Epstein Secrets

Long Now project, then, was like one of those carefully isolated arctic freezers, where samples of essential grains and DNA from Beethoven’s hair and Einstein’s brain are sunk and iced against the godforbid day in which our basic feedstock or a chunk of humanity has been wiped out by accident or disaster. B

“Space-Time Convergence;” Later geographer David Harvey renamed it as “Space Time Compression,” which is

systems we are using. In 1965 the MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum found himself, somewhat unexpectedly, considering this same problem. 175 Weizenbaum had written a primitive computer program to perform what is now known as natural language processing, essentially a bit of code designed to translate

day” (as the title of a book by civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate puts it) and is in jeopardy of impris

is a science historian, Joseph Pellegrino University Professor and co- founder of the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University, and the author of Einstein's Clocks and Poincaré ’s Maps: Empires of Time. Neil Gershenfeld is a physicist and director of MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms. He is the author of

Age is also the Dysinformation Age. What can we do? We need to rethink our priorities with the help of the passionate but flawed analyses of Wiener, Weizenbaum, and the other serious critics of our technophilia. A key phrase, it seems to me, is Wiener’s almost offhand observation, above, that “these machines

is a science historian, Joseph Pellegrino University Professor and co- founder of the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University, and the author of Einstein's Clocks and Poincaré ’s Maps: Empires of Time. Neil Gershenfeld is a physicist and director of MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms. He is the author of

day” (as the title of a book by civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate puts it) and is in jeopardy of impris

Age is also the Dysinformation Age. What can we do? We need to rethink our priorities with the help of the passionate but flawed analyses of Wiener, Weizenbaum, and the other serious critics of our technophilia. A key phrase, it seems to me, is Wiener’s almost offhand observation, above, that “these machines

d, refined, and learned by each of us. Like Napoleon looking at a battlfield and discovering how to spot the violent potential of industrial war. Or, Einstein reaching the deeper, invisible truths of physics as he left Newton behind: “There is no logical path to these laws,” he wrote later of the leaps that

that is because a computer very quickly begins to behave somewhat in the way a programmer intends it to, programming is very seductive.” The mistake, Weizenbaum warned, was to think that easy programming of a machine was really a predictor of anything other than getting a machine to follow commands. It didn’t