Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can Your PC Become Neurotic?

Posted by michael on from the lobotomy-may-be-required dept.

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."

5 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. To think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sitting here now, using an iBook to encode a 2001: A Space Odyssey DVD into a DivX, so I can then burn it onto a CD.

    Not directly related, but as I was watching the Floyd's PanAm flight dock with the spinning station, I suspected that Clarke and Kubrick never foresaw this; a world of microtechnology, for the consumer. It was all grand projects back then, a single computer the size of a building, not a building full of single computers.

    I know I'd swap a strong space program for strong video codecs; they seem so trivial compared to the vastness of infinity.

    Well, I've babbled off-topic now. Daisy, daisy...

    1. Re:To think... by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not directly related, but as I was watching the Floyd's PanAm flight dock with the spinning station, I suspected that Clarke and Kubrick never foresaw this; a world of microtechnology, for the consumer. It was all grand projects back then, a single computer the size of a building, not a building full of single computers.

      Just imagine, going back to 1968 by time machine and telling Kubrick, Clarke or some egghead from Stanford or MIT, how the techology will evolve in 2001. Tell these guys the Apollo XVIII will be actually the last spaceship to leave the vicinity of Earth. Tell them that the global network developed by ARPA will be a major hit, used mostly for distrubution of p0rn, warez and mindless discussions like these on Slashdot. Tell them everybody will own a supercomputer way beyond PDP's and IBM's, but everybody will use it mostly as a typewriter and a gaming console. Tell them the main scientific discoveries by the end of century will be a pill for erection and a pill for good mood. I just can't imagine their reply.

  2. The only "therapy" a computer needs... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is a clue-ful user. Ain't it funny how my(and i suspect most fellow /.'ers') computers run more or less flawlessly, while some of the machines I would have to work on when i did tech support would behave erratically, crash, and just plain not do things.
    The article mentions "conflicting demands"---I imagine most of those are caused by having Gator, Bonzi buddy, et. al. put on your system (with or without the users knowlege doesnt really matter) as well as having a dozen things running in the system tray.

    I wonder if background programs and spyware are the digital equivalent of having voices in one's head?

    So, i'm not saying that educating users would solve all the "neurosis" problems, just that the majority of neurotic computers i've worked on were so due to some action of the user, whether it was installing spyware, deleting critical system files, or allowing three inches of cigarette dust to accumulate inside the case.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  3. ARRGH!!! by iceT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate it when people say that computers are getting 'smarter'. They are *NOT* getting smarter. They are handling more tasks. They are getting FASTER. But, until it can handle things like associative pattern recognition (Ok. I made up that term. Basically, it's the idea that a computer can handle the following logic: It's not shaped like a coffee cup, but I know it's a coffee cup.) or can demonstrate the ability to learn and adapt to a changing environment at even REMOTELY the rate that even the simplest of creatures can... then, I'll consider them 'smart'.

    Until then, by personifying computers, you are only FEEDING these types of irrational fears.

    There is no HAL today, and probably won't be until we get a computer to recognize the fact that one everything in the universe is black and white. One and Off. The world isn't binary... it's analog.

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  4. It actually *IS* binary by Wind_Walker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    When you get down to the quantum mechanical level of things, most things actually are binary (or to use the proper term, quantized). Light is sent in distinct packets. Energy levels of an atom are at distinct levels. Gravity (current theory) is transmitted by gravitons, distinct packets of gravitational energy.

    The only thing in Physics right now that we believe is truly analog is the passage of time, but even then, time isn't really a measurable "thing", it's a measure of decay of objects (which in itself is quantized). So, in the very small world at least, everything *IS* binary.