Slashdot Mirror
Can Your PC Become Neurotic?
Roland Piquepaille writes "This article starts with a quote from Douglas Adams: 'The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong, it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair.' It is true that machines are becoming more complex and 'intelligent' everyday. Does this mean that they can exhibit unpredictable behavior like HAL, the supercomputer in '2001: A Space Odyssey'? Do we have to fear our PCs? A recent book by Thomas M. Georges, 'Digital Soul: Intelligent Machines and Human Values,' explains how our machines can develop neurosis and what kind of therapy exist. Check this column for a summary or read this highly recommended article from Darwin Magazine for more details."
for instance, my wife is already 'afraid' of windows... she just does not 'get' computers. I on the other hand have no problem w/ them, but of course I'm a developer. i think OS & hardware manufacturers could do a much better job taking the 'fear' aspect out of their systems, making them more user friendly, even 'user-proof', if that makes sense (i.e., the user can 'break' anything by clicking on the wrong button, etc.)
Isn't it great when someone comes along and makes assumptions about technology that doesn't exist yet. Not only does this guy do that, but he doesn't even seem to understand current technology. He claims that a computer that can change its own goals might select weird goals and appear crazy. Or that it might be set with two conflicting goals at once and mess up.
With current computer technology this is not a possibility. And older computer will just crash or wont do anything because multitasking is not an option. A newer computer will do it just fine. I could have one program that formats the hard drive and another that writes data to all of it and I can make the both go at the same time, and it will work.
Everything else in the article about a theoretical AI or an intelligent computer is bs. As I said he is assuming things about a technology that doesn't exist yet. It really pisses me off when someone says "when we have this a long time from now, this is how you have to go about fixing it". You can't know how to fix something if you don't know how to make it in the first place! Common sense. The scary thing is that I think this guy is getting paid to write this stuff. Where to I sign up??
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Machines will have to get a lot more complex before their problems graduate from inefficiency or resource conflicts to "neurosis."
It is fun to personify, but the fact is that at the current state of IT development any unpredictable output can be pulled apart, debugged, and repaired.
This metaphor may start gaining some weight, however, when we become inexorably dependent on complex systems. Right now there are huge systems that have to be kept running because the cost of shutting them down for repair would be unacceptable. As this trend continues, and these machines become more complex webs of old and new code, I can see us having to figure out how to "coax" behaviors our of them without really knowing the way the base code interacts in order to generate those behaviors.
That's when system administration and psychiatry will really begin to overlap.
----
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
Common misconception. Especially with Mac hardware. At one time yes, they were a pain and you couldn't really fix them, but I haven't seen a Mac in a long time that you couldn't get into at least somewhat. Even the iMacs have upgrade capability. And the G3 and G4 towers were 10 times easier to get into than the stupid Dells I had to work on back in college.
The Anti-Blog
Here we go again with the over-personification. There's a big difference between expecting past behavior to continue and actually being intelligent (and then going crazy)
Which is why HAL is such a bad example. HAL wasn't behaving unpredictably, or even crazy. HAL started behaving the way he did because the humans around him had the need to lie. Mission Control's order for HAL to lie to Dave and Frank about the purpose of their mission conflicted with the basic purpose of HAL's design--the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment. As explained in 2010, "He was trapped. HAL was told to lie by people who found it easy to lie. HAL didn't know how to lie, so he couldn't function. "
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Many people are just as afraid of: Programming the VCR. Changing the oil. Using the TV without a remote. Programming jobs on copiers (yes, those Xerox-like machines) Copying movies off their camera tapes. Figuring out why the microwave has more than one mode of operation. Learning to make felled seams on a Singer. Insert your own favorite technophobia.
Are people actually afraid of doing these things, or are they afraid of breaking the technical gizmo if they fail, screw up, or make a mistake?
Doesn't this fear come from the fact that they don't understand how to do it, or that they just don't understand the gizmo itself?
So, do they fear any of these actions specifically, or do they just generally fear their own ignorance towards technology (we fear what we don't understand?) Perhaps we can be as user friendly as we want, but if the user chooses to remain ignorant, they will remain in fear regardless of how savvy we are when we design a system. Just a thought.
sig: There are two mistaakes in this sig.
This is old news - it has been "true" for years. It is actually a corrolary of Clarke's law ("Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"). If we understand how a system works normally, then any misbehaviour it shows is a fault. If we don't, then we can classify the misbehaviour as a "neurosis". Unskilled users often believe their computer sare sufferring from a neurosis. This usually means that at some time in the past they have installed some app or extension which is trying to do something they don't understand. A more skilled user can come along and "cure" that neurosis, because they understand the system at a deeper level.
/. effect are both "twitches" in the body of the Internet. (And spam is a cancer which requires operating now) Thus far, these nervous ticks have expanded into full-scale neurosis - but they could.
A car I once had displayed what appeard to be a "neurosis" - it seemed to be frightened of going more than 30mph. It would run fine up to that speed, but if you went any faster it "paniced" and stalled. Dirt in the fuel line: at low flow rates, it lay flat and let fuel pass. At higher flow rates, it flipped up and blocked the flow completely, causing the engine to stall before it had time to flip down again. The point is, the first analysis of "neurosis" was corrected to "fault" once the problem was understood.
So the diagnosis of "neurosis" is relative - it means "I don't understand this failure mode". It can, of course, become absolute if nobody understands it.
So, are we building systems so large that nobody understands them? Definitely. Networks are already bordering on incomprehensible. Particularly, of course, the Internet. It would not surprise me at all if the Internet started showing "neurotic" behaviour. Indeed, it already does - if you ragard humans and their input as part of the net istelf. DOS attacks and the
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
seems like a sign of specialization... the fear that everything takes an expert.
which, for cars, computers, and sewing machines that do embroidery - is not too crazy a gut reaction.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
The Asimov story "Runaround" pretty much proposed, exposited, and summed up this idea much better than, and way before, the Kubrick movie or this essay. Sorry, no spoilers in this post... buy the collection "I Robot" and read it. In general: read the classics, especially the sci-fi classics if you are an engineer, or be forever doomed to having a lack of perspective and saying things that others have said before.
Talking about PC becoming neurotic, in my computer architecture class, my professor discussed factors that can affect the operation of a CPU. One such factor was alpha particles from the sun (I'm not kidding). Since transistors and wires in CPUs are getting so small nowadays (what, .13 or .15 micron, last I checked? even smaller for wire traces), they actually have a risk of having electrons knocked off their datapaths and onto others, potentially changing a logical 1 to a logical 0, and vice-versa. Hence, the reason for Space Shuttles to have triple-redundancy. Don't think you need ECC? Think again.