Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What We Get Wrong About Technology

timharford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#61

Post by leonardoe »

Intro to The Napoleon of Notting Hill, by G.K. Chesterton:

"THE human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to which it is most attached is called, "Keep tomorrow dark," and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun."

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#62

Post by l5870uoo9y »

What I think we often miss about technology is the underlying point here; no technological progress without social progress. We need a political movement to define a new social contract that ensures broad support for implementation of disruptive technologies. This is the essential challenge for our generation.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#63

Post by sah2ed »

icebraining wrote: post #43
vinchuco wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big effect in a small area vs a small effect in a large area [?]. The same volume of water in two cylinders of short and long width. We have prizes for big problems in mathematics and science, but rarely focus on enablers. The tribe rewards the hunter when he comes back with deer, not so much the one that perfects the hunting spears (tools).

Sure we do, they're called patents.

The US patent system has evolved into rewarding lawyers mostly.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#64

Post by kbart »

mozumder wrote: post #46
donw wrote: post #9

I suspect that it is easy to fixate on fantasies of massive technological leaps forward, because the truly revolutionary changes that underpin our lives are like air: so common that we overlook them all the time. If you were to sit down with a person from, say, 1750, and wanted to explain the modern world, you would probably tell them about things like antibiotics, cars and planes, snapchat, that sort of thing. All t…

This is why people like Elon Musk are completely mischaracterized as innovators and leaders of the tech scene. Today's tech-bros go for the most obvious nerd-bait, like electric cars, rockets, and solar panels. This is stuff that, if you asked any tech-bro today, or 20 years ago, what would impress them, they would answer with that obvious stuff. Meanwhile, the ACTUAL world-changing innovations are things like pinch-…

What? Do you honestly think that pinch-to-zoom is more world changing invention than solar panels? I could totally live without pinch-to-zoom or even momentum scroll, but I doubt we, society as we know it, would survive very long without clean and renewable energy sources.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#66

Post by vgh »

titzer wrote: post #59

FTA: "Why not unbundle the task and give the conscious thinking to the computer, and the mindless grabbing to the human?" The article was pretty good overall, but this one's a pet peeve of mine. We're offloading our thinking to computers and this magical "AI" in hopes that all that hard work (and possibility for error!) is going to be avoided. But we're going to find out--or perhaps not, as we slip below the dumbness…

Other than the idioms, that's a pretty good literal translation. Definitely understandable. I agree machine translation is weaker than human translation, but I don't understand your mockery of this example.

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#67

Post by titzer »

vgh wrote: post #66
titzer wrote: post #59

FTA: "Why not unbundle the task and give the conscious thinking to the computer, and the mindless grabbing to the human?" The article was pretty good overall, but this one's a pet peeve of mine. We're offloading our thinking to computers and this magical "AI" in hopes that all that hard work (and possibility for error!) is going to be avoided. But we're going to find out--or perhaps not, as we slip below the dumbness…

Other than the idioms, that's a pretty good literal translation. Definitely understandable. I agree machine translation is weaker than human translation, but I don't understand your mockery of this example.

Outside of the grammar, the translation is pretty bad. It flubbed the main metaphor and didn't even get the prelude.

This shows exactly why machine translation is bad. It doesn't actually understand anything. It does really well translating very commonly occurring phrases and grammar because it is based on parallel texts. It does absolutely terrible when one wanders outside this "mainstream".

This is why you need a human; they understand metaphors. In fact, the "mop the floor with" metaphor has a literal translation but few Germans would use that as their first choice. Instead, it requires a choice of a different metaphor that expresses the same intent.

Machine translators don't even use a dictionary. FFS "mop the floor with" can be defined to a first approximation as "trounce" and that does have some reasonable German translations.

Stupid machine. (and it doesn't even understand mockery either).

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#68

Post by _pmf_ »

titzer wrote: post #59

FTA: "Why not unbundle the task and give the conscious thinking to the computer, and the mindless grabbing to the human?" The article was pretty good overall, but this one's a pet peeve of mine. We're offloading our thinking to computers and this magical "AI" in hopes that all that hard work (and possibility for error!) is going to be avoided. But we're going to find out--or perhaps not, as we slip below the dumbness…

This; we have to read automatic translations of app descriptions in the Play store (that are worse than a dumb word for worse translation done by somebody who knows neither source nor target language), and we are somehow to believe that autonomous driving AI developed by the same SV masterminds is right around the corner[0]?

[0] automatic driving "being almost there" is the new "year of Linux on the desktop"

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#69

Post by titzer »

titzer wrote: post #67
vgh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than the idioms, that's a pretty good literal translation. Definitely understandable. I agree machine translation is weaker than human translation, but I don't understand your mockery of this example.

Outside of the grammar, the translation is pretty bad. It flubbed the main metaphor and didn't even get the prelude. This shows exactly why machine translation is bad. It doesn't actually understand anything. It does really well translating very commonly occurring phrases and grammar because it is based on parallel texts. It does absolutely terrible when one wanders outside this "mainstream". This is why you need a h…

(and for the record, 3 german native speakers thought this translation was bad enough to laugh out loud.)

Re: What We Get Wrong About Technology

#70

Post by roceasta »

titzer wrote: post #59

FTA: "Why not unbundle the task and give the conscious thinking to the computer, and the mindless grabbing to the human?" The article was pretty good overall, but this one's a pet peeve of mine. We're offloading our thinking to computers and this magical "AI" in hopes that all that hard work (and possibility for error!) is going to be avoided. But we're going to find out--or perhaps not, as we slip below the dumbness…

Why not unbundle the task and give the conscious thinking to the computer, and the mindless grabbing to the human?"

Reminds me of Daniel Dennett's example of the coffee machine that both makes the coffee and drinks it for you.

that thinking is joyful, fun, glorious

Couldn't agree more. Thinking is the only place where we can be truly free.

not laborious or error prone.

No, mistakes are inevitable. This is actually not such a bad thing because if we weren't capable of committing errors then no progress would be possible.

Post reply on HN