Re: chatting with ChatGPT

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (Robert)]

It's interesting that the direction of technology has to been to push
people away so that they cannot see one another's screens and be
physically very distantly located.

And, with AI, you no longer even talk about problems with other humans but
talk about them with machines.

BTW, ChatGPT does not work for me via Tor Browser, so I never use it.
Instead, although much more limited, I use Brave Leo from Tor.

P.S. I'm writing this email in JOVE.  Just shows you that some
     technologies just never die.

 > From: Brian <http://www.cs..edu/~b>
 > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 23:18:45 -0700
 > 
 > One example I especially like is your observation that if the computer
 > center is supposed to be a social environment, the physical architecture
 > matters: students should be able to see one another's screens, talk about
 > problems, share resources, and so forth. You even connect this to file
 > sharing, electronic mail, and shared program libraries.
 > 
 > 11. The most spectacularly dated thing in the thesis is your
 > hardware conclusion And this one is fun.
 > 
 > You argue that the educational philosophy points toward timesharing
 > on a large central machine rather than individual personal
 > computers, because sharing files and programs would create a
 > community.
 > 
 > In 1985, this was not crazy at all.
 > 
 > In fact, given the machines you had available, it was a quite
 > intelligent argument.
 > 
 > But history absolutely murdered the hardware prediction.
 > 
 > The networked-PC world eventually gave you something much closer to
 > what you wanted than the timesharing architecture did:
 > 
 > shared repositories;
 > electronic communication;
 > collaborative programming;
 > reusable libraries;
 > open-source communities;
 > remote collaboration;
 > essentially unlimited copying and distribution.
 > 
 > You correctly identified the social affordances you wanted and
 > incorrectly identified the technological architecture that would
 > best provide them.
 > 
 > That's actually a fascinating failure, because it shows that the
 > conceptual argument was better than the technological forecast.