3 ms·

> we're not qualified to do that Judging by history, we are. We created better computing machines, better chess players, better factory workers, better communi

> we're not qualified to do that Judging by history, we are. We created better computing machines, better chess players, better factory workers, better communication channels, better senors, than any of us is or is equipped with without such augmentation.

lutusp 14y ago
> Judging by history, we are. Not at all. The best inventions evolve -- they don't result from a committee deciding on the best design without what is euphemistically called "field testing". "Field testing" is slang for evolution. Committee-designed products, as attractive as they may appear in a superficial sense, are famously out of touch with people's real needs. The Edsel. Microsoft Windows. Communism. Revealed religion. > We created better computing machines, better chess players, better factory workers, better communication channels, better senors ... Better than what? You offer no basis for comparison, required for a scientific appraisal. As to chess, it's not possible to support this claim because the best chess players get to where they are by undergoing evolution -- systematic elimination of all that fail to meet the very high standard set by the environment in which they live. Chess tournaments imitate nature and represent evolution at work. > ... than any of us is or is equipped with without such augmentation. What augmentation is that? Are you aware that corporations wouldn't dream of launching a new product without field tests and consumer feedback? And are you aware that field testing is deliberately imitative of nature, of evolution? I'll say it again -- not only are we unable to create an Einstein, we can't even recognize one until his ideas have been hammered against the anvil of direct experience and survived. Just like nature. Just like evolution.

3 ms·

> we're not qualified to do that Judging by history, we are. We created better computing machines, better chess players, better factory workers, better communi

by altrego99 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago
> Judging by history, we are. Not at all. The best inventions evolve -- they don't result from a committee deciding on the best design without what is euphemistically called "field testing". "Field testing" is slang for evolution. Committee-designed products, as attractive as they may appear in a superficial sense, are famously out of touch with people's real needs. The Edsel. Microsoft Windows. Communism. Revealed religion. > We created better computing machines, better chess players, better factory workers, better communication channels, better senors ... Better than what? You offer no basis for comparison, required for a scientific appraisal. As to chess, it's not possible to support this claim because the best chess players get to where they are by undergoing evolution -- systematic elimination of all that fail to meet the very high standard set by the environment in which they live. Chess tournaments imitate nature and represent evolution at work. > ... than any of us is or is equipped with without such augmentation. What augmentation is that? Are you aware that corporations wouldn't dream of launching a new product without field tests and consumer feedback? And are you aware that field testing is deliberately imitative of nature, of evolution? I'll say it again -- not only are we unable to create an Einstein, we can't even recognize one until his ideas have been hammered against the anvil of direct experience and survived. Just like nature. Just like evolution.