83,770
edits
Template:M intro technology robomorphism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{drop|R|ecently, Matt Bradley}} made an interesting point<ref>[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-humanise-machines-matthew-bradley-adgce ''Why Humanise The Machines?'']</ref> about our gallop towards [[AI]]: whatever we do, we should be careful of anthropomorphising when we talk about robots. Machines don’t think, and they don’t “''hallucinate''”. Hallucinating is actually a pretty special, [[I am a Strange Loop|strangely-loopy]] phenomenon. No-one has yet come up with a compelling account of how any kind of human consciousness works — cue tedious discussions about [[Cartesian theatre|Cartesian theatres]] — but we do know this is categorically not what machines do. We should not let habits of language conflate the two. Down that road lies a false sense of security. | {{drop|R|ecently, Matt Bradley}} made an interesting point<ref>[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-humanise-machines-matthew-bradley-adgce ''Why Humanise The Machines?'']</ref> about our gallop towards [[AI]]: whatever we do, we should be careful of anthropomorphising when we talk about robots. Machines don’t think, and they don’t “''hallucinate''”. Hallucinating is actually a pretty special, [[I am a Strange Loop|strangely-loopy]] phenomenon. No-one has yet come up with a compelling account of how any kind of human consciousness works — cue tedious discussions about [[Cartesian theatre|Cartesian theatres]] — but we do know this is categorically not what machines do. We should not let habits of language conflate the two. Down that road lies a false sense of security. | ||
But the converse is just as important: we should not describe what humans do in terms meant for machines — we shouldn’t ''robomorphise'', or evaluate human performance in terms suited to machine behaviour | But the converse is just as important: we should not describe what humans do in terms meant for machines — we shouldn’t ''robomorphise'', or evaluate human performance in terms suited to machine behaviour. | ||
To do so does not just invite [[technological redundancy]] — which, in its place, is no bad thing; few (even proofreaders) lament the demise of proofreaders over [[Track changes|delta-view]] — mechanisation promises to clear away the [[tedium]] and bureaucratic sludge in well-understood, low-risk, standard processes — but that seems not to be the aspiration of the thought leaders. | |||
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” says Arthur C. Clarke — the jury is out whether AI is different, but it is not unreasonable to proceed on the assumption it is not, and foolish to do otherwise. | “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” says Arthur C. Clarke — the jury is out whether AI is different, but it is not unreasonable to proceed on the assumption it is not, and foolish to do otherwise. | ||