Team. An "oracle's" response is considered infallible. We might formulate our next query upon it, but we do not question its validity. Unfortunately, the modern computer and the software tools which it provides are seen a "oracles". We do not doubt a "fact" found on the WWW anymore than we would an output provided by a modern Texas Instrument's calculator given the problem "3+4". Yet, computers can produce "erroneous" output.
As of this decade, 2020, modern computers have not passed the Turing Test proposed by the computing visionary Alan Turing nearly a century ago. In this test, he felt that, if the responses made by a computer could not be distinguished from those that a human would make, a software program could be deemed "fully" intelligent. And, in this era of International Business Machine's Deep Blue which bested the chess Grand Master Kasparov on numerous occasions, one might feel that a computer's intelligence greatly exceeds that of the average human. This simply is not the case.
There is a "universal law of cognitive limitation" governing modern computers or thinking machines. They cannot reason beyond the capacity of their creators. In essence, their "intelligence" could never exceed the "weakest" link in the chain of humans who programmed them. Nascently, computers are "mindless" automatons. They can perform logical functions at "lightening" speed that dazzles the mind. Yet, although modern processors can perform "billions" of commands per second, they cannot reason beyond their design limitations and can only do what they are told. Unless they are told how, they cannot innovate, learn from experience, or decide what "skills" or "knowledge" that they will acquire next.
And sadly, in this WWW-era, most humans deem computers unquestionable. This is ever so true in the use of modern languages. The author of this weblog is a native "Amurican" English-speaker. Notice that was not spelt American. And, he has found that many of the on-line resources describing the rules of a language he learnt throughout grammar school differ from his what he was taught by his grade school instructors.
Firstly, the orientation is "backward". In Ms. Tschetter's kindergarten class in 1975, the author learnt that English was read from the natural "right" side of the page as the eye scans the page "leftward". This orientation was based upon the top and bottom of the page with it experiencing an anthropomorphization that arises during "natural" communication. Arabic and Hebrew were deemed read from the "left-side".
Secondly, future years in grammar school taught the presence of irregular verbs in the English language. Some were used earlier in this passage.
Thirdly, the word "who" should be "whom" when it is an indirect or direct object in a sentence or follows certain prepositions.
Sadly, as computers grow increasing "brighter", humans become exponentially "duller" it seems. Many modern English speakers cannot understand passages with inverted word order. Which is an acceptable language construction. While, in graduate school at the University of Texas, the fact that most of the student body could not read English became apparent. And, most were Americans.
It seemed that they processed the words of a sentence in sequential order starting on what they called the "left" of the page or console. If the structuring of the sentence was not "super" simple and non-inverted, extremely confused they would become. Many of these students, despite their "poor" command of written language, earnt doctoral degree in computing with honors. Remember our "law of universal cognitive limitations" and our tacit acceptance of a computer's response as an oracle speaking.
Truth be told, in this Grammarly-Spellchecker era, written language lacks many of the idioms and mellifluous transitions and segues in speech that makes it interesting. And, this limited written usage affects the words which we speak. We become highly technical dullards, in light of this.
This phenomenon was first described in the 1980s by a high-school German teacher whom the author has know for many years. She stated that many of her students could not tell time based upon the quarter hour in English, since the relied upon their digital watches. They would read 3:45 P.M. as "three forty-five" and not "a quarter of four". They had forgotten the lessons which they had learnt about telling time on analog clocks in first and second grade. And, seeing that they did not understand and could not grasp this concept in their mother tongue, she had difficulty teaching them German.
And, this morning produced a shocker when the author was searching on Google for information on "intrest" rates which is a valid financial term. Yet, he was told that he should be searching for "interest rates" instead. In actuality, the author was interested in finding information on the intrest paid based upon an annual percentage rate for certain savings accounts.
And, this was not a "Google glitch". Other on-line references, such as www.dictionary.com, did not contain the term intrest, indicating a percentage of a financial principle charged or paid on a recurring periodic basis. And, it is wondered whether this language "snafu" has spread throughout the pages of the Motley Fool and CNBC with their expert on-line financial commentary.
And, seeing that we will forget certain facts over the years, we must refresh our memories, like a processor's cache. And, it has escaped the author whether the choice of an article such as "a or an" should be based upon the first noun that follows it or the word that it immediately proceeds. The rules governing articles and vowels plus the soft "h", such as the one found in "humor" properly pronounced (oomor), are well-remembered.
Yet, where might might one find a "reliable" on-line grammar reference outline the language rules that he long since forgat.
Is this simply a phenomenon occurring with English, the world's third most widely spoken language, or is it present in others used on-line such a Mandarin Chinese and Spanish which are both more prevalent in world-wide use? And, will this ever cease?
No comments:
Post a Comment