Slashdot Mirror
The Father of Mobile Computing Is Not Impressed (fastcompany.com)
harrymcc writes: Starting in the late 1960s, Alan Kay envisioned a powerful portable computer that would be a revolutionary learning device, then built some of the necessary tech at Xerox PARC and elsewhere. Today, his ideas are all around us -- but Kay is distinctly unimpressed with the iPhone, iPad, and other modern devices, which he says encourage passivity rather than creativity. Brian Merchant talked to the computing pioneer for a wide-ranging interview on FastCompany. An excerpt from the interview: Google has been around for a long time now. I bitched at [Google] for years: Why the fuck can't we type in a question and get a decent answer? There's all sorts of pre-processing you can do with the computing we have now to put a lot more semantics in there, and look at the shit you're retrieving. And by the way, the stuff that isn't popular -- which is probably what most people need to read, if the thing even knew what the question is -- is buried [in Google search results], and most people won't go past a couple of results or clicks.
Unconvinced. I don't want computers to answer my questions. I want them to help me answer my own. An answer isn't the mere transfer of data, it's the alteration of my mind into a different state. That can't happen properly if the basis for the transformation exists only in some other system.
Google has been around for a long time now. I bitched at [Google] for years: Why the fuck can't we type in a question and get a decent answer? There's all sorts of pre-processing you can do with the computing we have now to put a lot more semantics in there, and look at the shit you're retrieving.
Because Google already gets into trouble when it prefers its own services or when it editorializes. Alan Kay should note that when one asks Google for what are essentially undisputed facts one often gets Google-formatted answers. Search for famous persons and one usually get the page formatted with an excerpt from their biography, date of birth, place of birth or upbringing, some basic information on what brought the person to prominence, etc. Generally these things are not disputed, so there's no real risk in presenting them in this fashion.
Now, if Google starts answering controversial questions, even correctly, they may face some real backlash that they wish to avoid from people that can't accept the answer. It's even worse if there is some legitimate dispute in a discussion, and appearing to side with one answer or another when something isn't settled can influence the discussion in ways that are not appropriate.
If you want straight answers, look at Wolfram Alpha.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If he knows how to build a better search engine than Google, then form a company and kick Google's ass. Or, go to work for Bing. Wasn't question answering supposed to be wolframalpha's forte?
AI still lacks what we usually call "common sense" and screws up a lot of things because of that. The tech isn't there yet.
Table-ized A.I.
Exceptional individuals are rare by their very nature, and it seems likely they're prone to misunderstanding the minds and motivation of the regular folk.
Still, the technology is there for someone who wishes to use it to access the collected knowledge of mankind, so the misuse by the many doesn't completely negate the original intent.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Apple used to ship the best starting programming environment ever developed, Hypercard, for free on all of their machines. The same company doesn't allow programming on iOS except in very limited (in-game typically) ways. There is absolutely a sense that you should be a consumer, not a producer, on modern devices and it drives me crazy.
I read the internet for the articles.
Using the excerpt given regarding uselessness of results. Google does not use tech to provide good answers because they don't care about providing good answers. Instead they use the tech to maximize advertising revenue. It costs money to provide good results, so that cuts into revenue. Some sites will pay money to show up higher in the results, so no way is Google going to give you a free but relevant link when it could show a useless link that they get money from.
Getting higher up in Google search results is nearly a full blown industry. If Google filtered for relevant results then that industry would have to learn how to write useful pages instead of just paying Google to shortcut the process.
Now this isn't just a need for high minded people. Even those narcssists, kitten video fanciers, and porn watchers, would seemingly want more relevant resulst. Except that those groups seemingly are satisfied with even marginal results.
Reminds me someone (yep, a repost!) said "it is the cow theory" and explained it as a herd of cows in a corral. It only takes one cow to figure out how to open the gate, then the entire herd can leave the corral.
mfwright@batnet.com