| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
We Are All Prometheus Now
Ready for review. | |
<
< | The ideas in this essay crystallized after watching Cory Doctorow’s recent lecture, The Coming War on the General Purpose Computer. | >
> | The ideas in this essay crystallized after watching Cory Doctorow’s recent lecture, The Coming War on the General Purpose Computer, and upon reflection is also a reaction to reading some articles by Robert Hale. | | | | |
<
< | We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that limit our freedom of action in order to protect our safety and order society the way we'd like. We'd like to believe that our thoughts can't be restricted. Maybe we could accept a limit on what we can read or hear -- if only rarely, when needed to keep us safe from our darkest fears, terrorists, child pornographers, identity thieves.... Still,there can't be limits imposed on thought alone. | >
> | We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that limit freedom of action in order to protect our safety and a democratically determined social order. We'd like to believe that our thoughts can't be restricted. Maybe we could accept a limit on what we can read or hear -- if only rarely, when needed to keep us safe from our darkest fears, terrorists, child pornographers, identity thieves.... But, our sense of freedom recoils from the notion of the state imposing and enforcing limits on how we think, independent of any manifested action. | | |
| | |
| |
<
< | Computers challenge our idea of a free society based on freedom of thought and conscience. Computers are now the way we gain and share knowledge. They can run 3-D printers to build physical objects and devices. They can run machines to manipulate DNA and modify microorganisms. Governments may enforce laws to stop computers from copying movies, build counterfeit or dangerous goods, or synthesize patented or dangerous microorganisms. But, controlling what we can do with a computer doesn't just infringe on the freedom to do, it also infringes on the freedom to think. | >
> | Computers challenge our idea of a free society with freedom of thought and conscience. Computers are the main way we share knowledge. They run 3-D printers that build physical objects. They run machines to manipulate DNA and modify microorganisms. Governments may enforce laws to stop computers from copying movies, build counterfeit or dangerous goods, or synthesize patented or dangerous microorganisms. But, controlling what we can do with a computer doesn't just limit the freedom to do. It also infringes on the freedom to think. | | | | |
<
< | When we think about computers, we don't usually think about what computers actually are, just what they do -- the software they run or the content they display. The computer is just a passive, invisible entity. We don't even call most of them "computers." We use words like "smartphone," or "tablet" instead of "tablet computer." Kindles and Nooks are "e-readers." Playstations are "game consoles," even though they are basically desktop PCs, and we usually ignore the computers in Blu-Ray players and inside cars. But, these are all programmable, universal computers. | >
> | When we think about computers, we don't usually think about what computers actually are, just what they do -- the software they run or the content they display. The computer is just a passive, invisible entity. We don't even call most of them "computers." We use words like "smartphone," or "tablet" instead of "tablet computer." Kindles and Nooks are "e-readers." We call desktop PCs that have joysticks instead of keyboards "game consoles," and we cannot seen and are not shown the computers in our Blu-Ray players and automobiles. But, these are all programmable, universal computers. | | | | |
<
< | Universal computers are special, because they can execute any algorithm. Algorithms are just thoughts that have been broken down to pieces, a set of process and rules that can be described using logic. What algorithms computers can run is limited only by the speed of their circuitry and capacity to store data. Computers are "thinking machines," even though that's a concept that usually comes up in exotic, metaphysical discussions of artificial intelligence and silicon consciousness, the stuff that Kurzweil writes about. The reality of computers seems much more mundane; they just follow concrete, logical instructions. But, computers are already thinking for us, if not exactly like us. Computers execute our thoughts, or someone else's or a collective's thoughts, and then display the results. | >
> | Universal computers are special, because they can execute any algorithm. An algorithm is thought broken down into pieces -- a set of process and rules that can be described using logic. What algorithms may be run on a computer is limited only by the speed of its circuitry and capacity to store data. It is always important to keep in mind that any computer is a "thinking machine," Computers process concrete logical instructions. In that sense, computer thinking seems to differ from people thinking -- but nevertheless, computers do an increasing amount of our thinking for us. | | |
| | |
| |
<
< | The "Information Age" is characterized by the word "information." Information is a long, Latin-rooted, technical-sounding word. We understand it, when read or heard, at an intellectual remove from our living experience. "Knowing" means basically the same thing, but it's not used as much in this context. "The Information Age" is basically a marketing phrase, used to sell people on the idea that money can be made by buying and selling information. But "knowing" is "thinking." Commercializing thought is a tougher sell. To control the marketplace of thought would mean having to control thought, and we don't like to contemplate what that means for a free society. Maybe advertising really is about that, but we don't like to think about what that implies. So we use "information" instead, to feel more comfortable. Information may be bought, sold, and owned, but thoughts are still free. | >
> | The "Information Age" is characterized by the word "information." Information is a long, Latin-rooted, technical-sounding word. We understand it, when read or heard, at an intellectual remove from our living experience. "The Information Age" is basically a marketing phrase, used to sell people on the idea that money can be made by buying and selling information. And the idea of commercializing thought would be a tougher sell. Marketers avoid words like "knowing" and "thought." To control the marketplace of thought would mean having to control thought. We don't like to contemplate what that means for a free society. Would it mean that just as state force helps control the market of land and things, it must also guarantee the marketplace of thought? That seems scary. Instead, "information" may be bought, sold, and owned, even as thoughts remain free. | | | So, the Information Age marketer sells a piece of information, which is translated into a series of logical processes, run through a universal computer, and turned into numbers that can be stored and displayed. A universal computer can run any algorithm with which it is programmed. Duplicating what it has stored in its memory, even when it's only cached there temporarily, is really easy. This means that profits can't be extracted from the scarcity of information. | | |
| |
<
< | The concept of intellectual property has always been about the control and restriction of thought. IP means the use of the weapons of the state to enforce artificial boundaries around thoughts, so that information can be made scarce to give it a price. The ability to freely distribute and display with networked computers reveals that this loss of freedom is based on a false bargain based on promoting creativity at the cost of our freedom to think about owned thoughts. Computers that can be plugged into 3-D printers and build weapons, challenge the false bargain of sacrificing our freedom for personal safety and security. Any technical countermeasure, enforced by government, will have to control thought about algorithms. It will necessarily fail, except in its ability to punish those who aren't skillful enough to avoid capture, and to make it harder for dissidents to use these algorithms to circumvent restrictions on other things governments want to control, like the ability to organize protest. The solution isn't to control and punish thought, but rather to free thought, and to allow for creative solutions. | >
> | The concept of intellectual property has always been about the control and restriction of thought. The IP regime depends on the state's police power to enforce artificial boundaries around thoughts, so as to create a scarcity in the supply of information, the demand for which can then give it a price. The ability to freely distribute and display with networked computers reveals that this loss of freedom is based on a flawed economic bargain. But what about the other part of this -- that our safety and security depends on restricting what we can do with computers? There is no algorithm that can protect us without being circumvented by someone thinking up a hack for it. A state regime that backs up "good" countermeasure algorithms will thus have to police thought about "bad" hacker algorithms. And just as in the IP regime, the state will fail, except in its ability to punish those who aren't skillful enough to avoid capture and make life harder for dissident thought. use these algorithms to circumvent restrictions on other things governments want to control, like the ability to organize protest, and ultimately, the power to develop real solutions to the problems posed by new technologies. | | | | |
<
< | -- BahradSokhansanj - 24 Jan 2012 | >
> | -- BahradSokhansanj - 5 Mar 2012 | | | |
|