|
On 2/9/14 9:11 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
On 09/02/2014 2:28 PM, Kingsley
Idehen wrote:
On
2/8/14 10:03 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
<quote>
Yes, but those situations will be beneficial when the focal
point is dealing with issues that human beings don't handle
well. Typical characteristics of such issues include:
1. physically challenging
2. emotionally challenging
3. repetition laden.
</quote>
I think that this characterization of computer capabilities is
too "last century".
I disagree.
It does not take into account systems
like Google, Watson or the BI capabilities available today.
Hmm..
Google enables me find documents faster, that's it.
Google finds the documents. I ranks them in order of relevance
based on your query and your past interests as evidenced by your
web browsing.
This was once the job of librarians and research assistants. It
was considered a skilled occupation.
Sorta, but Google can be much better than it is right now, and a lot
of said improvement will come from those librarians who can now
leverage the new realm of the Web. BTW -- this is already happening
via the schema.org effort, a lot of folks with librarian skills are
making valuable contributions to the aforementioned effort.
Watson will help subject-matter experts find relevant insights
faster. A surgeon might perform a more informed surgical
operation based on output from Watson. Surgeons may even
conclude that a surgery could be completed handled by a machine,
but none of that would lead to the elimination of humans beings
in the domain of surgery.
So the computers will decide what surgery is to be performed and
the surgeon will do the manual labour. :-)
Methinks, the other way around. Sometimes a mix of both. We only get
into trouble when human judgement if completely eradicated from the
system
Human overrides for any mechanization designed and implemented by
humans is fundamental. Failure to implement this basic principle is
a shortcut to serious problems with machines.
Will the continued involvement of humans in the
process be because we are required or because we can not give it
up.
Because we are required. We are imperfect, and as a consequence we
make imperfect programs etc.. Our ability to evolve based a broad
cocktail of factors (many of which we humans can't quite codify) is
what distinguishes us from others animals on this planet, as far as
I know, right now.
Computers are productivity tools. They will not replace human
beings. Augmentation is their destiny.
Agreed. We are not considering replacing the human race just
trying to understand how computers are going to develop.
Computers will become better productivity tools for us. They are not
supposed to replace us, completely.
To this I would add the cases where
4. the relationship between concepts can best be discerned by
seeking patterns in large amounts of data (BIG data)
Sure, but I put that under the category "physically
challenging".
That is a bit of a stretch of the meaning of "physical
challenging".
It is physically challenging for we humans to deal with masses of
data.
Being able to remember millions of facts and look for
patterns is not something that a human could do even given an
unlimited number of hours or weeks or superhuman endurance.
But isn't that my point re., "physically challenging?"
5. the relationships are complex and the
human strength of intelligently reducing the scope of problems
to discern simple relationships makes finding subtle
relationships difficult and leads to erroneous conclusions
(multivariate analysis - http://freakonomics.com/)
Sure, but I put that under the following categories:
1. physically challenging
2 emotionally challenging .
It is neither of these.
Our brains are physical parts of our bodies.
Emotion does fiddle with our ability to be objective, a lot of the
time.
It is just too complicated for humans to do.
Yes, and I don't see how we are disagreeing in essence.
We can not remember enough facts in a sufficient
level of detail to do the analysis required to get the right
answer.
Again, see my comments above.
Kingsley
Ron
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
|
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|