Prime Time Replay:
Gregory Rawlins, Ph.D.
author of Slaves of the Machine
MsgId: *emedia(1)
Date: Mon Nov 10 20:30:26 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Good evening. Welcome to OMNI's E-Media, where every Monday night from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. We discuss electronic communications and the future of culture. Tonight, our guest is Gregory Rawlins, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Computer Science at Indiana University. Dr. Rawlins has authored texts on genetic algorithms and on the mathematical analysis of computer programs, and he is a noted speaker on electronic publishing. In his beautifully written 1996 book, "MOTHS TO THE FLAME," now in paperback, and in his latest work, "SLAVES OF THE MACHINE," published in spring by MIT Press, he explores the seductiveness and rapidly advancing dominance of computer technology.Tonight, we'll be discussing with Dr. Rawlins how computers may shape every aspect of our future, from the arts and social interactions to warfare. The first half hour of the chat will be closed to public participation, then the doors will open for questions.
Hi, Dr. Rawlings, the chat will start in about 7 minutes. Please let me know when you're safely arrived.
MsgId: *emedia(4)
Date: Mon Nov 10 20:52:35 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
i'm here mark. ps. it's "rawlins" not "rawlings" :-)
MsgId: *emedia(6)
Date: Mon Nov 10 20:55:09 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Sorry, glad you caught that early on. Rookie nerves, I guess.
MsgId: *emedia(7)
Date: Mon Nov 10 20:57:00 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
don't worry, it'll be fine :-) by the way (which is often abbreviated "BTW") do you know the smiley? it's ":-)" and means i'm smiling.
MsgId: *emedia(8)
Date: Mon Nov 10 20:59:06 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Smiles back. My next message will start things.One interesting aspect of your books for us is the humor you use, sometimes gentle, sometimes more scathing, seemingly to undercut your own profession. For example, you prefer to computers at one point as expensive paperweights. Is that purely for style and entertainment, or do you really have your doubts about computers?
MsgId: *emedia(12)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:04:33 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
I really do have my doubts about computers. For one thing, they really annoy me. I can't stand the way they remain in their fixed behaviours day after day --- making the same errors over and over again.
MsgId: *emedia(14)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:08:05 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Yet you clearly see beauty in them as well. Doesn't "moths to the flame" express both a kind of aesthetic wonder and a self-destructiveness in the face of computers?
MsgId: *emedia(15)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:09:54 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
hmm, tough question. I'd say that although I hate them I also love them. that's why I'm a computer scientist. As for the ambiguity, let me address that in another mesg.
MsgId: *emedia(16)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:10:30 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
I had a bit of a wait until your first message came through as well; that's the software -- sort of in keeping with those annoying computer foibles you mentioned.
MsgId: *emedia(17)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:11:18 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
As for the ambiguity . . . I find the major problem with computers to be their rigidity, but I'm really annoyed not because they're rigid but because we've made them so. They need not be. so I guess I'm annoyed at myself and all other scietists for not making them more flexible yet.
MsgId: *emedia(18)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:11:42 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Are you saying that computer scientists specialize in paradox among other things?
MsgId: *emedia(19)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:13:10 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Nope! In fact, if anything I'd say that computer scientists are the last bastion of rigidity. Even the mathematicians (of whom I used to be one) have largely given up on the enormous formalism of thought inherent in logic. In computer programming there's nothing but. I guess I'm just a maverick.
MsgId: *emedia(20)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:13:39 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
With regards to flexibility, you say in "SLAVES OF THE MACHINE" that computers can become any machine we imagine. So is our lack of imagination the problem.?
MsgId: *emedia(21)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:15:04 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Essentially yes. Of course for historical reasons and for economic reasons we've had to have the rigidity we currently have, but that's changing.
MsgId: *emedia(22)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:15:46 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
How, as a maverick, would you move computers away from their mathematical limitations to a more creative realm?
