courses@JLR

“Twitter/Facebook Infinite Loop Syndrome: Because Twitter and Facebook update with such intense frequency, by the time you have caught up with one, the other is likely to have new updates, and vice-versa creating a permanent, balanced site-toggling cycle. Computer programs have finally forced us to develop the same functional problems they have.” -   from Chris Onstad’s Achewood 12/05/09 strip
We may joke about this quite a bit, but the line between human and machine interactions really has become dizzyingly blurry in recent years. Decades earlier, Norbert Weiner may have found himself tossing and turning in bed at the simple thought of humans becoming so dependent on machines, but fortunately we have embraced advancement and become comfortably familiar with this developing technology. This is fortunate only to some extent, however.
To disregard Weiner’s call for a cautious approach to the advancement of machines would have been (and still would be) foolish. However, Weiner’s concern in “Men, Machines, and the World About” is also potentially obstructive. Weiner raises objections to the idea of replacing “the human element” in common tasks, as it would in a way put us more at the mercy of the machine than in control of it. While this is certainly reasonable, it should not be viewed in such extreme terms. Take the old job of the phone operator, for example. Now mainly seen as a curious part of old films and television, this task is one of many to have become largely automated. As the development of machines replaces more and more human jobs, new ones are created to manage and further advance this development. Weiner warns of risks, but we should understand that, while it is true that these risks are very real, so are the risks of not developing this technology, or of developing some different form of technology.
Still, cautiousness is wise. The real problem is not that we question the implications of this technology, or that we may be too fearful of it to advance, or too reckless in our advancement and find ourselves at the mercy of it. The problems come when we stop questioning and forget the importance of understanding. A call for careful consideration of the issue, if a bit too conservative, has the right spirit. As a generation that in effect cannot remember a time before cybernetics, we have started to become too familiar with the machines. We don’t need to be told to be wary of the possibilities; we have pondered them over so much that the “rise of the machines” story is now a good old classic tale. Think of I, Robot, The Matrix, even Wall-E. These are no longer mind-bending extrapolations of our distant futures. They are time-tested tropes that work because they resonate with an audience that has familiarized itself so much with the human-machine world that they have internalized also that initial cause for cautious restraint and let it grow into almost paranoid proportions. Why should something like the dreaded Y2K bug inspire members of a society so well acquainted with modern technology to fall into a panic? We have accepted our fears and stopped thinking about them. We’ve been so wary of the implications of dependency on machines, we’re now scaring ourselves.
When the call for ethical, conscious scientists was made, it was made in the name of understanding. We can’t ignore the problems, both ethical and practical, of making the world more and more automated, but we also cannot be too reserved. We need to think carefully, but not fearfully. We should first be sure that we think about and understand the issue, and then we can think of ways to move forward without walking into any huge traps along the way.