What do you think?
Rate this book
Man and the computer
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 1, 2020
Better than expected. Kemeny was a bit optimistic of the role of government in increasing societal wellbeing in the United States, but considering he’s pre-Carter administration, and subsequent neo-liberal regimes, Dr Kemeny’s optimism can be forgiven. Many of his points and insights can be abstracted out to still apply today which makes the book all the more interesting.
October 15, 2021
If the author’s name sounds familiar, you might recognize “Kemeny and Kurtz” as the developers of BASIC. Much of this book, while it wasn’t designed as such, is an explanation of why BASIC is what it is. Why it’s ability to communicate with the user is what it is and why it tends to error out at the first opportunity.
BASIC was an attempt to solve the problem of man-machine interaction in a collaborative way, where the collaboration is between man and the machine.
Kemeny’s vision is basically a less extreme version of cyberpunk.
You might think from this that Kemeny would have foreseen the development of personal assistants and computers attached to the hip. But Kemeny has a very serious bias. He manages a distributed computing center at Dartmouth, and so sees the future of computing as distributed. Whenever he talks about the coming ubiquity of computers in the home, he’s talking about terminals in the home, connecting to a very small number of computer centers.
One of his great accomplishments at the Dartmouth Computer Center was the development of the Dartmouth Time Sharing System. This made it possible for large numbers of users to connect to the central computer at the same time. And so whenever he talks about advancement in computer technology, it is always geared toward getting more people connected to large computer centers.
He’s basically right about a lot of things; throughout the book I was thinking, okay, that’s not quite right, but translate it into the perspective of the time and it’s basically right; if only he had taken that thought one step further. At Dartmouth they had just implemented connecting “two or more human beings to the same computer program” and so he saw that this kind of communication, including in games, would be important in the future, and that “…so far we have only the vaguest impressions as to the full power of a team consisting of several human beings and a computer.”
But because his experience was rooted in time sharing and distribution, he didn’t see that computers would literally be brought into the home, and not just connected to from the home. Writing this in 1972, he predicted that “Within the next two decades the price will undoubtedly come down to a level which will make computer terminals in the home quite common.”
And in fact, that was true; by 1992 computer terminals in the home were very common—but they were software running on actual computers. Despite recognition that general purpose always wins—his example was in the realm of Computer Aided Instruction—he still expects to see special purpose (terminals) for the foreseeable future.
He makes a big deal about how time sharing makes possible the simultaneous processing of different users, without any comment on the effects simultaneous processing of different tasks by the same user that make modern home computing so much different than the home computing that would hit the world a few years after this book.
He also lacks a real sense of history, using it mostly to reinforce his biases. Sometimes he’s right—computers did not get a million times faster between 1972 and 1997. Other times, he’s very wrong, using the same logic. He describes how Dartmouth’s library had basically been doubling every 20 years or so, which meant that by the year 2000 it would have two million holdings, something that “represents an expenditure that the College cannot possibly afford.”
In fact, according to their website, Dartmouth’s library added “its 2 millionth acquisition, The Sine Collection of British Illustrated Books” in 1994, right on schedule, and doesn’t appear to be having any trouble with it.
Kemeny was absolutely right that the library was doubling its holdings about every twenty years. What he missed is that people were probably making the same observations of unsustainability throughout its 200-year history. Assuming that even though we’ve weathered such growth in the past we cannot possibly weather it in the future is a common trait of humanity.
Similarly, that home computers were simply unthinkable shows when he talks about the differences between how the public accepted automobiles and how they can be expected to accept computers:
Fortunately, a very similar rapid change was about to take place in which everyone would have a friend who owned a computer.
Probably the most interesting part of the book, however, is not his predictions but his philosophy of man-machine interaction. He treats machines as if they were living things, and man and machine a symbiotic relationship where each participant benefits. Both have their areas of expertise and kinds of things they excel at.
He recognizes that computers are not really living things, but argues that this doesn’t matter.
And, getting back to BASIC, I have a soft spot for his view that some knowledge of computer programming was essential not just to effectively using a computer but effectively interacting with organizations that use computers.
