Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Leo B Watkins's avatar

Sighhhhhhhhh........

I was gonna let this one go. It wasn't about politics, it's readable, so hey!

But then I thought, nah. I'm sure old boy is counting on me. Wouldn't want to disappoint. Bless his pea-picking heart.

I can see why Thomas Jefferson and all he created is your ideal. More of a George Washington fan myself.

A doer, rather than a privileged, arrogant, hypocritical dreamer.

And if Wendell Berry's ideal of agriculture were THE ideal, wouldn't we be doing that?

Whatever benefits come of dreaming of utopias that never were - whether that be a 1950's sock hop or Walton's farm (nite Mary Ellen, nite John boy) - if that was what worked best in a capitalist society, wouldn't that be what we would have?

Who gets to decide who gets the 40 acres and the mule, and who lives in a inner city slum if not the free market?

And then Ted Kaszynski is your other ideal of modern thought? What, was Eric Rudolph taken? It's all you can do to resist emulating a schizophrenic bomber who terrorized and killed for a generation? Good to know. Pro-life, huh?

Meanwhile, AI is the "salvation of the low-IQ set" and the "bane of thinkers and innovation"? I dunno. Maybe.

Nuclear fission turned out to be a double edged sword. Most things have their pluses and their minuses. Yet, it's ironic that the software your publication uses for comments incorporates the very software you denounce.

Your columns are thought provoking, so I thank you for that. Even if they provoke profound disagreement.

I recently read Jack London's 1st article published in the Atlantic. I was struck by its similarities to Homer's Odyssey. It reminded me of something a read a while back, in that there are no new stories, only the same ones written in different ways.

Your column also reminds me of that. Because it doesn't matter if it was computers, printing presses, canned goods, and sliced bread. No matter the innovation, there has always been someone to fear it. Which is not necessarily bad, new ideas should be challenged (as should old).

But the problem is they often lead to dismissal of otherwise good ideas, by those who don't understand them, because they find it easier to dismiss than to truly consider them.

For themselves, as well as others.

Then again, I think there is SOME truth to what you say.

I am currently taking a pre-Calculus course. Which I am enjoying very much. But since the last time I took a higher math course was in the mid-1970's, let's just say there have been some changes.

In that when I last took it, anyone caught with a calculator would have been considered cheating. Now the teacher gives instructions on proper usage. Which for me is good. (Why do graphing calculators have TWO subtraction symbols? Why? Why???)

But I also find myself reminded of an old Asimov short story I read years ago.

Where a man found he had great powers over others when he learned to do calculations without a computer, when others could not.

In that my style is to either do a problem in my head, or on paper - whereas a great many of my much younger classmates are incapable of doing so without their calculators. Which allows me to now pay much more attention to the concepts and apply them to things that interest me, than I ever would if I did not have that freedom.

So I get it. I do.

Still, I believe there will always be those who will think freely and innovate, if that is their dream. AS there will always be those just wanting to get thru preCalc, because it is required for the degree they are pursuing. A box to be checked.

But then I think of the arrogance, the elitism your idea implied that there is something wrong with either a person or a machine that has an IQ of under 85. That's troubling. Especially for someone teaching children.

Other than coaching sports and raising kids, I never taught children (though I have done some adult teaching), but I did supervise people for a long time.

Your column reminds me of one of them in particular.

Now he wasn't the most scholarly of men. Probably a GED education, at most.

A written report over a simple matter would often need 3-4 revisions to be acceptable. But he was one of the best deputies I had. In that he accepted his limitations and asked for help, once he learned it would be given without contempt or ridicule.

And if it took him 3-4 times to learn a new procedure when others would learn it within 1-2, once he learned it, he would follow it diligently. Where others might cut corners, he would not.

And because of his knowing of his limitations, he was humble and easy for others to work with.

Which made him a conduit for inmates who could identify with those limitations, which they often shared. Which meant that he was often able to identify problems before others, who had different skill sets. My job as their supervisor, was to match those individual skill sets to the tasks that needed performing. Not to denigrate their individual needs.

Now that man would have benefitted from AI assisting him in his paperwork.

And if it made him more productive, and able to spend less time on paperwork and more time interacting with the people under his care - I would be a fool not to welcome such a tool. Good use of taxpayer's money, in my book. I thought conservatives liked that sort of thing?

I'm happy you enjoy making your lesson plans and consider them a work of art. But just as AI may not be able to create a Shakespearean play; is a lesson plan about Shakespeare the equivalent of Shakespeare?

As far as the "low intelligence" of AI, I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's quip regarding an innovation of his time, when asked of it's uses. And he replied, "What good is a newborn baby?"

Frankly, we don't know. But in a world where we are competing with others, with their own goals and ethics - hiding our heads in the sand seems like a poor solution.

And then as far as originality, I know I read a discussion from Yuval Harari a while back, where biologists were claiming that thru experimentation, that humans have NO free will. That everything we do can be explained thru hard wiring and software. Don't know that I agree with it, but there are those making such an argument. So maybe we are not as innovative as you presume. Even the "intelligent" ones.

Meanwhile, we learn that things we originally thought were merely human traits such as altruism, empathy, communication, training have been found in other species - from ants knowing to cut coriander seeds into quarters instead of halves like other seeds so they don't spoil, to navigation, etc. What is being defined as human is evolving with our growth of knowledge.

So, to presume that AI will never be capable of true intelligence or creativity reminds me of the NYT claim around 1900 that man would never learn to fly. They turned out to be wrong.

So anyway, thanks again for the thought provoking column. But you may turn out as wrong as they were.

Give it time.

Expand full comment
John East's avatar

Witty, insightful, rude. crude AND refined.

Keep up the good work!

John East

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts