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

Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

dougengelbart.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#31

Post by RivieraKid »

gjvc wrote: post #12
RivieraKid wrote: post #7

Is there a TL;DR version? Before you downvote, I don't want to invest hours into reading something when 80% of the value can probably be summarized into one paragraph. BTW, I wonder how many of the people who upvoted this have actually read it.

I have never read quite such a lazy comment on HN. Do your own research, instead of grifting off other people's opinions.

I honestly don't get this "you should read it" fetish.

I actually spend a lot of time reading. But if I have, say 4 hours per day allocated to reading, I want to choose material that gives me the highest possible value per minute of reading.

You're basically saying that the optimal learning and information consumption strategy is to always either read (or skim) the whole thing or ignore it. I disagree, the optimal strategy includes reading TL;DRs if available because they give you good value per unit of time or energy and they give you information whether it's worth to read the whole thing.

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#32

Post by airhead969 »

gjvc wrote: post #28
airhead969 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a minor nit, the way it was said was a bit harsh, but it seemed to be done in the spirit of necessary, tough love. I'm appalled by intellectual laziness and codependency these days. We have a mostly illiterate, ignorant, distracted, atomized society that doesn't read, doesn't dig into primary or even secondary sources, doesn't have critical thinking skills, is easily-manipulated by advertising, mainstream news, an…

well said, and I would add that the acceptance of the "TL;DR" "culture" is cancerous in tacitly encouraging such laziness.

I think we should also be able to summarize but not exclusively or reaching a point of cargo-culting blindly because only one book priest can read. Against oversimplification: There are nuances and details that are often lost as the memetic game of "telephone" gets played and introduces mutations. Also, intellectual dilettancy, whereby people no longer master any other details other than utilitarian ones; history gets lost, anecdotes get lost, and so forth.

Writers should aim for concision where possible, but not skimp on evidence, rationale, or interesting anecdotes or analysis. Einstein said something about "irreducible basic elements" but never said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Time and attention are valuable, but the essence shouldn't be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#33

Post by RivieraKid »

airhead969 wrote: post #27
justin66 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the part of your brain responsible for reading things got shot off in the war, the smart move would be to find and watch the “Mother of all Demos” video in its entirety. It is how most people are introduced to Englebart’s ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos

Theirs was definitely shot-off in The Great War. The only plausible excuses for not reading would be disabilities such as reading (lexical / comprehension) and/or attention. Dyslexia would be a tough one, as well as severe ADHD. I happen to have the latter but still forcibly plow through books. It is good to have well-constructed readers to summarize and discuss implications of subject matter, but not as primary mate…

It wasn't, I read a lot, I just think it's really stupid and suboptimal to limit your learning and information consumption strategy to either fully reading (or skimming) long texts or ignoring them.

I mean, why not spend I'd rather spend my time reading stuff thay has a higher expected value (e.g. a book about macroeconomics with great reviews if I'm interested in that topic) rather than random long texts on HN that can turn out to be complete garbage.

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#34

Post by nmfisher »

tux3 wrote: post #24
hinkley wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I can never quite explain to people is that when I can navigate the information faster, I can see deeper problems. Every time someone decided that this is good enough and that I “should be able to figure it out, what’s the big deal?” I am stymied. Which would sound like someone whining about how the bigger kids are running too fast, but when I finally get fed up and fix the code, half the time I’m the one w…

I'm very sympathetic to this, but I think you go too far with the conclusion! If we did figure out drawing or writing without hands, I think that would be a noticeable, but still small improvement. Much like with coding, the insight/information /s rate is very rarely keyboard limited. A good programmer switching to Vim may help them a bit, and it can be a strong enough effect that lots of people will want to switch t…

Problem solving isn't keyboard-limited, but actually creating the solution definitely is.

Once I know what code needs to be written, I still need hours to actually type the damn thing out (not to mention the constant typos, deletions, reformatting, and so on). One of my loftier startup ideas is a Neuralink-PC interface that projects the code in your head to code on a screen.

I really hope I see it in my lifetime.

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#35

Post by justcame2say »

airhead969 wrote: post #25

"Hey Siri, do my homework for me." "I'm sorry, Dave, but I'm afraid you need to purchase the Universal Homework Cheating app from the App Store on your mobile device or move to Finland where there is no homework and better educational outcomes." If AI/ML can be made general enough and enough computing horsepower is available, then a UHC is possible. Soon afterwards though, self-reprogramming will be possible, renderi…

Help me take a dump, Siri.

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#36

Post by pwdisswordfish0 »

RivieraKid wrote: post #31
gjvc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never read quite such a lazy comment on HN. Do your own research, instead of grifting off other people's opinions.

