I remember seeing this article a while back, and I couldn't quite put my finger on why I didn't like it.
I think on reflection I've figured out why:
(1) it's pandering to the idea that something isn't really worth doing unless it's entertaining. This is one of the great malaises of journalism in the West - the fact that news has not been about informing people for a long time, but rather about entertaining us. Entertaining people basically amounts to getting an emotional reaction out of them - whether delight or disgust. I went to a lecture given by a governmental adviser once. Most of what she said what soul-destroying corporate doublespeak, except for one sentence, which was a lightbulb moment to me about how media operates:
"Every news item you see these days has one of two themes: 'Isn't this great', or 'Isn't this horrible.' Because these are the stories that still generate page clicks or sell newspapers."
Anybody who lifts weights, or runs, or goes into MMA generally isn't doing it (as a primary goal, if at all) for entertainment value, they're doing it for personal or self-improvement reasons. Scientists -- I mean, career scientists, ones with tenure -- generally won't be looking for stars for entertainment value, they're doing it as a job, or as something they deeply care about (or ideally both).
We don't need any more entertainment as a society, we need people who are willing to build and support Maslow's pyramid for the betterment of all mankind (and not, might I add, for the betterment of one gender of that mankind.) This whole looking for planets thing strikes me as the illusion of real achievement, too: does anyone playing Planet Hunters really think they're going to get Zeta Reticuli III named after them or something?
(2) This concept, of the gamers of the world being some sort of "cognitive bank" that scientists could exploit, strikes me as frigging dehumanising. It's akin to treating the guy on the factory line as a replaceable asset, first cousin to the idea of The Matrix as something you're plugged into where your mind is diverted by an illusion of reality while its resources are exploited by someone else.
The justification for this project seems to be "People are better than computers at recognising patterns." Given the continuing adherence of computers to Moore's Law, I'd say a very important omission from that sentence: the words "at the moment" after the word "patterns." This article is like saying "Waste your time logging your brain into a computer system where you'll be outmoded eventually, for no real achievement other than being able to say to people 'I spent 400 hours looking for gas signatures in the Milky Way' as your supposed contribution to the common good." Again, it's the illusion of real achievement: you could have helped at least 6 or 7 homeless or disabled people with those 400 hours - real people in a real world, as opposed to fake achievement lumped onto a fake experience.
I think on reflection I've figured out why:
(1) it's pandering to the idea that something isn't really worth doing unless it's entertaining. This is one of the great malaises of journalism in the West - the fact that news has not been about informing people for a long time, but rather about entertaining us. Entertaining people basically amounts to getting an emotional reaction out of them - whether delight or disgust. I went to a lecture given by a governmental adviser once. Most of what she said what soul-destroying corporate doublespeak, except for one sentence, which was a lightbulb moment to me about how media operates:
"Every news item you see these days has one of two themes: 'Isn't this great', or 'Isn't this horrible.' Because these are the stories that still generate page clicks or sell newspapers."
Anybody who lifts weights, or runs, or goes into MMA generally isn't doing it (as a primary goal, if at all) for entertainment value, they're doing it for personal or self-improvement reasons. Scientists -- I mean, career scientists, ones with tenure -- generally won't be looking for stars for entertainment value, they're doing it as a job, or as something they deeply care about (or ideally both).
We don't need any more entertainment as a society, we need people who are willing to build and support Maslow's pyramid for the betterment of all mankind (and not, might I add, for the betterment of one gender of that mankind.) This whole looking for planets thing strikes me as the illusion of real achievement, too: does anyone playing Planet Hunters really think they're going to get Zeta Reticuli III named after them or something?
(2) This concept, of the gamers of the world being some sort of "cognitive bank" that scientists could exploit, strikes me as frigging dehumanising. It's akin to treating the guy on the factory line as a replaceable asset, first cousin to the idea of The Matrix as something you're plugged into where your mind is diverted by an illusion of reality while its resources are exploited by someone else.
The justification for this project seems to be "People are better than computers at recognising patterns." Given the continuing adherence of computers to Moore's Law, I'd say a very important omission from that sentence: the words "at the moment" after the word "patterns." This article is like saying "Waste your time logging your brain into a computer system where you'll be outmoded eventually, for no real achievement other than being able to say to people 'I spent 400 hours looking for gas signatures in the Milky Way' as your supposed contribution to the common good." Again, it's the illusion of real achievement: you could have helped at least 6 or 7 homeless or disabled people with those 400 hours - real people in a real world, as opposed to fake achievement lumped onto a fake experience.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm