[HN Gopher] Three Reviews of J. Weizenbaum's Computer Power and ...
___________________________________________________________________
Three Reviews of J. Weizenbaum's Computer Power and Human Reason
(1976) [pdf]
Author : abrax3141
Score : 26 points
Date : 2023-07-16 23:37 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (apps.dtic.mil)
(TXT) w3m dump (apps.dtic.mil)
| carapace wrote:
| I got in a huge (for me) argument the other day with a fella who
| was hell-bent on using AI to teach kids to read. I don't think I
| got through to him at all. It was all the more frustrating
| because he turned out to be a teacher!
|
| To me it seems obvious that we let the robots do the drudgery to
| free up our time to do the important things in life, like
| teaching our children.
| yinser wrote:
| So would you agree with Weizenbaum that it's immoral to have a
| computer teach a child to read? If the child doesn't have a
| teacher available I assume you'd find that immoral as well but
| then who should suffer for that immorality?
| carapace wrote:
| > So would you agree with Weizenbaum that it's immoral to
| have a computer teach a child to read?
|
| I'm not a moralist, so technically, no. As I pointed out in
| sib comment, you have to have a theory of "good" before you
| can have a moral structure to guide you to it, eh?
|
| That's the challenge I see AI (et. al.) raising for humanity:
| We have effectively defeated the prior order of things with
| science and technology, now what? What is good? What are
| people for? What _IS_ the ultimate question of Life, the
| Universe, and Everything?
|
| > If the child doesn't have a teacher available...
|
| Then that's the problem to solve, eh?
|
| Let the robots do the work and we can hang out with our
| families, eh?
| mcculley wrote:
| Ever since I learned of Bloom's 2 sigma problem, I have
| wondered how far we can advance humans with the aid of computer
| tutors. I would never suggest that AI should be a replacement
| for human teachers, but it could definitely supplement them. It
| seems to me that cultures that do this will maximize human
| capability better than cultures that do not.
| carapace wrote:
| > maximize human capability
|
| Ah, you've touched to the quick.
|
| The challenge of AI (and technology is general) is to answer
| "What are people for?" or, in other words, "What is good?"
|
| (Not to get ahead of the discussion, but I would suggest that
| this is a question no computer tutor can help answer, except
| perhaps in the negative?)
|
| ------
|
| edit to add: "Bloom's 2 sigma problem" I just looked that up
| on the wikipedia. The guy I was arguing with was a follower
| of Bloom. AFAICT I couldn't even begin to rattle him on the
| idea that Bloom's whole thing is goofy from first principles.
|
| I don't want to get into another argument on the subject of
| Bloom.
| mcculley wrote:
| It is not clear to me what you are trying to say.
|
| There are many humans not getting as much as enjoyment out
| of life as they could because there was not enough human
| teacher labor to help them.
|
| I, at 51 years old, am making use of GPT-4 as a tutor on
| topics I do not understand well enough.
|
| I have zero doubt that computer tutors will help many
| people flourish.
|
| edited to add:
|
| It sounds like you don't want to discuss this further, but
| I would love to understand what makes you think Bloom's
| findings are "goofy". I had to read his paper to form an
| opinion about it.
| carapace wrote:
| > It is not clear to me what you are trying to say.
|
| Two things, really.
|
| The first is an economic argument: We've got these
| machines that are [about to be] able to do anything a
| human can do (at least in terms of economic activity) and
| we have to figure out how to live with them, and I posit
| that they should be made to do the drudgery to free us up
| to do the good, human things, like teaching kids how to
| be human.
|
| The second point is epistemological. I don't think the
| purpose of education is to secure a place in the economic
| hierarchy ("Go to college to get a good job." however
| common, is wrong.) The purpose of education is to teach
| humans to be human, and that can only be done by
| interaction with other humans. We start out as talking
| apes, a kind of meat-robot, and we become self-aware
| beings, or at least we have the opportunity to so become,
| if we have good teachers around us.
|
| A machine can help you accumulate facts, but it can't
| educate you (in the sense that I'm talking about.)
|
| (And that's why Bloom is goofy to me: you can't measure
| "mastery" in any meaningful sense.)
|
| > There are many humans not getting as much as enjoyment
| out of life as they could because there was not enough
| human teacher labor to help them.
|
| I'd say that the problem is to supply more "human teacher
| labor", not replace it with _ersatz_.
|
| > I, at 51 years old, am making use of GPT-4 as a tutor
| on topics I do not understand well enough.
|
| I imagine at your age you've acquired the depth of
| character and education to make good use of its
| capabilities. Cheers!
|
| > I have zero doubt that computer tutors will help many
| people flourish.
|
| If the machines turn out to be inexpensive inexhaustible
| excellent teachers (and dare we hope, psychologists!?)
| I'll be delighted to be proved wrong. I still think it's
| preferable to have human tutors, and I'm excited by the
| possibility of machines relieving people of drudgery to
| free them up to spend more time with their families, and
| so on...
| mcculley wrote:
| > A machine can help you accumulate facts, but it can't
| educate you (in the sense that I'm talking about.)
|
| We are clearly on the precipice of having machines that
| can model the human mind and help us figure out where we
| are blocked on learning a topic.
|
| > you can't measure "mastery" in any meaningful sense
|
| This seems a ridiculous assertion to me. Bloom's
| "Learning for Mastery" paper explains what he means by
| mastery, which is quantified in tests.
|
| I don't see how you can reconcile your belief that "We've
| got these machines that are [about to be] able to do
| anything a human can do" with your belief that "A machine
| can help you accumulate facts, but it can't educate you".
|
| I never thought or wrote that "the purpose of education
| is to secure a place in the economic hierarchy". I
| specifically wrote that we can use computer tutors to
| augment human tutors.
|
| The best we can do with human tutors is 1:1 tutoring.
| With computer tutors, we will have a lot more capacity
| available.
|
| I meet many people who have been conditioned to think
| that they are "not good at math" or that they "don't have
| a brain for math or science" or that they are not
| "artistic" enough to paint or play an instrument. I
| think, in most cases, this is simply wrong and a
| rationalization or conditioning. Most people just did not
| have enough personal tutoring to get them past whatever
| obstacle was next in the way to learning.
|
| Computer tutoring is going to unlock potential, not just
| for economic success, but to give humans more options to
| explore whatever they want. Computer tutors will be able
| to model the human brain and, like human tutors, know how
| to rephrase something to help a student understand.
|
| When I was a boy learning algebra and calculus, I had to
| contend with my classmates for time from the teacher to
| get explanations on certain questions. When I wanted to
| learn an instrument as a boy, there was simply not enough
| tutors available. Computer tutors will greatly amplify
| teaching capacity.
| hafiz221 wrote:
| Hei
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| This was a big book at the time. It's kind of amazing that we're
| still having the same debates about AI so many years later.
| Almost 50 years later.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-18 23:02 UTC)