Stories with Tag Technology Criticism

• Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer (1987) [pdf]

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-05-03 22:16:11

  Verbose tl;dr

  Wendell Berry argues against buying a computer in 1987, believing it offers no improvement to his writing process and presents several societal downsides. He emphasizes the value of his physical tools and the importance of resisting consumerism. He sees the computer as an unnecessary expense, especially given its potential to become obsolete quickly. He further criticizes the environmental impact of computer manufacturing and fears computers will contribute to job displacement, corporate centralization, and the erosion of community life. Ultimately, he values human connection and careful consideration over technological advancement and efficiency.

  In his 1987 essay, "Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer," Wendell Berry articulates a deeply considered and multifaceted resistance to adopting personal computer technology. His argument transcends mere Luddism and delves into the complex interplay of technology, economics, and human values. Berry begins by establishing his criteria for evaluating any new tool or technology: it must be cheaper than the tool it replaces, small and repairable, and subservient to human needs rather than dictating them. He also emphasizes the importance of local provenance and the ability to understand and control the technology's impact on his life and community.

  Berry then systematically dismantles the purported benefits of personal computers, particularly word processors, within the context of his life as a writer and farmer. He argues that the cost of a computer, printer, and software, along with the associated maintenance and inevitable upgrades, far outweighs the cost of his existing typewriter, pencils, and paper. He questions the supposed increase in efficiency offered by word processing, asserting that the time saved in revising drafts is negated by the temptation to endlessly tinker and the distractions inherent in the technology itself. Furthermore, he expresses concern over the ephemeral nature of digital documents and the potential for data loss.

  Beyond the practical considerations, Berry raises deeper philosophical objections. He worries about the potential for computers to erode essential skills like handwriting and careful composition, leading to a decline in the quality of writing and thought. He also critiques the consumerist culture surrounding technology, which encourages constant upgrades and fosters a sense of dissatisfaction with existing tools. He views this cycle of consumption as detrimental to both the environment and human well-being.

  Berry's concerns extend to the broader societal implications of computer technology. He anticipates the rise of a digital divide, where access to information and opportunity becomes stratified based on economic status. He also foresees the potential for computers to further isolate individuals and communities, replacing face-to-face interaction with mediated communication. Finally, he expresses apprehension about the increasing reliance on experts and centralized systems for information and repair, diminishing individual self-sufficiency and control.

  In conclusion, Berry's refusal to buy a computer is not a rejection of technology per se, but rather a thoughtful and principled stance against the uncritical adoption of a technology he believes will ultimately be detrimental to his work, his community, and his values. He advocates for a more discerning approach to technological advancement, one that prioritizes human needs, local autonomy, and the preservation of essential skills and traditions. He challenges readers to consider the full spectrum of a technology's impact, extending beyond mere convenience and efficiency to encompass the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences.

  • 1987
  • computer
  • Technology
  • personal computer
  • Philosophy of Technology
  • anti-technology
  • critique
  • Wendell Berry
  • essay
  • PDF
  • digital humanities
  • agrarianism
  • localism
  • Simplicity
  • Technology Criticism

  Summary of Comments ( 87 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43882809

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree with Wendell Berry's skepticism of computers, particularly his concerns about their societal impact. Several highlight the prescience of his observations about the potential for computers to centralize power, erode community, and create dependence. Some find his outright rejection of computers too extreme, suggesting a more nuanced approach is possible. Others discuss the irony of reading his essay online, while appreciating his call for careful consideration of technology's consequences. A few point out that Berry's agrarian lifestyle allows him a perspective unavailable to most. The top comment notes the essay is less a critique of computers themselves, and more a critique of the structures and systems they empower.

  The Hacker News post linking to Wendell Berry's essay, "Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer," generated a substantial discussion with a variety of perspectives on Berry's arguments. Several commenters found his points resonant, particularly his concerns about the potential for computers to exacerbate existing societal problems and further centralize power. They appreciated his emphasis on localism, craft, and human connection. Some highlighted his prescience in foreseeing the potential for technology to create echo chambers and filter bubbles, isolating individuals and communities.

  Others pushed back against what they perceived as Berry's overly romanticized view of the past and his dismissal of the potential benefits of technology. Some argued that his concerns about the centralization of power were misplaced, pointing out that the internet has also enabled decentralized movements and empowered individuals in ways he may not have anticipated. They also noted the practical benefits of computers for tasks like writing and communication, suggesting that Berry's rejection of them was impractical and perhaps even hypocritical, given that his essay was likely typed on a typewriter, a technology he seemingly accepted.

  A few commenters delved into the philosophical underpinnings of Berry's argument, discussing his agrarian philosophy and his critique of industrialism. They explored the tension between embracing technological progress and preserving traditional values and practices. Some suggested that Berry's perspective, while perhaps extreme, offers a valuable counterpoint to the often uncritical embrace of new technologies.

  Several commenters also discussed the irony of Berry's essay being shared on the internet, a technology he explicitly rejects. This irony sparked a discussion about the complexities of engaging with ideas that challenge our own practices and the potential for hypocrisy in navigating the modern world. Some suggested that this irony shouldn't invalidate Berry's points, while others saw it as undermining his credibility.

  Finally, some commenters offered personal anecdotes about their own relationships with technology, reflecting on their attempts to find a balance between the benefits and drawbacks of digital tools. Some discussed their efforts to limit their screen time or to use technology in ways that align with their values.

