From: axs@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Colbys-Weizenbaum and Overcoming Depression 2.0
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:57:45 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK

plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) writes:

> Date: 11 Jan 93 15:16:26 GMT
> Organization: Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA
>
> >>>>> On 11 Jan 93 01:23:18 GMT, axs@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) said:
>
> AS> In the mean time we are talking only about "interactive"
> AS> documents, so why make a fuss about them?
>
> I agree with almost everything in your post, neatly summarized by this
> paragraph, with one caveat, and that is that computers, as (more
> obviously) products of science (than books) carry more weight for many
> when they make their pronouncements.  That is, we all understand that
> there is a human author behind a book, but somehow that fact is harder
> to keep in mind (particularly for the untrained) in the case of
> computers.
>
> This is not, I think, insignificant when arguing that expert systems
> are "just" interactive books.

IF all this is true (which I doubt) then it is a reason for giving
people better education about computers, not a reason for banning
expert systems that can confuse the ignorant.

There are some people who see gods in lightning and other natural
phenomena. We don't bewail the existence of those phenomena: we
educate people.

If some people are so badly educated that they take the use of "I"
in computer print-out to mean the machine has a mind, rather than
just being an extension of the use of "I" when a book includes
something like "in that situation I would advise you to take plenty
of rest...." or whatever, then we need to improve the education of
the general public.

And if people knowingly and deliberately prey on general ignorance
by distributing programs that do harm, or purport to do good when
they don't, then this should be treated like any other fraud, but
NOT because they use computer programs.

Of course, using the first person is not the only way a computer
could print out advice. E.g.

    "In that case you should ..."

    "Have you thought of ...."

    "Many authorities would recommend that you ...."

Now, it may be that these more impersonal forms of expression (which
also could be found in books) are worse than the use of "I" simply
because they give an air of spurious objectivity and authority,
whereas the use of "I" can sometimes imply that it's merely an
opinion from a particular source, implicitly reminding the reader
that other consultants or viewpoints might disagree.

Basically I think the people who worry about machines that print
things out in the first person are insulting the intelligence of
ordinary people, and I do not believe there is a sufficient basis
for such insult, except where there has been a lack of education.

> ....That is, we all understand that
> there is a human author behind a book,

Well, lots of people have been fooled into thinking there are divine
authors behind certain well known books.

> ...but somehow that fact is harder
> to keep in mind (particularly for the untrained) in the case of
> computers.

Is this sort of insult to human intelligence based on real surveys,
or is it just another case of those with a little learning
patronising the rest?

(Dave - I am trying to be provocative, not offensive. People find
all sorts of things "obvious" that are refuted by real research.)

Cheers
Aaron
-- 
Aaron Sloman,
School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, England
EMAIL   A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk  OR A.Sloman@bham.ac.uk
Phone: +44-(0)21-414-3711       Fax:   +44-(0)21-414-4281