Google+Articles

**Two articles, one opinion** //by Robert Evans//
 * Google Making Us Stupid Or Are We Getting Smarter? **

media type="custom" key="5677015"



 In [|Is Google Making Us Stupid]Nicholas Carr says he can no longer thoughtfully read long essays anymore because the internet has sapped his attention span and ability to focus. At issue in this article is the question of how the internet is affecting the human mind and its long-term consequences. Carr’s first assertion is that the human brain is “infinitely malleable” and it adapts to the mode it receives information in. Because the internet promotes “efficiency and immediacy” and presents data in short bursts using simultaneous media, which is so different than the way people have read in the past, it is actually changing the way our brains think. One obvious result is that as information is more available and accessible people are vastly gaining more and more factual knowledge at quicker rates. But the price for this sped-up knowledge increase, Carr says, is a loss of attention span and concentration. More importantly, is the diminished ability to think and reflect deeply—less contemplation and inspiration. In addition to what, as Carr says, “the internet is doing to our brains,” he says that the founders of Google are now aspiring to create large-scale artificial intelligence (AI), that is, the intelligence given to machines. They believe more we can improve technology the more technology will in turn help us be smarter. But Carr is unsettled by this idea. He sees this as possibly leading to a future where computers are more human-like and humans are more machine-like—infinitely knowledgeable, but with no emotion. In the second article, [|Get Smarter], Jamais Cascio compares today's technology age to the last ice age. He posits that just as humans "evolved to meet the challenge" of survival then, so now we will rise to the occasion. The difference this time he says, will be instead of relying on natural instincts to become smarter, we will become smarter through "intelligence augmentation". That is, using information technology to increase human intelligence. He doesn't specifically say what exactly augmented intelligence will help us to overcome (perhaps the uncertainty of where technology is headed or the maybe the next epidemic or catastrophe), but he says it will originate as a form of co-evolution in which, as technology becomes more sophisticated humans will too. This will result in a cyclical process leading to even more sophisticated technology, and again smarter people. Eventually artificial intelligence could one day surpass human intelligence, a prospect that unsettles many because of the uncertainty of what would become of humanity. Alongside technology, Cascio says new advances in pharmacology will be used to create new drugs designed to enhance intelligence augmentation; even now there are some that appear to be having improved effects on cognition. Though there are those who express ethical concerns over this Cascio says there will always be those who will use drugs to get ahead, even if it's only to make them smarter. Thus, through technology and pharmacology people will become so smart we will eventually be able to solve many of our problems, both globally and in small day-to-day situations. In the end, whatever fears we may have about the possible scenarios of the future, Cascio says, "...there's no going back.” He says we are going forward, but we need not worry because whatever changes occur will generally be gradual and subtle, and we will not feel any shock of suddenness.



Is Google making us stupid or is it making us smarter? That is the underlying question of both these articles. I think the mini-answer is, both. On one hand, we //are// losing the capacity to think deeply and reflect, and we are losing the ability to concentrate and problem solve. On the other hand, we are getting much smarter in that we are getting more information in our heads much more quickly. And who knows what is really more valuable. I think it depends on what we need for any given situation. If, for example, I'm ill, I think a doctor is smarter than a plumber and I value his knowledge, but if my toilet is overflowing I don't want a stinking doctor, I want the plumber's wisdom. It's really a matter of what we all consider more important as to whether Google is making us stupid or smarter. In //Is Google making Us Stupid// this concern of loss of concentration and focus is the problem, but its author Tom Carr does says the human brain "is very plastic". My simple ingenuous response is that if the internet is the culprit of this trouble and its effect is undesirable then we should stop using the internet so much and start reading books more. That should reverse the problem since our brains are apparently so malleable, right? Jamais Cascio's solution to this problem in his article //Get Smarter// is that this is a short term problem that Google will help to solve through improved technology. One of the improvements Cascio says will make us smarter is improved drugs. He tells how new drugs now available are improving recall, alertness, pattern recognition, and spatial planning. The problem is that, while he states all of these positive effects for improved cognition he fails to mention any possible side effects. Steroids sound good too, if only the benefits are mentioned, and I find it hard to believe that a drug can help one stay awake for 32 hours without there being any negative effects. This is entirely irresponsible. It's true, as he says that people will use them anyway, but people deserve the right to make informed decisions about what they are considering. The one stark contrast between these two articles is the question of artificial intelligence (AI). While Carr sees the idea of people implanted with brain chips, and machines smarter than us managing our world as a frightening prospect, Cascio counters by stating, “I don't think the theory of AI is convincing." This is an ignorant statement, for it may not be convincing today, but it might be tomorrow. There were scientists who said flight was impossible too, but it happened. Cascio continues his failure to grasp the gravity of the possibilities when he asks, "What happens if such a complex system collapses?" His answer, "Disaster, of course." Maybe his casual response stems from the thought he won't be alive for the results to affect him, or perhaps he is submitting to the fact that he is powerless to alter this possible scenario despite its plausibility. Whether we can have an impact or not, it is considerably wise to think about where we are headed and the consequences of our decisions before we choose them. And this prudent notion just brings us back full circle to the concern Carr expressed at the onset about obtaining instant information now at the expense of losing the ability to ponder pensively, reflectively, and reasonably about things. The final question for now then, is how can we retain and deepen these skills in a time when Google is vying for, and captivating our attention and changing our minds with amazing speed and immediacy? Can we have both, and will this be adequate enough to ensure a secure future for ourselves and our posterity?