Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:10:41AM -0400, edoc wrote:
>
> > Anyone aware of a Linux-based Avatar-interface?
> >
> > I was just watching the TV show Andromeda (the particular one was a bit
> > melodramatic)
>
> I agree. A little sappy.
>
> > but it raised an interesting point -- humans react more
> > completely with human-like interfaces than non-human.
> >
>
> Here's the problem. The more human-like a computer interface is, the
> more people tend to believe that the computer "thinks". That's a very
> dangerous thing. It leads people to trust computers too much, and forego
> the checking of the computer's results and actions. "Garbage In, Garbage
> Out" is true of people and computers.
>
> > Perhaps a key element of the future of user computing is via avatar-based
> > interfaces. Such may open more doors of opportunity?
> >
>
> Here's an example of a task a human considers simple: Your wife says,
> "Honey, we need some milk for dinner." It's 3pm on a Sunday afternoon.
>
<snip>
Actually I don't think it's a technical impediment. All the issues
brought up by the "Honey, we need some milk for dinner." scenario can be
solved by a computer the same way as by a human -- experience. We
automagically ask the same questions and make the appropriate actions
(only occasionally if you're a man and she's a woman!) because we all
have an immense amount of previously learned critera starting from early
childhood that we draw upon with immense associative computing power. I
believe it's feasible for a machine to do as well given a comparable
amount of information (immense), an associative processor based on some
kind of non-"Turing machine" technology, and hell of a lot of QA.
My objections are in the "just because we can doesn't mean we should"
category. My present computer interface is a lot more responsive and
easy to use than interfacing with people. People are HARD, computers
are easy.
>
> Not to be a Luddite, but I'm with Ed on this one. Let computers be
> computers.
>
Computers will never be just computers because they would be useless.
They're only needed when they become microwave ovens, typewriters,
games, PIMs, web terminals, telephones, mail processors, document
processors, engine ignition timers, etc. I rarely need to compute
anything more than a few sums and multiplications everyday and I don't
need a computer for that. I do need and rely on all those other things
that a computer has been turned into. When avatars serve some genuinely
useful purpose then I guess we'll have them. Microsoft Bob ain't it.
Personally, given sufficient technology, I'd rather have a machine than
a human for a doctor. RoboDoc!?
Back to the "no can we but should we" issue. Maybe not in my lifetime,
but one day I do believe we may have to deal with the issue of an a
machine becoming a sentient being and the need to accord it some kind of
civil rights. Once that happens humans will, for the first time, have a
species that can compete with us. We don't need to go there. We'll
lose badly.
Ed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:22:31 EDT