Man-Computer Symbiosis

Licklider examines the growing connection between man and technology from a very unique perspective. I agree that he was ahead of his times in these ideas (1960, wow!) First of all, I thought it was strange to think of a future relationship between people and their machines as a symbiosis. When I think of symbiosis, I think of it in a biological context, something that co-evolves with the other for a long time. But then again, that is what we seem to be heading towards. Now more than ever, technology is rapidly improving to be faster and more intuitive. People are being more and more reliant on their devices in their daily lives (smartphones to check their emails, gps when you get lost, keeping your schedules on your phone, etc.)

The concept of being so intertwined with machines that they’ll help us think faster and solve problems more quickly sounds exciting. In some ways, I think it’s a little creepy too. Just how smart and human-like can our computers get? How close and dependent do you think we’ll get? I started wondering if technological progress will get to the point where people will want to start implanting devices into their brains so that they will have a higher than average speed/knowledge base to tap into. Wouldn’t everyone want to think faster and know more, and then other people might feel the need to keep up? Maybe that’s just weird crazy sci-fi talk, but who knows?

I thought that Licklider’s point about the disconnect between human and computer language was interesting also. There is such a vast difference. You basically tell what the computer to do, but you usually have to do it in a specific way for it to understand. If we could make our machines respond and understand us in a more human-like way, that would using them easier. Today there are some good examples of a more human-like thinking in our devices, such personal assistants like Siri on the iPhone. Also, did any of you watch the Jeopardy match between IBM’s supercomputer Watson vs. two other top Jeopardy (human) contestants last year? I thought that was really cool, considering how the computer had to properly interpret the questions (which had to be fed electronically,) search in its own database, come up with possible answers, and then respond. The mistakes he made were funny but you can see how Watson’s less “organic” way of thinking could lead to this. For example, in one category (“Olympic Oddities”), the question was this: “This anatomical oddity of U.S. gymnast George Eyser, who won a gold medal on the parallel bars in in 1904.” Watson answered, “What is leg?”, but got it wrong because he should have said, “What is a missing leg.” A leg is not an oddity, Watson, but missing one is! So close though!