|
|
|
|
|
|
by tps5
3435 days ago
|
|
|
Explain to me how this line of reasoning doesn't apply to your car. Or flying in an airplane. Or doing your taxes. Or a million other things. By living in a "modern society," we're trusting in so many things that we do not thoroughly understand. In some way, this is the principle that makes human "progress" possible. If every individual had to be competent in a given area in order to benefit from/take part in that area then things would move much more slowly. Of course there are clear disadvantages to taking part in activities that we do not fully understand. We will make sub-optimal decisions because of our ignorance. But in sum, this isn't a problem. In sum, we gain a lot by organizing things this way. Ignorance isn't good. It isn't ideal. But it's a necessary feature of human societies, and articles like this just come off as nasty and mean spirited. |
|
|
It comes to this: Computer Systems aren't simply inert turing machines we can pull the plug on anymore. We are letting them off the leash and they are moving on their own out in the world, and they are making decisions to interact as peers or better within our social structures.
The car analogy [0] doesn't work anymore because cars are starting to drive themselves.
If you put this into an ecological premise, consider that we've been at the top of the food chain, above all other animals, and we have dominated the biosphere for a million or more years.
Now we are introducing machines as peers and they may soon dominate us, if we're not careful.
Look at the examples in the article, and consider that malfunctioning wi-fi might illustrate how poorly equipped most people are, to confront machines that don't act in their best interests.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_analogy