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.
A pen nominally allows more uninterrupted creativity than a quill and inkwell would, but mostly they get used for jotting down the grocery list.
See, the problem isn't the technology, it's the humans.
As much as visionaries come up with things they think will lead to a better world, the reality is cat videos, narcissism, and porn are what people really want. The internet is more about teenagers taking selfies these days than it is about improving the human condition.
Unfortunately, you can't force people to do what you envisioned would be their potential.
He's complaining about the technology, but it is the people using it that make companies build it that way. They don't want to put any thought into the process, they just want to put in a minimal amount of info and get a reasonable answer.
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.
Please, Google is an advertising agent, not the answer man.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
The product is not meeting customer demand (after all, Kay is a customer, and his demands aren't being met).
No. He's not the customer. Google is an advertising company. Their product is eyeballs, not search results. over 90% of their revenue comes from advertising.
"If you're not paying for the service, you are not the customer, you are the product."
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
The reason I wanted Kay to give an explicit answer about what Engelbart got right that HTML didn't is that I'm wary about these judgements in hindsight.
I was reading Rob Pike this morning.
Go at Google: Language Design in the Service of Software Engineering — 2012
Would s/Go/HTML/g be a correct map for Kay's opinion? Because HTML really was designed more for engineering at scale than anything else.
And this always draws a chorus of criticism from the conceptual purity boo birds.
Kay is a pretty smart guy, but did he ever learn his billion times tables really? I rather suspect that was never native to his cognitive style.
Sounds like he's complaining more about human nature than anything to do with mobile computing or google.
-Styopa
And the father of TV thought it would be used for education and to bring symphonies to the masses.
Instead, we have exposed the dregs of the human soul.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
He spoke prematurely.
This interview happened before Apple unveiled their talking poop emoji.
Millions of people are about to get really creative.
He is complaining that computers fail to make people creative, or fail to educate. I think he has it backwards.
Creative people have a gift for using tools in innovative ways. Give them a PC and they start building something. Most people are only capable of being consumers. You give them a super computer and they'll ask you, where is ESPN? A tiny number of people can design microprocessors, yet members of the same species are stumped by 200 year old math and science.
It's not a failure of education, or a failure for apple. It's biology. He sounds like a curmudgeon and a socialist when he blames this "failure" on tech companies.