Response to the Guide Questions for Bill Joy’s The Future Doesn’t Need Us
These are responses to These questions about This article.
1.What significance does Bill Joy give to John Searl’s argument against the possibility of artificial intelligence?
Bill Joy does not give much significance to John Serl's argument. Bill does not openly say that the argument is wrong, and does not spend much time on the question. But Bill does spend most of his time with the notion that articificial intelligence can and porbably will happen.
2.Describe the “distopian scenario” that Bill Joy recounts in this article.
The dystopian scenario is one posited by the Unibomber, Theodore Kaczinski. It suggests that humans will ultimately give over control to the machines. This process will be gradual, and hardly noticeable until people finally realize that they have not actual control. At this point, people will not be able to take back control because so many things are actually done by machines. And if humans do maintain some sort of control over machines, only the elte will have this control. The elite will have to keep the masses down some way-either through human-population control or through keeping them happy but having life with no purpose. The reason the masses need to be kept down is becuase they will cease to have any useful function in society. The machines will do all of the grunt work.
3.Do you accept that such a scenario is possible? Support your position.
My initial reaction was that it seemed a highy dystopic, yet all-too possible future. But then I saw who wrote it, and almost dismissed the scenario. But to just dismiss the scenario because of who wrote it would be wrong. But by seeing who wrote it, I could see how Ted Kaczinski felt himself justified. By preventing technological progress with militant means, he sought to prevent this dystopia from occuring. I don't know if I can completely agree with the scenario, however. People will find ways to keep control, and are wary of ceeding too much control. But then, it could happen. I recall an article I read a while ago concerning auto-pilot systems on airplanes. The United States Auto-pilot automaically shut off when the plane sensed that it was in a dangerous position. The ultimate control was left in the hands of the pilot. But in the European model, the autopliot took over in tough situations becuase it could handle more complex calculations of how to handle emergencies. The other part of the dystopian scenario-where an elite class will keep control, seems less possible. There are things that people do which cannot be replicated by computers, or at least should not. Many things, such as art and philosophy, seem entirely human inventions. In fact, it is bacuse of the emergence of the leisure class in many societies that a rise in the arts and humanities became possibe. Before that, everybody was too consumed with physical labor to devote much tme to anything else. People's lives would not become meaningless f they ne longer had to do work. They could persue other avenues besides work, and this could even be more fulfilling for them. The elite would not need to keep people happy little sheep. In fact, the 'elite' may not be as elite, becuase they would not have the free time to persue activities which others could. So, while I guess anything is possible, I do not see the dystopian outlook at the only outcome. My picture may be too rosey, but it is just as likely.
4.Describe Joy’s image of the technological environment of the 21st century. Do you find this a credible prediction?
Technology will proceed at an increadibly fast rate. So fast that we will not be able to recognize what is happening until it has happened. New advances will propell us forward into area that we previously thought impossible. I am not sure if this is so. I do see the rapid technological change. But I do not personally know enough about everything involved to know if this trend will continue. I find the predictions of Bill Joy credible, mainly becuase I can see that he has educated himself on the iddue, and can follow his reasonings very well. I can see the move away from large government projects to smaller projects developed by companies to increase profits. I can see the almost daily breakthroughs in science. So yes, I find the predictions credible.
5.What are some of the technical changes that will have to emerge, according to Bill Joy, that will radically change, (increase), the “intellectual potential” of the computer?
Molecular electronics could ultimately increase the power of computers. Previously, there were physical limits to how advanced computers could get. But if the way computers are made is changed, these limits will change. Nanotechnology could revolutionize computers. And one revolution would be the poential self-replication possible with nanotechnology. Bill Joy seems more concerned with this potential break-through because of the inherent dangers of self-replication. If anything went wrong, it could be highly disasterous.
6.Describe some of the terroristic potential of vastly increased computing power, according to Bill Joy.
With selective technology, terrorists could wipe out their foes with nanotechnology. A nanotechnological device could be programmed to kill only certain people based on their DNA or it could infect only certain geographical regions. And if it is self-replicating, it could be easy to use it once they got it. A highly-proliferating nanotechnological device could act like a virus, and would spread easily once released.
7.How does Joy express some of his hopes for the future? What are some of the cautions that he suggests have to be in place in order to sustain such a hope?
Bill Joy hopes that we will be smart enough to realize the dangers which come from technology. And not only smart enough to realize the dangers, but smart enough to do something about them. He takes a Luddite position. He trieds to distance himself from that word, but that is what he is doing. He suggests that there are some things which we should not know. Science, and knowing all that there is to know, is not the end-all and the be-all. There are some things which ought to be kept a secret. There are commercial and military reasons to know some things, but it may be in humanities best interest to not know these things. The genie cannot be forced back into the bottle, so we should not tempt fate by bringing it out.
8.Assess Bill Joy’s overall vision of the future—what is possible and what is probable. What do you believe are the most important technological considerations in our local, national, and global approach to the future?
I think that Bill Joy is ultimately naive. I see his points, but there is not way to prevent the scientific progress. It will go on becuase not everybody will agree on what is moral, what should be known or not known. Even if our government agrees that something, like human cloning, is unethical, other countries will permit the study of it. There will probably be no massive decision over what is right and what is wrong that everybody and eery nation will agree with. And if certain countries do stop the study of hazerdous technologies, they will just fall behind countries which do not, and may possibly lose their standing in the world power structure.
I suppose I cannot argue that technology will not keep marching on. I do not see any evidence that it will not, and even if it is just a possibility, it must be considered.
Important technological considerations will affect us all, regardless of whether we view them locally, nationally or globally. On more personal levels, anything which prolongs our life and makes it easier will affect us profoundly. The increase in technology in the medical fields will do this. Also, machines will probably do more of our manual work to make life easier. Nationally, the US must be prepared to explore every new technology. If not, our stance as world leaders could be comprimised if we get too far behind. It is possible that we can keep back on some technological progress if we feel it to be morally wrong, but we cannot hold back on everything. Other countries are just as willing to accept the leadership role if we hesitate. Globally, I think we can afford to take a more altruistc approach. If the entire world decided that certain things were wrong, then we could leave them well enough alone. But, ultimately, I don;t see this happening. At least not yet.
Back to response page.