Computer Power and Human Reason
Joseph Weizenbaum
Joseph Weinzenbaum developed a computer program in the mid 1960's that used common language to interface with humans using a statement and response model called ELIZA. Weinzenbaum says that the primary reason he chose let the computer emulate a Rogerian psychotherapist was because its reflective responses makes it easy to replicate. What surprised him most about the program were peoples' responses to it. Both professionals in the field of psychology and random people thought of it as a credible substitute for a therapist. After trying the program the psychologists wanted to know when version 2.0 was to be released so they could set one up in their office, and the random people wanted to make sure that their conversations with the program were absolutely private because they were sharing their most intimate personal details with it.
Both responses surprised Weinzenbaum, so much that they elicited a "Polanyi style mental shock". "What is it about the computer that has brought the view of man as a machine to a new level of plausibility?"
I personally believe peoples' reactions had more to do with the person than they had to do with the computer. There are a number of reasons why people would behave this way when interacting with the computer, all of them seemingly predictable. First, people are naturally curious. They like to try out new things. And if those things make a favorable impression (they fit in the parameters of acceptability or satisfy a need) they stick with it, almost single mindedly without questioning it, until they have a reason to stop. Individual human behavior is one of few areas where rationality is usually in short supply. In groups people's behavior is regulated by the group. When the individual is interacting with the computer however they are more inclined to drop rationality because they know the computer is more rational than they are and they are apt to give the alternative a try. The reaction people had to the program does not surprise me as much as it surprised Weinzenbaum, probably because he saw the program as an extension of him and to see people reacting strangely to him indirectly through the medium of the program he created, it really bugged him out.
What really bugged me out was his discussion on rationality. He states that it is false to equate rationality with logic. I don't immediately see the contradiction between the two based on my common understanding of the terms and the definitions provided by Princeton's Wordnet (online dictionary). In lecture the term rationalism was introduced. It was presented in a way that made it seem that it was only one of many "-isms". That made me think: is there a real (acceptable) alternative to rational behavior? Or have we just become more and more rational over time? Is this good or bad? I'm going to make a rational decision right now to stop asking these questions.
