good use of its capabilities. Cheers! > I have zero doubt that computer tutors will help many people flourish. If the machines turn out to be inexpensive inexhaustible excellent teachers (and dare we hope, psychologists!?) I'll be delighted to be proved wrong. I still think it's preferable to have human tutors, and I'm excited by the possibility of machines relieving people of drudgery to free them up to spend more time with their families, and so on...

xhkkffbf 3y ago

This was a big book at the time. It's kind of amazing that we're still having the same debates about AI so many years later. Almost 50 years later.

abrax3141 3y ago
Almost 75, if you start at Turing’s 1950 Mind paper.