[AndrewKemendo]

maybe a hybrid computer / human solution will fare better

This is the purpose of technology. To enhance our skills. From fire to machine learning, tools are built to make our lives easier and help us make decisions better.

In the end we're better off with more empirical computing in our decision loops. Eventually hopefully we totally replace ourselves with better, more consisitently optimized decision making systems.

[sametmax]

While it does make our life easier, machines also brought our down our physical abilities. In modern countries, people are usually not as strong, have less stamina, and their immune system is less potent.

We also see a decrease in the ability to focus with people using a lot devices with screens.

I'm quite concerned of what AI is doing to our brain skills: pattern recognition, memory, data processing and summary... Al that stuff, left untrained, could lead to regression.

We already see a lot of people going to the gym, doing artificial exercice to keep their body in shape. And now we got those popular games to "train your mind" on phones and consoles.

It's a issue IMO, but not an easily solved one. Who don't want to use innovations bringing confort, productivity and increased lifespan ?

[TeMPOraL]

A lot of those problems are created by technology because it's designed (as in, on purpose) to create them! There are strong commercial interests to keep you glued to various devices with screens on them. If we can somehow overcome that problem, I'm confident that the distraction/productivity loss issue will simply disappear.

[sametmax]

I don't believe that, because it involves people selling those device to be very smart, good planers, and organized, which is not something I noticed.

I think it's just phenomenan emerging from basic human behavior: greed, lazyness, confort seeking, system automation, ingenuity, etc.

[TeMPOraL]

The problem is, what I described doesn't require coordination! It's in the best short-term interest of each company involved to glue you to their product. Therefore, it's the default outcome. Coordination is required to achieve something else.

[rhodri]

technology has no purpose. it is a natural phenomenon that arises without any in-built ethics or direction. technology can manifest as a tool (to amplify human potential) or a machine (to replace human labour). the effect of a technology can be influenced broadly, for example by who owns and promotes a technology (open-source vs proprietary models) and which groups in society it is put to use to benefit.

[TeMPOraL]

> technology can manifest as a tool (to amplify human potential) or a machine (to replace human labour).

I don't see a material distinction in here. A machine is simply a more effective tool - effective enough to do the work mostly by itself. The "replace human labour" part is a consequence of the economic systems we have.

[AndrewKemendo]

Yea actually it does, the purpose is whatever the users/builders use it for. So a stick has any purpose that it's user can think for it - starting a fire, hitting an animal to kill it, support for a mud wall etc...

Technology arises out of a sense of purpose from it's user. This is pretty common understanding in philosophy of science.

[TeMPOraL]

I think what you say is basically equivalent - technology has no inherent purpose in it besides the one we give to it; that purpose itself is a feature of the human user, not the feature of any given technology (i.e. it doesn't "stick" to an object).

Personally, I see technology as the way to extend the power of our (individual and collective) will to make something happen.