Augmenting Human Intellect: Nugget

hulkbuster   The nugget from the reading that I’m focusing on is the  communication barrier between machines and humans. Licklider says that it is easier to solve a problem (reactive) once it makes itself available than to think everything through (proactive), which would in turn make that “problem”  never exist. This type of thinking stems from procrastination and laziness. I will be the first person to admit that I agree with the statement, however, looking deeper into it I begin to understand the underlying issue.

If I created the computer and I know everything it is capable of doing, and it does end up malfunctioning I will be able to immediately diagnose the problem and begin to fix it. This is not true for everyone especially if I am simply a consumer. In this case, for a vast number of people, I know nothing about the computer so I read the manual and follow the troubleshooting guide in order to fix what I think is the problem. In reality if someone had thought every problem through there would be no need for the troubleshooting guide.

"Right"
“Right”

This thinking also brings up the thoughts of Wikipedia. It is a sight filled with information.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars.

Most schools don’t allow the use of information gathered from Wikipedia onto any graded assignments, but most people get their general information from Wikipedia and Google. Although there are tons of different researches and perspectives on wikipedia, and the internet in general, a lot of it cannot be trusted. Professional researchers who perform the daily grind of taking out time, performing studies, spending hard-gotten funds on different projects refuse to rely on the validity of the information that is available on Wikipedia because anyone can create anything at any time on the site.  This doesn’t mean that nothing is true, rather the credibility of the person posting the information is unknown.

This would not be a problem if, number one, credible information is free. Also, if more people knew and understood their strengths they would be more inclined to delve deeper into their respective fields and work out the kinks in their practices and finally create a cohesive one-stop-shop of information that anyone could use.

There is also the system of checks-and-balances that has to be taken into account. It would likely be better that a team of researchers collectively agree on a piece of information instead of an individual only because there is a less chance of fabrication and bias.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *