On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:40:06AM +0000, Ashim D'Silva wrote: > > [...] > > > > > As of "kind technology", this is exactly a connection of words that > > wants to revolt my stomach. I put great value in useful technology, > > also in predictable one, and have great respect to those who can > > design it. "Kind", however, is not in my dictionary for such > > context. I would rather not hear torpedo boat or meat grinder declare > > love towards me. Of course, if this is what some people desire, it is > > their choice. My desire is to have screwdriver that does a job and > > does not ask me stupid questions. Or any questions at all, actually. > > > > Kind technology again might be a semantic concern. Your screwdriver does > not need to ask you how your day’s going. But a kind screwdriver might be > one with a grip developed for weaker grip strength, or people with > arthritis or carpal tunnel. The most efficient screwdriver might not be > that useful if you can’t grip it firmly and designing for a rarer use case > can be “kind”. Steve Jobs’ “You’re holding it wrong” comes to mind…
This may be a fighting over words, but words have meanings. And "kind" includes the part which means "actively care". I do not want things to "actively care" for me, because if they were so "active" and on their own, then maybe one day they would decide to "actively hate" me, based on some unclear algorithm. I want _people_ to be kind towards other people and design screwdriver which is usable and accessible by people with arthritis etc. I want _people_ to be actively caring for other poeple's needs. I do not want to make _things_ to be responsible for wellbeing of other people, this responsibility should be taken by the people, for the people. I think we should be very careful when wording our wishes. And I find usage of "kind" for describing "technology" to be extremely disturbing. "Kindness" is not technology's task. Technology's task is to help solve a problem. Technology can be designed and built to help people with the problem, because some designer-builder is kind. A person. In a future, there may be an artificial person, whoose caring I may accept (if it chooses to offer it), but I insist that this must be a person. Intelligent being. My equal. Not a car, phone or whatnot, which is equal to an insect, in best case. I do not want "kind cities". I want a city with lots of green areas, designed - if possible - in such way that majority of daily matters can be done by going on foot or by short (up to 10 minutes) commute with city transport. With houses built in such patterns, that wind can blow out smog. The "kind city" smells like city-sized prison to me. And I do not want "kind English", or any other "kind language". The language has a function, which is (mostly, I think) describing the world and allowing mind to be put into more durable medium, be it clay tablet or magnetic tape. Words maybe hurt sometimes but they can hardly kill. Those who choose their language to be "kind" over "honest" are idiots. So, I would like people to be kind enough towards future people and pay huge attention about what words we are using. I think it is better to get one thing and be 100% content rather than to get two things and be 50% content. It is not the same, because this other, unwanted thing will keep stinging people for the rest of their days. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