I might quibble with the usefulness of BASIC today, but at the time there’s no question it was the easiest language to use, especially on low-memory home computers.
There’s also an interesting side remark about computer use in games that brings to mind the spark that ignited tabletop role-playing a few years later, that “the computer plays the dual role of quarterbacking the opposing team and of simulating nature”. This is essentially the role that the game master plays in gaming. I’ve often occasionally wondered what form tabletop roleplaying would have taken if ubiquitous computer games had preceded it.
BASIC was an attempt to solve the problem of man-machine interaction in a collaborative way, where the collaboration is between man and the machine.
This is how the language called BASIC was created. Profiting from years of experience with FORTRAN, we designed a new language that was particularly easy for the layman to learn and that facilitated communication between man and machine.
Kemeny’s vision is basically a less extreme version of cyberpunk.
I believe that next to the original development of general-purpose high-speed computers the most important event was the coming of man-machine interaction… It is the theme of this book that within the last generation man has acquired an important symbiote.
You might think from this that Kemeny would have foreseen the development of personal assistants and computers attached to the hip. But Kemeny has a very serious bias. He manages a distributed computing center at Dartmouth, and so sees the future of computing as distributed. Whenever he talks about the coming ubiquity of computers in the home, he’s talking about terminals in the home, connecting to a very small number of computer centers.
One of his great accomplishments at the Dartmouth Computer Center was the development of the Dartmouth Time Sharing System. This made it possible for large numbers of users to connect to the central computer at the same time. And so whenever he talks about advancement in computer technology, it is always geared toward getting more people connected to large computer centers.
I see absolutely no reason why a very reliable computer terminal could not be manufactured to sell for the price of a black-and-white television set. This will be necessary if computers are to be brought into the home.
He’s basically right about a lot of things; throughout the book I was thinking, okay, that’s not quite right, but translate it into the perspective of the time and it’s basically right; if only he had taken that thought one step further. At Dartmouth they had just implemented connecting “two or more human beings to the same computer program” and so he saw that this kind of communication, including in games, would be important in the future, and that “…so far we have only the vaguest impressions as to the full power of a team consisting of several human beings and a computer.”
But because his experience was rooted in time sharing and distribution, he didn’t see that computers would literally be brought into the home, and not just connected to from the home. Writing this in 1972, he predicted that “Within the next two decades the price will undoubtedly come down to a level which will make computer terminals in the home quite common.”
And in fact, that was true; by 1992 computer terminals in the home were very common—but they were software running on actual computers. Despite recognition that general purpose always wins—his example was in the realm of Computer Aided Instruction—he still expects to see special purpose (terminals) for the foreseeable future.
He makes a big deal about how time sharing makes possible the simultaneous processing of different users, without any comment on the effects simultaneous processing of different tasks by the same user that make modern home computing so much different than the home computing that would hit the world a few years after this book.
He also lacks a real sense of history, using it mostly to reinforce his biases. Sometimes he’s right—computers did not get a million times faster between 1972 and 1997. Other times, he’s very wrong, using the same logic. He describes how Dartmouth’s library had basically been doubling every 20 years or so, which meant that by the year 2000 it would have two million holdings, something that “represents an expenditure that the College cannot possibly afford.”
In fact, according to their website, Dartmouth’s library added “its 2 millionth acquisition, The Sine Collection of British Illustrated Books” in 1994, right on schedule, and doesn’t appear to be having any trouble with it.
Kemeny was absolutely right that the library was doubling its holdings about every twenty years. What he missed is that people were probably making the same observations of unsustainability throughout its 200-year history. Assuming that even though we’ve weathered such growth in the past we cannot possibly weather it in the future is a common trait of humanity.
Similarly, that home computers were simply unthinkable shows when he talks about the differences between how the public accepted automobiles and how they can be expected to accept computers:
Most people today grew up when no modern computers were in existence. While the same situation applied to automobiles in the early twentieth century, a fairly rapid change took place. Even if not everyone drove an automobile, almost everyone had a friend who owned one. Automobiles quickly became common on our streets, and their principles of operations were simple and easily understood. Unfortunately, the average person does not have the foggiest idea of just what a computer is or how it works. And, since computers are shielded from them by the high priests of the profession, all their acquaintance is from a distance.
