IS THERE ANYBODY THERE?
It is a natural and vital human activity to invest human
qualities and ‘personalities’ in the things with which we are surrounded.
We endow objects and creatures with characteristics and
motives wholly of our own making. We give boats, steam engines and cars human
names like Betsy or Hortense and, like Basil Fawlty, attempt to debate and
reason with them, man to machine.
Discussing the meaning of life with a three piece suite or a
lawnmower might win you a ticket to Happy Acres. But nobody is surprised if you
assign humanoid motives to them for not fitting through a door or for cutting
through their own power cable.
In fact, we are so desirous of human interaction that
anything that shows the slightest sign of being self-animated or self-directing
is sure to acquire a synthetic personality not independently present.
With the coming of the home computer, new scientific
rationality has taken away the cosy teddy-bear tendency to call the thing
Aloysius, but the personification itself rises to new heights: ‘It’s being a
real pain…’, ‘It won’t let me…’, ‘It’s decided…’, ‘It tells me…’.
Complex and impenetrable as its functions might appear, it’s
a bloody machine, no more capable of thought or independent action than a
clothes peg. It has been equipped by
humans to sort through a large number of options, programmed into it by humans, and try to find a match for
the thing you have asked of it.
It becomes ever more sophisticated and efficient at this,
but that is still all it is doing. It has few or many options from which to
select by Boolean algebra or fuzzy logic one that approximates the desired
result. These options are supplied by humans, just as they would be in a
ready-reckoner or some other printed book. The processor cannot ‘think’. It has
no capacity that vaguely resembles intellect.
Those who programme it can exponentially increase its
inherent choices, or they can limit them as in surveys or the burgeoning art of
customer disservice.
Our satnav – Flossie – is often very helpful, and just as
often wrong. ‘She’ neither knows or cares either way. Pre-programmed recordings
are shuffled to synthesise speech. We endow her with a slightly ratty
personality, and dignify that ‘personality’ by telling ‘her’ to shut up, or not
be silly. Her catchphrase is ‘Turn
around when possible’, which, though usually ignored, is at least useful
advice.
Through the miracle of ‘predictive text’, if I type
‘shrivel’ into my tablet, it will substitute the word ‘survive’. It has no
notion of the meaning of either – even that they are words, never mind that
they are supposed to express opposing ideas.
Your credibility, career or the balance of power could
depend on it, but it is merely a substitution based on a shabby and doomed
attempt to parody intelligence with mechanics.
So-called ‘voice recognition’ has made matters ten times
worse, the synthesis of jolly humanoid voices further increasing the illusion
of intelligence while also further exacerbating the stress that comes from the
failure to satisfy natural human expectations.
If you are fortunate enough to speak to a real person, even
if they greet you with the perennially annoying, ‘How are you today?’, you can
tell them, ‘Not too good; my dog died’, and expect some change in tone. The
machine is blind and deaf to all perception and continues its manic grotesquery
unperturbed.
Being greeted by a mechanically gleeful travesty of a human
being – ‘Thank you for calling the Cooperative Bank’ – immediately sets your
blood pressure on the rise. Don’t get excited; simply put the phone down and
change banks.
Where we live, we have had the same telephone number for
fifteen years. Lately we have received a series of nuisance calls from
something called ‘SRJ’, in which an electronic voice simulator instructs the
reluctant listener to ask someone we have never heard of to phone one of those
extortionate ‘premium’ numbers. The device is, of course, too stupid to know
anything, least of all that it is supplying that individual’s personal information
to strangers.
On another recent occasion, I nearly made the error of
changing my telephone service to BT. When my supplier for the last ten years
(One Bill) found out, they offered me a vastly improved deal to stay with them
(they have a human with the capacity to think – at time of writing), so the BT
set-up was cancelled, both by myself and One Bill.
A few days later, in the same post, I received ‘letters’
from computers at One Bill, one welcoming me to the new service, the other
screaming that I owed them ‘at least £299.00 for leaving them – although the
above-instanced actual person had acknowledged that my previous contract had
expired and this was not the case.
As part of the package, he had offered a free router, which
arrived at the same time as the confirmation from BT that my order with them
had been cancelled.
The following day the computer at One Bill sent me a bill
for forty quid for the free router. Once again the indispensable human assured
me this should not have happened.
Another day and an email from BT to tell me to expect a
delivery of the cancelled equipment. That’s when I rediscovered that, as a
telecommunication company, BT takes the lead in preventing communication. It is
not possible to reply to the email, but you can go to the BT website and choose
from a range of useless and inappropriate ‘options’. If you chance to come upon
anything remotely similar to the subject you are searching for, an electronic
voice synthesiser tells you even more things you don’t want to know.
By now having difficulty remaining my usual good-humoured
self, I finally reached a recording that wanted to know my actual problem.
Would I state it in as few words as possible?
I shouted various possibilities, such as ‘wrong delivery’
and ‘cancellation’.
‘I’m getting “wiring difficulties”,’ said the machine, ‘Is
this correct?’
I tried shouting ‘equipment’, and this was recognised. The
machine assured me the items I wasn’t waiting for were on their way. Something
in my anguished scream brought me through the barrier to a lurking person.
Fortunately, in this case, apart from the lucky escape from
signing up for more of this from BT, the idiocy was merely frustrating. In
another time and place, attempting to shout ‘Petersfield’ to such a contraption
could bring someone to the front door with a Kevlar suit and an offer to
rearrange your molecules.
Smart phones are not smart and, despite claims or
apparencies, computers are not, and never will be, intelligent. They can manage
enough of a mockery of it to fool some of the people some of the time, and
their usefulness in preventing direct communication has led to their
proliferation in the customer disservice field.
Our credulity is what has allowed it to happen and, unless
we call a halt soon, we will be inflicted with self-driving cars that don’t
know where they are or what is going on around them – won’t even know they are
cars – and a whole panoply of other idiocies – maybe self-watching televisions
– while banks, utility companies and other corporations complete their already
well-advanced disconnection from us.
In the meantime, the myth that what these glorified tombola
bins do is analogous to intelligence allows those without our best interests at
heart to perpetuate and expand their reduction of humanity to doltish
mechanics
.
When George III shared his thoughts with a tree, he was
declared mad, but a tree can be shown to be aware of and responsive to its
environment; to be that thing dreaded of totalitarianism: conscious.
How brainwashed and off the rails must we be to
consider it normal to converse with a tin box?From BLINDED WITH SCIENCE available from The Book Depository
No comments:
Post a Comment