MsgId: *emedia(23)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:16:30 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Change the way we do programming. But that entails a massive change in the way we program right now --- it'll take a long time. Maybe 20 years.
MsgId: *emedia(24)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:17:40 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Will computers themselves ever become truly creative?
MsgId: *emedia(25)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:18:32 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
A toughie. I personally think that in some sense they will, many would disagree. it also depends on the timeframe. If you allow me 40 years then I say YES.
MsgId: *emedia(26)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:20:42 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
What are some of the creative functions you foresee computers initiating themselves? Any way they'll start replacing writers (gulp)?
MsgId: *emedia(27)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:22:18 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
No, I don't think so (replacing writers that is, at least not for good fiction) but detecting patterns of all kinds in all kinds of data? Sure. For example, I see no reason that computers couldn't make good astrophysicists.
MsgId: *emedia(29)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:23:59 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Sometimes I think they're already making frightening inroads on the arts -- in some ways I'm afraid they may be obviating the standard print media. Are magazines, newspapers, and books in trouble from this competition? Could they have done what Galileo and Copernicus did?
MsgId: *emedia(31)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:25:08 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Oh no, I wouldn't say so. computers right now are oly changing the medium, they're not adding to the message.Oops. we're talking at cross-purposes again.
Galileo and Copernicus? No, I don't think so --- at least not within my lifetime. But detecting new stellar objects, predicting certain kinds of stellar behaviour? Why not.
MsgId: *emedia(34)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:29:40 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
That's the lag time again. To touch on the last theme again, if computers could be astrophysicists, to what extreme might that go. You say in "SLAVES" that ultimately technology will determine whether we continue to exist as organic beings or evolve into something other. Are you saying we may become more and more bionic, perhaps even our brains?We'll be opening the chat doors now. Give us a few moments.
MsgId: *emedia(36)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:32:22 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Multiple answers here. I'd say that some of us will eventually become bionic. Some of us already are (articificial ears and so on). As for the becoming better at astrophysics or whatever, if the time span is long enough (say a century) then I don't think there's anything we do that they won't be able to do to some extent. Whether or not they're superior is another issue and that would depend on the topic.
MsgId: *emedia(37)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:33:47 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Hi, the chat doors are open. We'll continue our discussion with Dr. Rawlins now, but everyone feel free to jump in.
MsgId: *emedia(38)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:34:20 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
How many people are online?
MsgId: *emedia(39)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:35:54 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
I don't have access to the number of attendees now. Hope we'll hear from some. Often people just audit the chat. Back on the bionic theme, you don't see computers developing emotions and complex philosophical notions, ultimately eliminating the need for humans, do you?
MsgId: *emedia(42)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:41:20 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Eliminate the need for humans? No, I don't think so. I dont forseee a Terminator future. But I do think that computers will grow in capability beyond what we used to calling "a computer" today. Emotions of some kind might well be one such change.
MsgId: *emedia(43)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:42:00 EST 1997
From: guest At: 208.154.97.72
Dr. Rawlins, what do you see as the benefit of all this to the individual?
MsgId: *emedia(44)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:42:12 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Maybe you didn't receive my last question. Do you think there's any possibility of a nightmare future where computers develop complex philosophic notions, emotions, and perhaps even qualities like intentional evil -- perhaps subjugating or eliminating humans altogether?
MsgId: *emedia(45)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:45:24 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Benefit Question: I think that those who have the money and the ability will have vastly greater powers at their disposal.Future of humanity Question: I don't know. It is possible that they grow beyond us in some sense and leave us behind. I guess that's the ultimate nightmare. Being made redundant.
MsgId: *emedia(46)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:46:52 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Good question. Do you indeed ultimately see more benefits or more dangers -- more the "rosy gee whiz" future or the nightmare future?
MsgId: *emedia(47)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:47:42 EST 1997
From: guest At: 208.154.97.72
Dr. Rawlins, do you think that computers will have different kinds of emotions than humans do?
