Why We Learn | EDUCATING FUTURE NOW
That's Why We Need To Keep Learning
In a world that is increasingly controlled and driven by technology and computers, is there room for disciplines such as the humanities and the social sciences? Do these subjects belong to the ancient world and have no bearing and relevance to our modern life? Why should we need to think anymore when computers can do all the calculations for us?
In 1997, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov (hailed as the most formidable chess player in the world) was defeated at the hands (no pun intended) of IBM supercomputer, Deep Blue, in a chess match. It was a startling reminder that the human mind was probably no match to the cold, hard calculations of a computer. The programmers behind Deep Blue may not be better chess players than Garry Kasparov but they had certainly built a machine that defeated him. For a moment, the computer’s artificial intelligence did not seem so artificial anymore.
And, if a machine can beat a man at his own game, why continue to teach the man to play the game? Shouldn’t we be spending the effort and money to build better machines to do a man’s job? If machines prove to be better chess players than human beings, wouldn’t it be more exciting to ‘watch’ them (the machines of course) play instead?
We can programme a computer to calculate faster than a human being can. But can we get the machines to answer these questions that are ladened with human values? I believe this is the true value of the humanities and the social sciences as these disciplines prepare human beings to answer these kinds of questions for themselves.
In 1997, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov (hailed as the most formidable chess player in the world) was defeated at the hands (no pun intended) of IBM supercomputer, Deep Blue, in a chess match. It was a startling reminder that the human mind was probably no match to the cold, hard calculations of a computer. The programmers behind Deep Blue may not be better chess players than Garry Kasparov but they had certainly built a machine that defeated him. For a moment, the computer’s artificial intelligence did not seem so artificial anymore.
And, if a machine can beat a man at his own game, why continue to teach the man to play the game? Shouldn’t we be spending the effort and money to build better machines to do a man’s job? If machines prove to be better chess players than human beings, wouldn’t it be more exciting to ‘watch’ them (the machines of course) play instead?
We can programme a computer to calculate faster than a human being can. But can we get the machines to answer these questions that are ladened with human values? I believe this is the true value of the humanities and the social sciences as these disciplines prepare human beings to answer these kinds of questions for themselves.
