So we use them for whatever use we can find and try to find ways to make them more useful and if we can, we can and if we can't, we can't but I think it's worth giving it a try.
I think that the process of trying to figure out how to use them to our advantage can be helpful in clarifying our thinking, if nothing else. Some of the reports I've seen on the use of artificial intelligence indicate that it becomes necessary to break down every human action into very minute segments in order to get just one action out of robot; many behaviors that we take for granted and don't think about can come to light that way. Garfinkle was aware of this at one level and had extremely useful insights into our behavior by getting us to look at the way we automatically play out roles without thinking about the fact that our behavior is automatic. I used to have my students do some of his exercises with some pretty dramatic results. Selma Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost? > > Selma Singer: > > > I find the whole idea of using technological tools to help devise better > > social structure, very, very exciting. As long as the techology is seen as > a > > TOOL for human purposes, that is. > > > > Why would it not be possible to feed a computer the kinds of outcomes one > > would want to see and what characteristics the behavior would exhibit and > > have the computer HELP us think about that. I'm not saying the computer > > would necessarily be able to devise those structures but it very well may > be > > able to help us in our thinking about the strategies we would need to > > employ, especially in getting from where we are now to where we might want > > to be. > > > > Computers can be helpful but are limited. The are most helpful where cause > and effect linkages are known, or even known with considerable imprecission. > For example, economists use them to predict the effects of changes in > interest rates, the IPCC has used them to predict the consequences of > climate change, and environmental scientists can use them to determine the > changes in streamflow characterisics and other variables in the case of an > impeded waterway. So some specific cause/effect relationships can be > modelled and predicted, using computers. However, I don't think you can go > beyond that and use computers to predict change in society as a whole or to > somehow model positive social change. It's just too complicated, recursive > and uncertain, and there is often little agreement on the positives and > negatives of change. I'm afraid we'll just have to lurch on with a little > support from the microchip, but not very much. > > Ed Weick > > >
