Rochlin, Gene I.; Trapped in the Net : The Unanticipated Consequences of Computerization (Princeton
University Press, Princeton NJ, 1997)
He defines a "computer trap" as consisting of four parts:
1. the lure; the promise of modern computer technology, which keeps growing.
2. the snare,
3. the costs,
4. The long-term consequences.
At the time of the writing of this book, the author saw no productivity gains in the previous 25 years. Yet,
this was at a time when Alan Greenspan was noting improvements in productivity from his position as the
head of the Federal Reserve Board. Here is one citation:
So, perhaps the author had not seen enough productivity gains at the time of his writing to give them
credibility.
He points out that human history has always been shaped by "the form and use of our tools in ways
totally unanticipated by their inventors" p. 5
He sees no signs of robots "taking over", but he sees them "creating patterns of reliance and
dependency through which our lives will be indirectly and irrevocably reshaped." p. 7
Another concern is that having machines take over functions previously accomplished with skilled
human labor, we are de-skilling and alienating ourselves from those skilled jobs.
On page 11, he addresses the classic question: "If the question is put in the classic and traditional
sense of loss of human autonomy and technical determinism, the answer is certainly no. Computers are
not intelligent, they are not autonomous, and they would not know how to run human affairs even if they
could comprehend them."
University Press, Princeton NJ, 1997)
He defines a "computer trap" as consisting of four parts:
1. the lure; the promise of modern computer technology, which keeps growing.
2. the snare,
3. the costs,
4. The long-term consequences.
At the time of the writing of this book, the author saw no productivity gains in the previous 25 years. Yet,
this was at a time when Alan Greenspan was noting improvements in productivity from his position as the
head of the Federal Reserve Board. Here is one citation:
So, perhaps the author had not seen enough productivity gains at the time of his writing to give them
credibility.
He points out that human history has always been shaped by "the form and use of our tools in ways
totally unanticipated by their inventors" p. 5
He sees no signs of robots "taking over", but he sees them "creating patterns of reliance and
dependency through which our lives will be indirectly and irrevocably reshaped." p. 7
Another concern is that having machines take over functions previously accomplished with skilled
human labor, we are de-skilling and alienating ourselves from those skilled jobs.
On page 11, he addresses the classic question: "If the question is put in the classic and traditional
sense of loss of human autonomy and technical determinism, the answer is certainly no. Computers are
not intelligent, they are not autonomous, and they would not know how to run human affairs even if they
could comprehend them."
 |
shocks. An analysis of the sources of this growth over the 1995-2003 period suggests that the
production and use of information technology account for a large share of the gains. The authors
percent per year, a significant increase from their 2002 projection of 2.2 percent growth.
http://www.ny.frb.org/research/current_issues/ci10-13.html
production and use of information technology account for a large share of the gains. The authors
percent per year, a significant increase from their 2002 projection of 2.2 percent growth.
http://www.ny.frb.org/research/current_issues/ci10-13.html
 | |  | |  | |  |