reakthrough. So after developing his algorithms, he wanted to find an intuitive demonstration. He decided to build a 175 In 1965: Joseph Weizenbaum, Computer Power and Human Reason, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1976 p. 7 120 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018352 system that could, in a very limited sense, converse. The computer would take type

ons” (as Kant put it) presented to them. It is important that we keep it that way, which will take some doing. One of the flaws in Weizenbaum’s book Computer Power and Human Reason, something I tried in vain to convince him of in many hours of discussion, is that he could never decide which of two theses he wanted to defend: AJ

e” software, hardware, and wetware; the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR); and the Open Humans Foundation. In his 1976 book Computer Power and Human Reason, Joseph Weizenbaum argued that machines should not replace Homo in situations requiring respect, dignity, or care, while others (author Pamela McCord

ons” (as Kant put it) presented to them. It is important that we keep it that way, which will take some doing. One of the flaws in Weizenbaum’s book Computer Power and Human Reason, something I tried in vain to convince him of in many hours of discussion, is that he could never decide which of two theses he wanted to defend: AJ

e” software, hardware, and wetware; the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR); and the Open Humans Foundation. In his 1976 book Computer Power and Human Reason, Joseph Weizenbaum argued that machines should not replace Homo in situations requiring respect, dignity, or care, while others (author Pamela McCord