I agree with Greenfield’s statement that we have yet to create anything that is “smart.” We have been able to simulate this smartness based on data collected to guess what we may be interested in. But how accurate is this method? I do not ever recall ordering something from Amazon, and looked at the “You might be interested in these products…” section and actually bought what they suggested. Although, I would have to say that it was a good attempt in trying to figure me out.
It is true that the devices, such as the iPod, are not “smart” in updating its own firmware, but after working for so many years with the computer, I am not so sure I would even want my iPod or even any other device I may own to do that. I can’t be sure that the upgrade would be able to work as well as what I currently have setup. It’s a nightmare to try to remove an upgrade from something in hopes to restore it back to a good, stable working state.
I still believe that computers are here to enhance our lives, not take over it. You need to make sure that there is human interaction in between otherwise, it could be totally unpredictable. Who knows what may be being automatically installed into your machine or device until it is too late.
1 comment:
I can agree with you, I do not want devices to go beyond life enhancement quality. With the perspective I have not of technology I can agree. Recently I say the movie eXistenZ about cyborg gaming where people could perform a virtual life whenever they choose to. The idea of incorporating the technology in this way is personally scary. Yet today we are basically cyborgs as we are continually "on" or connected to phone and computer technology. The only thing is we are not attach but I guess we are better off wireless.
Post a Comment