The human race has successfully repeated one of its most reliable cycles. It all starts with a piece of revolutionary technology; new possibilities begin to unveil themselves after a few clever updates and uses. Yet even as the vast majority finds promise in the new tech, critics never fail to spout their condemnations. From books to television, they have been consistent in their efforts to prevent automation. With the advent of digital technology - such as phones or computers - a new wave of critics has washed ashore. Despite the past doomsday predictions, humanity continues to thrive. Does this mean that it’s safe to disregard the new batch of naysayers as a miscalculated group of luddites? If they are correct, and we’re less capable and negatively affected by our own technology, then we should be concerned. …show more content…
In his essay “Smarter Than You Think”, Clive Thompson explains how a “master could be beaten by relative newbies, if the amateurs were extremely skilled at integrating machine assistance.” (346) He references two relatively low skilled chess players who had won a high level tournament by incorporating technology into their play style. One may ask how this relates to my argument, or why it even matters. Certainly this game of chess hasn’t opened up the floodgate holding back countless new careers. I argue that this is not just a captivating underdog story; this is coevolution at work. The two amateurs were just that, amateurs. They weren’t capable enough to play against the grand masters under normal circumstances. The difference was that their technology granted them the chance to solve new challenges once thought impossible. If these two chess newbies could become champions, think of how the average person can become extraordinary when given the tools advanced enough to solve their problems. Studying thousands of plays was no longer a prerequisite for
Smarter than You Think starts out with a cautionary tale of how in 1997 world chess champion Garry Kasparov was beaten by Deep Blue, an I.B.M. supercomputer. This was a considered a milestone in artificial intelligence. If a computer could easily defeat a chess champion, what would happen to the game and its players? A year after Kasparov was defeated by the program he decided to see what would happen when a computer and person were paired up. He called this collaboration the centaur; A hybrid consisting of the algorithms and history logs of chess as well as the brain to “analyze their opponents’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as their moods.” ...
However, the vigilance should be focused on directing society through a path that keeps to the middle of the road. Indeed, we need to question the effect that new technologies will have on our culture and society. Although I enjoyed The Judgment of Thamus, I found Postman's pessimism to be a bit too severe. The doom and gloom prophesies rarely happen and the benefits of new technologies often outweigh the deficits. Even when the negative effects are more severe, the best path is to try to find the unseen benefits, since the technology can never be put back in the box. I hope that we always have individuals like Neil Postman and others to warn us of potential hazards, but they should be read with a sense of
And the skills we try to learn can be less strenuous to obtain. He takes us back to kasparov and how when he was coming about in the soviet union only a few kids that showed promise could get lessons from a grand master and then be able to access records to famous chess games. Clive Thompson considers the fact that computers have leveled the playing field. Now any kid anywhere in the world that has access to the internet can learn more about chess games. Playing an artificial opponent made the game a little faster and the instincts of a player became fast as well. A player could also experiment and see what the outcome of different moves could be. This also means grandmaster players are being produced at a much younger age than ever before. He makes a reference to grand master Bobby Fischer who became a grand master at age fifteen. He does this to show how with the emergence of computers new grand masters are getting younger and younger. Such as Sergey Karjakin who became grand master in two thousand and two at the age of twelve. This clearly shows how computers speed up the learning
“With every new innovation, cultural prophets bickered over whether we were facing a technological apocalypse or a utopia” (Thompson 9). This quote states that with every significant break-through with technology, people contemplate whether it will have a positive or negative effect on mankind. Technology allows for external memory sources, connections to databases, and it allow easy communication between people. Thompson then directly counters Carr’s hypothesis and states that “[c]ertainly, if we are intellectually lazy or prone to cheating and shortcuts, or if we simply don’t pay much attention to how our tools affect the way we work, then yes - we become… over reliant” (Thompson 18). In his opinion, “[s]o yes, when we’re augmenting ourselves, we can be smarter… But our digital tools can also leave us smarter even when we’re not actively using them” (Thompson
Carr starts off his argument by referencing a “2001 a space odyssey” released in 1968 about a computer named HAL that tries to kill the astronauts that are on the spaceship that HAL controls. Carr uses an excerpt from this movie to incite fear into his readers and fear clouds judgement and causes irrational ideas to be formed. This movie is an over exaggerated sci-fi thriller and not a realistic representation of what computers are becoming. At the conclusion of his argument Carr does not forget to leave his readers the way he greeted them, Carr quotes 2001: a space odyssey “i can feel it. I’m afraid” (Carr 328). Although emotions are a strong way to engage with a reader, strong emotions also distract readers from the actual argument and encourage the reader to make a decision based on their feeling rather than their actual brain. The fact that Carr uses emotion to convince his readers is quite ironic, considering he is arguing that new technology is limiting our ability to use our brains. In contrast Thompson’s article uses logic and reason to make his argument. At the same time Thompson’s article still engages readers and is just as interesting to read as Carr’s essay. Thompson’s article starts off pondering whether computers or humans are better at chess. To answer this
Once Deep Blue supercomputer defeated chess grandmaster Kasparov, he, Kasparov, thought what would happen if “humans and computers collaborated” (Thompson 343)? Kasparov figured that it would be a symbiotic relationship in which “each might benefit from the other’s peculiar powers” (Thompson344). A Notably example would a 2005 “freestyle” chess tournament, which consisted of teams with computers and chess players. With a tournament full of computers and chess grandmasters, the winners were amateur chess players Cramton and Zackary (Thompson345). The reason why these players were able to win is because they were “expert[s] at collaborating with computers.” By themselves these players would not have the skills to take on such talented players, but since Cramton and Zackary were able to know “when to rely on human smarts and when to rely on the machine’s advice” they were able to succeed (Thompson 345). These players were able to harness the power of the symbiotic relationship between man and machine. In conclusion, when it comes down to the wire on “who’s smarter-humans or machines; the answer is neither, it’s both working side by side” (Thompson 347). In addition, the benefits of these digital gadgets can be summarized into three
In today’s fast-paced society, there are many who wish we could just go back to the “good ‘ol days,” a magical time, possibly in the fantastic cultural memory of the 1950s, where we weren’t surrounded by computers and pagers and cell phones and all manner of surveillance and recording. Many say that these things add hassle to our lives, and that the digital revolution is simply incompatible with our analog minds and souls. Such people are often condescendingly called “old fogies” when they are, typically, older, confused by technology, and fearful of change of any sort. There are, though, hearty subcultures which embrace a return to a less complicated time with intelligence and reason, generally known as “Neo-Luddites,” after the early 19th century English protesters who destroyed industrial machinery. This, however, is a misnomer, as the many groups claiming ideological ancestry seldom refer to anything other than the popular anti-technology belief. And, while the wealthy industrialists put down the Luddite rebellion, their ideals have survived, and probably will survive as long as technology continues to be so totally complex and separate from nature.
Technology allows culture to evolve by creating solutions to problems by removing constraints that exist. Every invention and concept is expanded on to create the utmost perfect solution. Although this process can take decades, or even centuries, to actually develop a proficient resolution, the end result is what advances society industrially. There are conflicting views, however, if these advances are beneficially or maliciously affecting society (Coget). There are three kinds of people in regards to the attitude toward technology: technophiles, technophobes, and those who aren't biased in either regard (Coget). Technophiles understand that the world adapts to the advances in technology and uses them to improve their lives (Tenner). Technophobes observe technology as damaging or are uncomfortable in using it (DeVany). It is undeniable that technology is ever-expanding, thus peaking curiosity to uncover what fuels the fear behind the technophobes. Our focus is concentrated on the technophiles and the technophobes . I will begin with the latter as they contribute greatly to the ov...
Based off definition from our Psychology textbook, general intelligence, also known as (g), is a factor that according to Spearman and others under lies specific mental abilities and is therefore measured by every task on an intelligence test. It refers to the existence of general intelligence that influences performance on mental ability measures. (psychology.about.com)
Is technology dangerous for society? Do you believe long term technological advances will ultimately ruin us? Technology has been evolving at a rapid pace through the twenty first century. Growing up in the nineties, I single handily witnessed how the tech world made leaps and advances in a matter of years. Many technological innovations have helped the world make a better place, but would too much of a good thing bad for us? Will technology be the downfall of society and our planet in the near future? Many people believe technology is harmful for our planet and our future for various reasons and there are others that have become so distracted by it that they don’t believe that it could ever cause any harm until it’s too late.
The concept of intelligence has been in existence for a long period of time. Defining and measuring intelligence has always been a dilemma to researchers. From dictionary.com, the formal definition of intelligence is define as, ‘manifest of high mental capacity.’ According to antiquity, having high intelligence is having extensive knowledge of facts, ability to understand concepts that is rarely comprehended by others, and the fact that an individual understand a thing that most do not understand. This origin of this definition came from Intelligence tests such as intelligence quotient (IQ) test.
Since the beginning of time, humans have thought and made many inventions. Repeatedly the newer one is better than the older. Our minds have created many remarkable things, however the best invention we ever created is the computer. computers are constantly growing and becoming better every day. Every day computers are capable of doing new things. Even though computers have helped us a lot in our daily lives, many jobs have been lost because of it, now the computer can do all of the things a man can do in seconds! Everything in the world relies on computers and if a universal threat happens in which all computers just malfunction then we are doomed. Computers need to be programmed to be able to work or else it would just be a useless chunk of metal. And we humans need tools to be able to live; we program the computer and it could do a lot of necessary functions that have to be done. It is like a mutual effect between us and he computer (s01821169 1).
In general it has been my experience that people love to look elsewhere for the cause of their problems. I have found it to be no different as far as technology is concerned. People are ready to preach doom and gloom to anything having to do with technology. In today's society there are many complex and difficult issues that cannot be easily answered. And, I have noticed that no one wants to take responsibility for these problems and often people don't even like to acknowledge that they exist.
Be smart and be lazy. The act of being smart and lazy is similar to how Allan F. Mogensen said “Work Smarter, not harder.” Which means to produce the highest quality result in the shortest amount of time. Being smart and lazy is about achieving goals with the maximum efficiency and the least amount of effort. Meaning that laziness can be overridden by intelligent solutions. Laziness and intelligence are viewed quite differently and not always used together in the same context. There are exclusions to that when people are saying that someone is smart, but they are too lazy.
...h about technology and new media, I can totally say that it all depends solemnly on ourselves. How much time we put into it and how well we can manage our limits. Like anything else in life, moderation is the key. Technology has so many advantages when used properly, but when not used correctly can definitely turn against us. Furthermore, everything we do is a result of the media such as watching TV, reading the newspaper, surfing the internet just to mention a few. The media feeds us information and fundamentally tells us what is precise. It is the only one aspect which affects what we do in society, although it is an impressive aspect. Modern technologies can very well be a double-edged sword, from safety to connectedness. Once again, they do have their advantages, but as with many revolutionary inventions, they can radically change our lives, for better or worse.