• Modern-Day Oracles or Bullshit Machines

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-09 08:24:17

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post "Modern-Day Oracles or Bullshit Machines" argues that large language models (LLMs), despite their impressive abilities, are fundamentally bullshit generators. They lack genuine understanding or intelligence, instead expertly mimicking human language and convincingly stringing together words based on statistical patterns gleaned from massive datasets. This makes them prone to confidently presenting false information as fact, generating plausible-sounding yet nonsensical outputs, and exhibiting biases present in their training data. While they can be useful tools, the author cautions against overestimating their capabilities and emphasizes the importance of critical thinking when evaluating their output. They are not oracles offering profound insights, but sophisticated machines adept at producing convincing bullshit.

  The blog post "Modern-Day Oracles or Bullshit Machines," found at thebullshitmachines.com, delves into the intricate and often perplexing realm of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Bard, and others. It dissects the core mechanisms behind these sophisticated tools, arguing that while they exhibit astonishing capabilities in generating human-like text, their outputs often lack genuine understanding and can be riddled with inaccuracies. The author meticulously explores the notion that these models are essentially elaborate "bullshit machines," adept at producing convincing yet ultimately meaningless or misleading prose.

  The central argument revolves around the fundamental operating principles of LLMs. These models, the post explains, are trained on vast quantities of text data, learning to predict the probability of a word appearing given the preceding words in a sequence. This statistical approach, while enabling the generation of fluent and contextually relevant text, does not equip the models with actual comprehension of the subjects they discuss. They are, in essence, mimicking patterns observed in the training data without grasping the underlying meaning or truth.

  The author elaborates on this by highlighting the limitations inherent in relying solely on statistical correlations. LLMs, they argue, lack a "grounding" in reality; they possess no connection to the physical world or lived experience that informs human understanding. This disconnect makes them prone to fabricating information, hallucinating details, and presenting falsehoods with unwavering confidence. The post meticulously illustrates this through various examples, showcasing how LLMs can generate plausible yet entirely fabricated narratives, demonstrating their susceptibility to biases present in the training data, and highlighting their struggles with logical reasoning and factual accuracy.

  Furthermore, the post explores the societal implications of such technology. The potential for misinformation and manipulation, the erosion of trust in online information, and the blurring lines between human and machine-generated content are all considered as potential consequences of the widespread adoption of LLMs. The author emphasizes the importance of critical engagement with these tools, advocating for a cautious and discerning approach to their outputs. They suggest the need for increased transparency regarding the limitations of LLMs and the development of methods for verifying the accuracy of the information they generate. Ultimately, the post serves as a cautionary tale, urging readers to view these seemingly oracular machines not as sources of definitive truth but rather as sophisticated tools that require careful scrutiny and a healthy dose of skepticism.

  • AI
  • artificial intelligence
  • Large Language Models
  • LLMs
  • Chatbots
  • Generative AI
  • AI Hype
  • AI Criticism
  • Technology Criticism
  • Bullshit
  • Hype Cycles
  • Technological Determinism
  • Automation
  • Future of Work
  • Ethics of AI
  • AI Safety

  Summary of Comments ( 137 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42989320

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss the proliferation of AI-generated content and its potential impact. Several express concern about the ease with which these "bullshit machines" can produce superficially plausible but ultimately meaningless text, potentially flooding the internet with noise and making it harder to find genuine information. Some commenters debate the responsibility of companies developing these tools, while others suggest methods for detecting AI-generated content. The potential for misuse, including propaganda and misinformation campaigns, is also highlighted. Some users take a more optimistic view, suggesting that these tools could be valuable if used responsibly, for example, for brainstorming or generating creative writing prompts. The ethical implications and long-term societal impact of readily available AI-generated content remain a central point of discussion.

  The Hacker News discussion on "Modern-Day Oracles or Bullshit Machines" contains several interesting comments exploring the nature of large language models (LLMs) and their potential impact.

  One commenter argues that LLMs, while impressive in their ability to generate human-like text, lack true understanding and reasoning abilities. They compare LLMs to sophisticated parrots, mimicking human language without grasping its underlying meaning. This perspective emphasizes the difference between generating text that appears intelligent and possessing genuine intelligence. The commenter suggests that the focus should be on developing systems that can truly understand and reason, rather than simply generating convincing text.

  Another commenter points out the inherent limitations of training LLMs on existing data. They argue that since LLMs are trained on human-generated text, they inevitably inherit and amplify existing biases and inaccuracies present in the data. This raises concerns about the potential for LLMs to perpetuate harmful stereotypes and misinformation. They suggest that careful curation and filtering of training data is crucial to mitigate these risks.

  Building on this point, a different commenter highlights the potential for LLMs to be used for malicious purposes, such as generating convincing fake news and propaganda. They express concern that the ease with which LLMs can generate realistic-sounding text could make it increasingly difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood, potentially eroding trust in information sources. This commenter advocates for the development of methods to detect and counter LLM-generated misinformation.

  Some commenters discuss the potential benefits of LLMs, such as their ability to automate tasks like writing and translation. However, they acknowledge the importance of using LLMs responsibly and being aware of their limitations. One commenter suggests that LLMs should be viewed as tools to augment human capabilities, rather than replacements for human intelligence.

  The discussion also touches on the philosophical implications of LLMs. One commenter questions whether LLMs, despite their lack of true understanding, might still be considered a form of intelligence. They suggest that the traditional definition of intelligence may need to be revisited in light of the capabilities of these models.

  Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect a mix of excitement and apprehension about the potential of LLMs. While acknowledging the impressive capabilities of these models, many commenters express concerns about their limitations and potential misuse. The discussion highlights the need for careful consideration of the ethical and societal implications of LLMs as they continue to develop.