"Still their easy assumption that we'd all 'be better off' if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measure, and optimized. In Google's world, the world we enter when we go online, there's little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a fast processor and a bigger hard drive" pg 64
In an ideal world, I think that mixing our brains with technology could be a great thing for society. If people kept on applying the superficial facts present from the technology embedded into our brains, we could use the endless amount of information to do great things and make lives easier. However, like Carr said, this was an assumption that this technology could benefit humans. Like many other idealistic ideas, reality steps in and changes the intended outcomes of most things. I believe that in reality, people would lose sight of the need to apply the facts that are presented in front of them. For example, I went into my first biology exam last semester just knowing the facts, like what an iPS cell does, etc. However, I ended up not doing as well as I wanted to because I just knew that facts, and I couldn't apply the facts to solve the problems that professor put on the test. Like most scientists do, my professor expected me to use the facts that I learned to solve a problem and it was a shame that I couldn't do it. If we do end up implanting technology into our brains like the creators of Google want, I think that people would lose sight of the need to apply what we know to what we need to solve. Because our brains would be set up as, through Carr's words, "a series of discrete steps," we wouldn't use the plasticity of our brains to optimize the knowledge that we have. Instead, our minds would be like computer processors, all fact, but no imagination. With no imagine, no change or progress.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I feel the internet provides more analysis than just a physical book does. You can read multiple peoples interpretations and then format your own too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Malorie on this. The internet lets you see many other perspectives on an idea very quickly, while with a physical book you might only get one perspective or it would take a long time to go through many books to find different interpretations.
ReplyDelete