Fortunately, a very similar rapid change was about to take place in which everyone would have a friend who owned a computer.
Probably the most interesting part of the book, however, is not his predictions but his philosophy of man-machine interaction. He treats machines as if they were living things, and man and machine a symbiotic relationship where each participant benefits. Both have their areas of expertise and kinds of things they excel at.
…it took the development of computer memories to show just how remarkably good human memory is.
He recognizes that computers are not really living things, but argues that this doesn’t matter.
I would like to argue that the traditional distinction between living and inanimate matter may be important to a biologist but is unimportant and possibly dangerously misleading for philosophical considerations.
And, getting back to BASIC, I have a soft spot for his view that some knowledge of computer programming was essential not just to effectively using a computer but effectively interacting with organizations that use computers.
The availability of a language as simple as BASIC has made the learning task so simple that computers have come within the power of every intelligent human being, and time sharing has made it possible to have direct communication between man and machine.
I might quibble with the usefulness of BASIC today, but at the time there’s no question it was the easiest language to use, especially on low-memory home computers.
There’s also an interesting side remark about computer use in games that brings to mind the spark that ignited tabletop role-playing a few years later, that “the computer plays the dual role of quarterbacking the opposing team and of simulating nature”. This is essentially the role that the game master plays in gaming. I’ve often occasionally wondered what form tabletop roleplaying would have taken if ubiquitous computer games had preceded it.
January 14, 2025
Cruzei-me, num daqueles bons acasos, com uma edição brasileira deste livro. Sou grande fã do retrofuturismo, de ir ler o que há décadas atrás se escrevia e especulava sobre o impacto da ciência e tecnologia da época, e das tendências de futuro. São geralmente leituras interessantes, que nos recordam as esperanças que no passado se depositavam nos futuros, nos fazem sorrir com alguma da inocência com que extrapolavam impactos sociais da tecnologia, e nos levam a refletir nos caminhos que o desenvolvimento realmente trilhou.
Não são leituras para se fazer no espírito de desprezo sardónico, apontando as falhas de previsões e as especulações que se revelaram infundadas. Estas visões de futuro são datadas, dizem-nos muito sobre o espírito da época em que foram escritas. Recordam-nos que as nossas visões contemporâneas, que acreditamos serem as corretas, terão o inevitável destino de parecerem datadas às gerações futuras. O pó dos tempos é implacável a apagar o fulgor epocalista.
John Kemeny não foi um divulgador especulativo, ao estilo de um Asimov ou do casal Toffler. A sua visão do potencial futuro do computador alicerça-se no seu trabalho como co-criador da linguagem de programação BASIC e reitor da universidade de Darthnouth. Aos nossos olhos, salta a vista o pormenor em que o livro se revela realmente desatualizado - a insistência na tecnologia de time-sharing. Kemeny concebia um futuro onde o acesso à informática se democratizaria através da acessibilidade de terminais ligados por linhas telefónicas a computadores centrais. Algo que de facto aconteceu com a Internet, mas sob o princípio de interligação de computadores autónomos.
De resto, as suas visões (recuso o termo "predições", pois fala-se de tendências e não previsões oraculares) estão muito em linha com as tendências que a computação seguiu. O computador tornou-se, de facto, essencial na sociedade, interligando utilizadores, permitindo novas formas de interação, marcando impacto na economia. Hoje temos o alastrar de telemóveis em vez da proliferação de terminais ligados a mainframes, mas os princípios basiliares estão lá.