I honestly don't get this "you should read it" fetish. I actually spend a lot of time reading. But if I have, say 4 hours per day allocated to reading, I want to choose material that gives me the highest possible value per minute of reading. You're basically saying that the optimal learning and information consumption strategy is to always either read (or skim) the whole thing or ignore it. I disagree, the optimal st…

(Interestingly enough, Doug would agree with you. The irony of those condemning you is multi-layered. There's the first-order irony that those doing the condemnation probably haven't themselves read the thing they are upset with you about. The second-order irony is that the overall thrust of their clamor is directly opposed to the ideas that Doug expresses -- if only they knew it by reading for themselves...)

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#37

Post by justin66 »

RivieraKid wrote: post #33
airhead969 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theirs was definitely shot-off in The Great War. The only plausible excuses for not reading would be disabilities such as reading (lexical / comprehension) and/or attention. Dyslexia would be a tough one, as well as severe ADHD. I happen to have the latter but still forcibly plow through books. It is good to have well-constructed readers to summarize and discuss implications of subject matter, but not as primary mate…

It wasn't, I read a lot, I just think it's really stupid and suboptimal to limit your learning and information consumption strategy to either fully reading (or skimming) long texts or ignoring them. I mean, why not spend I'd rather spend my time reading stuff thay has a higher expected value (e.g. a book about macroeconomics with great reviews if I'm interested in that topic) rather than random long texts on HN that…

Englebart’s is a pretty good example of work you’ll want to spend some time exploring on your own if you can, simply because it’s important and you shouldn’t fully trust a typical summary of his ideas.

For example, plenty of people watch the demo I mentioned above and spend all their time marveling at the invention of the mouse, or some other detail of the hardware, rather than taking in what was really being explored by the users of the hardware in terms of human/computer and human/human interaction.

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#38

Post by tux3 »

nmfisher wrote: post #34
tux3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very sympathetic to this, but I think you go too far with the conclusion! If we did figure out drawing or writing without hands, I think that would be a noticeable, but still small improvement. Much like with coding, the insight/information /s rate is very rarely keyboard limited. A good programmer switching to Vim may help them a bit, and it can be a strong enough effect that lots of people will want to switch t…

Problem solving isn't keyboard-limited, but actually creating the solution definitely is. Once I know what code needs to be written, I still need hours to actually type the damn thing out (not to mention the constant typos, deletions, reformatting, and so on). One of my loftier startup ideas is a Neuralink-PC interface that projects the code in your head to code on a screen. I really hope I see it in my lifetime.

Agree, but I find that I spend more hours problem solving than creating. But that maybe says more about me than about anything else!

I hope so too, please don't let me stop you! :)

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#39

Post by gardenfelder »

My take on Doug's vision - having worked with him for a few years before his untimely departure: While he is celebrated for the mouse, windows, and other ideas coming out of his lab, he should be better understood, not for the MotherOfAllDemos, but for what it meant (my opinions): He spoke of the ABC architecture, where "C" work is the production line, "B" work is facilitating and improving C work, and "A" work is improving B work.

"A" work is where the concept flourishes: he spoke of networked imrovement communities (NICs) where the "A" team is an improvement community, and a NIC is those "A" teams in a network. Think IEEE as a NIC.

But, he didn't stop there. What is an improvement community? My interpretation is that he uses the term "Dynamic Knowledge Repository" (DKR) to explain the A team; "repository" does not refer to a bank account; rather, a DKR is a combination of human systems, tool systems, and the knowledge brought to the table by the humans. Draw a circle around that. That's how I interpret a DKR.

Key point to take home: all of the elements of a DKR are in a state of continuous coevolution. As humans improve, the tools they use must rise to the occasion.

What held back that concept, historically, has been the tool systems. When he did MOAD, I was working at IBM on OS 360 mainframes. That's what we had in the 60's. Today, my cell phone has more compute power and memory than one of the 360s I serviced back then.

It's for that reason that I am optimistic that we are on a path to realizing Doug's grand vision; our tool systems are now way ahead of we humans.

Re: Augmenting Human Intellect (1962)

#40

Post by gardenfelder »

kgarten wrote: post #16

So happy to see this pop up on hacker news again. An anecdote (as far as I can remember it correctly), during one of his award lectures (after the 1997 Turing award), he was asked why he thinks that some of his tech was easily adapted (mouse etc.) and some others weren't (hyperlinks). He answered "Maybe the time is not right yet." ;) Shameless self plug: I'm part of a couple of crazy scientists and enthusiasts follow…

Fantastic! Thanks for sharing your links.
Post reply on HN