Leaving aside the main question, there's an illustrative lesson in this article. One place the author says humans have the edge over machines is in 'empathy', which he defines as the "ability to walk a mile in another person's shoes." This a metaphor, not a definition, and it's terribly misleading. A better definition of 'empathy' might be "to be able to read the other person's values and feelings and reflect them back to the person." It certainly fits the story better. But if this is the definition, then machines win hands down, as we've already seen through the use of analytics-based advertising. The lesson here is that we will be forced to define what it is to be human much more precisely if we are to know how humans and machines will interact. Definitions of 'human' based on metaphor, story and folk psychology will not be sufficient.
Today: 0 Total: 11 [Direct link] [Share]
