The article starts with Sherry Turkle, who is a genius IMHO. She discusses transparent versus opaque, in terms of computers, and is quoted in the NY Times abou

The article starts with Sherry Turkle, who is a genius IMHO. She discusses transparent versus opaque, in terms of computers, and is quoted in the NY Times about it. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/books/books-of-the-times-the-self-in-cyberspace-decentered-and-opaque.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/books/books-of-the-times-... Ms. Turkle adds two computers to the list of test objects: two contrasting machines, the I.B.M. PC and the Macintosh. The former, she explains, was for users who wanted to see into "'the guts' of the machine." It was transparent and invited analysis. "In contrast the 1984 introduction of the Macintosh's iconic style presented the public with simulations (the icons of file folders, a trash can, a desktop) that did nothing to suggest how their underlying structure could be known." It was opaque, and invited a belief in what William Gibson, in his novel "Neuromancer" (1984), termed "cyberspace." ... One therefore pays close attention when she explains how the shift to postmodernism has been reflected in a new outlook on artificial intelligence. No longer are designers striving for an overarching theory of mind. More and more they see hope in computers that can learn, or what she terms "emergent A.I.," which, as she writes about it, accords with the fragmented, "decentered" self posited by postmodernism. (If you're curious to know more about Dr. Turkle, this TED talk is good IMHO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtLVCpZIiNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtLVCpZIiNs)