Joseph Weizenbaum wrote the book From Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation (both clickable) in 1976. The excerpt from our text seems to be a bit of a response/discussion about some folks perspectives of his computer system ELIZA, and ultimately the program called Doctor. He also discusses a number of other ideas in this excerpt, mainly the idea that computers lack human qualities, such as compassion and wisdom. He brings up a good number of logical conclusions based on his knowledge and observations, both of computer systems, and human qualities.
The introduction written by the editors of The New Media Reader (the book that I required in a previous semester, but did not assign this semester because of the variety of articles I wanted you all to read) starts out by explaining that new media has been criticized by a great number of people who have little to no knowledge of the subject. Weizenbaum on the other hand, has knowledge about new media, computer systems, and the inner workings of one of the first conversational computer programs called ELIZA. After all, he created the program. (Click on the name to go to the wikipedia page describing ELIZA).
At the start of the excerpt, Weizenbaum recites some 'history' as he calls it. He describes an interaction that includes the Chair of Physical Chemistry at the Victoria University of Manchester, England, and Nicolai Bukharin, a leading theoretician of the Russian Communist party. He recounts this bit of history for two reasons:
1). "The first is to illustrate that ideas which seem at first glance to be obvious and simple, and which ought therefore to be universally credible once they have been articulated, are sometimes buoys marking out stormy channels in deep intellectual seas."
2). "...I recite this history is that I feel myself to be reliving part of it. My own shock was administered not by any important political figure espousing his philosophy of science, but by some people who insisted on misinterpreting a piece of work I had done."
In short, he is defending and explaining his computer program ELIZA, and the subsequent application/experiment, Doctor. Doctor was a simulation of a Rogerian Psychotherapist. See the article for a short interaction between the system and a person typing into a computer. The system (Doctor) responds, and is in the BOLD FACE type.
What interests me is Weizenbaums discussion about how folks, actual psychotherapists (not just one, but a number of folks), believed that this computer system could be developed to reach a large audience. The author proceeds to talk about 3 reason why he was shocked. He states, "The shocks I experienced as DOCTOR became widely known and "played" were due to principally three distinct events:"...
1). "A number of practicing psychiatrists seriously believed the DOCTOR computer program could grow into a nearly completely automatic form of psychotherapy".....
2). "I was startled to see how quickly and how very deeply people conversing with DOCTOR became emotionally involved with the computer and how unequivocally they anthropomorphized it."
3). "Another widespread, and to me surprising, reaction to the ELIZA program was the spread of a belief that it demonstrated a general solution to the problem of computer understanding of natural language."
Each of these reasons is very interesting, but being that we are in the field of communication, let's camp in #3 for just a second. The author goes on to mention that language is contextual, or "the importance of context to language understanding". Wow - even when we are talking about computers do we have a conversation about how language is contextual. How different is a computer than a human? Does it lack reasoning? Compassion? Wisdom? Weizenbaum, a little further down in number 3 explains, "This reaction to ELIZA showed me more vividly than anything I had seen hitherto the enormously exaggerated attributions an even well-educated audience is capable of making, even strives to make, to a technology it does not understand." Do we still do this today?
The author continues on and concerns himself with a list of questions and explanations. The questions he asks are wonderful, and very much worth reviewing. There is talk of 'plausibility', 'emotional ties to machines' and how humans have begun to rely on 'autonomous machines'. Relevant today? What do you think?
He then goes on to chat a bit about professors, or leaders in his field, and students at MIT. A quote that really spoke to me says, "They (students) sense the presence of a dilemma in an education polarized around science and technology, and education that implicitly claims to open a privileged access-path to fact, but that cannot tell them how to decide what is to count as fact." So true! Even today, this statement rings true!
The author then moves to a deeper issues than just ELIZA. He discusses two sides of a computer debate. They are:
1). Computers should and will do everything
2). Computers should have limits
Have we passed this point of debate?
Weizenbaum then moves to a discussion about knowledge and science, likening science to a drug, and even referring to science as a 'slow-acting poison'. For someone in the scientific community, he sure is stating his opinion here. Or is it fact? We're not sure (read the article to get that joke).
I will leave you with two snippets from the excerpt:
"Scientific statements can never be certain; they can be only more or less credible".
"When I say that science has been gradually converted into a slow-acting poison, I mean that the attribution of certainty to scientific knowledge by the common wisdom, an attribution now made so nearly universally that it has become a commonsense dogma, has virtually delegitimized all other way of understanding. People viewed the arts, especially literature, as sources of intellectual nourishment and understanding, but today the arts are perceived largely as entertainments."
In short, I loved Weizenbaums discussion in this excerpt. I think he brings up a number of great ideas, especially when it comes to computer programs, and the limitations. He points out some great ideas throughout the piece, things that are still relevant in today's 'new media'. I'm not just talking about social networking, but rather, larger scale media. Some of the discussions that he confronts are still going on in our time, and I do not see those discussions coming to an end anytime soon.
I hope that you have enjoyed this article as much as I have, and it is my hope that you grab a hold of the larger meaning involved. Advances in technology bring up a great number of issues, and those issues, especially when mixed with human interaction, will not cease.
No comments:
Post a Comment