Como professor que sou, li com particular atenção a sua visão do impacto do computador na educação. Uma visão que se baseia na sua própria experiência como professor. Para mim, o interessante e significativo é ver que Kemeny partilha ali dois tipos de discurso que hoje são prevalentes na educação. Primeiro, o uso do computador como elemento de aprendizagem instrucionista, como meio de acesso a informação e conteúdos, e treino em exercícios com o potencial de tutoria individual. O grande foco é colocado nesta vertente, e nisso não varia muito das vagas de tecnologia na educação, que sublinham sempre estes aspetos algo redutores da riqueza dos processos de aprendizagem. O intrigante, é Kemeny terminar este capítulo a observar que a influência mais profunda do computador na aprendizagem que viu foi o desenvolvimento da fluência e autonomia em processos complexos quando os seus alunos davam passos na programação, muito mais ricas do que a simples instrução por acesso a informação e treino rotinado de exercícios. Recordou-me a visão de Seymour Papert, subjacante às transformações profundas que o digital pode propiciar na educação - isto, se for usado como ferramenta de apropriação pelos alunos, e não como mero canal de instrução.
Não são leituras para se fazer no espírito de desprezo sardónico, apontando as falhas de previsões e as especulações que se revelaram infundadas. Estas visões de futuro são datadas, dizem-nos muito sobre o espírito da época em que foram escritas. Recordam-nos que as nossas visões contemporâneas, que acreditamos serem as corretas, terão o inevitável destino de parecerem datadas às gerações futuras. O pó dos tempos é implacável a apagar o fulgor epocalista.
John Kemeny não foi um divulgador especulativo, ao estilo de um Asimov ou do casal Toffler. A sua visão do potencial futuro do computador alicerça-se no seu trabalho como co-criador da linguagem de programação BASIC e reitor da universidade de Darthnouth. Aos nossos olhos, salta a vista o pormenor em que o livro se revela realmente desatualizado - a insistência na tecnologia de time-sharing. Kemeny concebia um futuro onde o acesso à informática se democratizaria através da acessibilidade de terminais ligados por linhas telefónicas a computadores centrais. Algo que de facto aconteceu com a Internet, mas sob o princípio de interligação de computadores autónomos.
De resto, as suas visões (recuso o termo "predições", pois fala-se de tendências e não previsões oraculares) estão muito em linha com as tendências que a computação seguiu. O computador tornou-se, de facto, essencial na sociedade, interligando utilizadores, permitindo novas formas de interação, marcando impacto na economia. Hoje temos o alastrar de telemóveis em vez da proliferação de terminais ligados a mainframes, mas os princípios basiliares estão lá.
Como professor que sou, li com particular atenção a sua visão do impacto do computador na educação. Uma visão que se baseia na sua própria experiência como professor. Para mim, o interessante e significativo é ver que Kemeny partilha ali dois tipos de discurso que hoje são prevalentes na educação. Primeiro, o uso do computador como elemento de aprendizagem instrucionista, como meio de acesso a informação e conteúdos, e treino em exercícios com o potencial de tutoria individual. O grande foco é colocado nesta vertente, e nisso não varia muito das vagas de tecnologia na educação, que sublinham sempre estes aspetos algo redutores da riqueza dos processos de aprendizagem. O intrigante, é Kemeny terminar este capítulo a observar que a influência mais profunda do computador na aprendizagem que viu foi o desenvolvimento da fluência e autonomia em processos complexos quando os seus alunos davam passos na programação, muito mais ricas do que a simples instrução por acesso a informação e treino rotinado de exercícios. Recordou-me a visão de Seymour Papert, subjacante às transformações profundas que o digital pode propiciar na educação - isto, se for usado como ferramenta de apropriação pelos alunos, e não como mero canal de instrução.
August 1, 2025
An interesting read given today's computational environment. Kemeny managed to predict a large number of things that actually happened within these pages, though his timing on the predictions may have been off by some number of years.
He also has some ideas running around in here that were shown to not be in the cards and not practical. Still, a fascinating delve into what people were thinking about computers in much earlier times.
He also has some ideas running around in here that were shown to not be in the cards and not practical. Still, a fascinating delve into what people were thinking about computers in much earlier times.
September 14, 2021
An older reference to a lecture given during the earlier years of computers. You get most of the gist from reading the jacket. I'm sure it was an intriguing notion at the time. It now just seems quaint.
Want to Read
April 17, 2016reference by Nicolas Carr in the shallow's
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews