> Why is it acceptable to say that effective communication with people depends on being able to think like the person you're talking to, but demand that communication with a far more different and limited machine should never require you to compromise on your preferred thought patterns?
Other people are sentient beings with their own personalities, dreams, desires, and attitudes. Recognition of our shared humanity necessitates some level of compromise, respect, and accommodation when dealing with other individuals.
In contrast, computers are unfeeling machines. We made them, and within the limits of physics, math, and our own creative powers, we can make them do whatever we wish. Why shouldn't we strive to make them as accommodating as possible? Why shouldn't I try to create a machine that intuitively corrects my mechanical errors to represent the shape of my ideas?
There's nothing wrong with trying. There is, however something wrong (or at least irritating) with demanding that it magically become like that, without trying, or contributing any insight into how to achieve it.
Other people are sentient beings with their own personalities, dreams, desires, and attitudes. Recognition of our shared humanity necessitates some level of compromise, respect, and accommodation when dealing with other individuals.
In contrast, computers are unfeeling machines. We made them, and within the limits of physics, math, and our own creative powers, we can make them do whatever we wish. Why shouldn't we strive to make them as accommodating as possible? Why shouldn't I try to create a machine that intuitively corrects my mechanical errors to represent the shape of my ideas?