March 07, 2010
TIME TO START TAKING THE INTERNET SERIOUSLY
David Gelernter in Edge:
1. No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than now. The Internet is like a new computer running a flashy, exciting demo. We have been entranced by this demo for fifteen years. But now it is time to get to work, and make the Internet do what we want it to.
2. One symptom of current problems is the fundamental puzzle of the Internet. (Algebra and calculus have fundamental theorems; the Internet has a fundamental puzzle.) If this is the information age, what are we so well-informed about? What do our children know that our parents didn't? (Yes they know how to work their computers, but that's easy compared to — say — driving a car.) I'll return to this puzzle.
3. Here is a simpler puzzle, with an obvious solution. Wherever computers exist, nearly everyone who writes uses a word processor. The word processor is one of history's most successful inventions. Most people call it not just useful but indispensable. Granted that the word processor is indeed indispensable, what good has it done? We say we can't do without it; but if we had to give it up, what difference would it make? Have word processors improved the quality of modern writing? What has the indispensable word processor accomplished?
4. It has increased not the quality but the quantity of our writing — "our" meaning society's as a whole. The Internet for its part has increased not the quality but the quantity of the information we see. Increasing quantity is easier than improving quality. Instead of letting the Internet solve the easy problems, it's time we got it to solve the important ones.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 06:53 AM | Permalink



















Comments
If I could invent any one technology it would be a system like a spellchecker that points out flaws in logic and bad arguments.
Posted by: zach wilson | Mar 7, 2010 1:51:18 PM
David should take the internet seriously. After all, computer stuff is why they gave him tenure at Yale.
Posted by: fred lapides | Mar 7, 2010 2:24:57 PM
But Zach, who would write that program? Wouldn't it only detect the flaws that its creators acknowledged as flaws? And it would have to let slip some vastly inert propositions that were flawlessly logical, while disallowing poorly argued excellent points.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 7, 2010 2:41:32 PM
If it were not for the Unibomber, no one would have heard of David Gelernter. He has a closed mind in a field (computer science) where constant learning is critical. Rather than following the path of learning new things, Gelernter refuses to see the new and focuses on an imagined past. Why does anyone listen to him?
Posted by: Ian Kaplan | Mar 8, 2010 1:32:36 PM
can't. handle. stupid. normative. argument...
Posted by: ibn khaldun | Mar 8, 2010 1:34:11 PM
Post a comment