MsgId: *emedia(48)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:48:11 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
On monday wednesday and friday I believe in gee-whiz, on tuesday thursday and saturday I believe in the nightmare. On sunday I pray.I really don't know what will happen. There are too many variables.
MsgId: *emedia(49)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:49:30 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
You say those with the money will have the rosy future -- would that be the info aristocrats you mentioned in "Moths to the Flame"? Would that be the Bill Gates's of the world? And who will be the "infoserfs"?
MsgId: *emedia(50)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:50:03 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Different emotions question: yes, I do. their emotions, such as they are (or rather, "will be") will be focussed on what's important to them, just as our are. I doubt that sex and violence (and therefore fear and lust) will have any consequence for them. On the other hand emotions like "affection" might be possible for them if it turns out to be crucial to their survival over the long term.Economy question: the infoserfs will be everyone else. alas. (besides the Bill Gates of the world I mean)
MsgId: *emedia(52)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:51:13 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Given all those variables, what do you want your books ultimately to accomplish in shaping that future? What's the call to arms in them?
MsgId: *emedia(54)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:52:12 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
My aim was to educate and to inform. Presently only professionals are aware of these possibilities. I want everyone to know. My agent once asked me that same question ("what do we do?") I answered that if I knew I'd run for president. I haven't yet.Another, and perhaps better way to say the same thing: don't wait for your elected representatives to become aware of the problem of information imbalance and correct it for you. Agitate for change for yourself. Only so would there be any permanent change. It's not in the best interests of the powers that be for normal people to be educated in the issues at hand.
MsgId: *emedia(57)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:55:17 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Well said. Before we run out of time, I'd love to know more about one theme you touch on in "MOTHS" -- how special effects in movies can be used for propaganda, and how the entertainment media will more and more shape our future wars. Can you explain?
MsgId: *emedia(58)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:55:17 EST 1997
From: guest At: 208.154.97.72
To pursue the emotions question -- what sort of emotion would a computer display? Given that computers cannot "flee" (for example), would they experience fear?
MsgId: *emedia(59)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:57:35 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Emotion question: I often tell my classes that one of the things wrong with computers is that if you go into a computer room and yell "Fire!" only the humans will run. Eventually some computers will be mobile (either in the real world or on the web). Those that have behaviour patterns that we would identify with "caution" might well survive in that world longer than those that don't. We would then say that they are "cautious".
MsgId: *emedia(60)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:59:18 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Is there any particular issue with respect to electronic information use and abuse that you think people should be addressing immediately with their government reps?
MsgId: *emedia(61)
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:59:57 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
Warfare question: warfare has become a media event. Since computers can be used to alter anything you see or hear in realtime (if you're willing to spend enough money) and the government will control the media in such times, I think such propaganda is inevitable. What role maverick journlists will play in such a world is unknown. But it could be quite large. on the other hand: how do you trust something that can be arbitrarily changed? What's the meaning of "reality" if sense data can no longer be tied to actual events?Information issues question: the dominant one should be privacy. Because if you have control of your privacy you can plot against the government :-)
MsgId: *emedia(64)
Date: Mon Nov 10 22:02:07 EST 1997
From: Omni_Moderator At: 168.100.204.58
Our time, unfortunately, has run out already. Sorry we kept you a few minutes long, Dr. Rawlins. Thank you so much for being on E-Media and giving us a glimpse at your ideas on computers and the future.
MsgId: *emedia(65)
Date: Mon Nov 10 22:02:44 EST 1997
From: gregory_rawlins At: 129.79.240.214
thank you!
MsgId: *emedia(67)
Date: Mon Nov 10 22:07:14 EST 1997
From: EllenDatlow At: 38.26.14.213
Next week, on E-Media, host Eileen Gunn will interview Steven Johnson, author of "Interface Culture: How New Technology Transforms the Way We Create and Communicate."
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright © 1998 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.