Post on 17-Jan-2016
description
transcript
People Have the Star Trek Computer Backwards Posted: February 20, 2015 | Author: mikecaulfield | Filed under: Uncategorized |Leave a comment
I was watching Star Trek — the early episodes — with the family a couple weeks ago when it occurred to
me: Silicon Valley has got the lesson of the Star Trek computer all wrong.
Here’s the Silicon Valley mythology of it, from Google, but it could be from any company there really:
So I went to Google to interview some of the people who are working on its search engine. And
what I heard floored me. “The Star Trek computer is not just a metaphor that we use to explain to
others what we’re building,” Singhal told me. “It is the ideal that we’re aiming to build—the ideal
version done realistically.” He added that the search team does refer toStar Trek internally when
they’re discussing how to improve the search engine. “It comes up often,” Singhal said. “For
instance, we might say, ‘Captain Kirk never pulled out a keyboard to ask a question.’ So in that
way it becomes one of the design principles—we see that because the Star Trek computer actively
relies on speech, if we want to do that we need to work to push the barrier of speech recognition
and machine understanding.”
This is what happens when you live in a town without history.
The Star Trek computer, at least in the 1960s, was not ahead of its time, but *of* its time. It lacked the
vision to see even five years into the future.
It’s hard to get a good shot to demonstrate this, but here’s a couple to give you an idea. These are from
the Omega Sector fan site.
Now you can say as they do at Google:
“For instance, we might say, ‘Captain Kirk never pulled out a keyboard to ask a question.’ So in
that way it becomes one of the design principles—we see that because the Star Trek computer
actively relies on speech, if we want to do that we need to work to push the barrier of speech
recognition and machine understanding.”
But this profoundly misses the point. Captain Kirk never pulled out a keyboard, because the idea was that
computers were not meant to be messed with by users. They were instrumentation, for doing advanced
sorts of mathematics and using it to decide which colored bulb to light. There’s no keyboard because
there is no text, anywhere, on any computer on the Enterprise to edit.
And the reason for this was that in the 1960s people thought using computers for text processing was
ridiculous. You see this in the history of hypertext. Andy Van Dam, who built pioneering text editing
systems at Brown in the sixties was reduced to begging for time on the Brown computers. Why? Because
computers were for math, stupid! The scientists at Brown laughed at him.
This is the same set of people who would tell Jef Raskin at Apple (a decade later) that you didn’t need
lowercase letters on the Apple II because all users would be doing is playing games and writing BASIC
anyway. (Thanks for the example, Lisa!)
Star Trek is not a postkeyboard world, it’s a prekeyboard one. You would think a company that makes
its money processing the billions of lowercase nonBASIC words that have been typed into computers
since then would get that.
The Meaning of “Personal” and “Dynamic” in Personal Dynamic Media
So what happened? What changed? Well, for one, we started type text into computers.
But something bigger happened as well. Because text editing became a way of thinking about computers.
You see this when Alan Kay starts talking about the DynaBook vision in the late 60s and early seventies.
He starts by saying, look, you could have some text on this, and you could edit it. And you could swap out
different fonts.
And then he thinks, well, music is really the same thing as text, isn’t it? Strings of characters produce
documents the way that strings of notes produce songs. When you “display” a song, you play it. So you
could edit sequences of notes and play them without being able to play an instrument, in a kind of text
editor for music.
And he goes further. The same way you switch fonts, you could switch the sounds. You could try your
composition as played by something trumpeteque, and then switch it to organ, without redoing the
composition. The way you can edit fonts you could edit timbre in the different sounds.
And pulling from ideas like Sutherland’s SketchPad he moves to notions of editable models, he imagines
a usercreated model of hospital throughput. You set your assumptions about time per patient, and how
patients move through different departments. Then you fool around with staffing by adding or subtracting
staff from different departments and see where bottlenecks emerge.
And in his mind, this changes communication, and allows us to communicate in new ways.
Now when I want to send my manager this week’s staffing, I can send them this dynamic document. Do
they disagree with the staffing? Well, the document is open. They can change the staffing and see what
happens. They can look at the assumptions and edit them. We have a conversation back and forth
through editing the model. And you can do this with everything — you send me a song you wrote, I like it
— but wouldn’t it be nice to add some resonance to that viola?
Compare this vision to the Star Trek vision. Here is Kirk interacting with a computer:
Now, having just seen this episode, I can tell you that Kirk has discovered that this dude who is a
travelling actor might just be an infamous war criminal.
This is pretty important, the sort of observation that Star Fleet Command will want to have in their files. So
Kirk edits the file, noting….
Except that he can’t edit this file. In the Star Trek world information goes into the computer and comes out
of it, but nothing can be edited.
He can tell the computer, I suppose. And then the computer can decide whether to splice that into the
next presentation or not. But editing?
Other computers are similar. Here is an Omega Sector reconstruction of a command and control system.
Now I imagine the way this works is this. The lights show you various information and projections about
the performance of the ship. Based on those you can alter the flow rate, jettison fuel, or do two other
things I don’t quite get.
But what if I want to change the model? What if I want to know what those lights would look like if we
reduced load by dropping half our cargo? Or if the computer’s assumptions about oxygen consumption by
the crew turned out to be too optimistic?
What if, discovering an oversight in the assumptions, I wanted to distribute the new model to Star Fleet
Command?
Again, I have no way to find that out, because I can’t edit, I can’t distribute.
These computers are centuries ahead, in some ways, but they are already behind the vision the pioneers
of personal computing were imagining at the time. Vulcan intelligence may be unparalleled in the
universe, but the equipment Spock uses reduces him to a switch flipper.
It’s this vision of a population of computer “operators” (a vision that was the most common at the time)
that guides the portrayal of Enterprise technology, and renders it so quaintly 1960s, so nontextual, so
I/O.
Stumbling Forward Into the Past
So the question we have to ask ourselves is how Silicon Valley came to see the Star Trek computer as a
vision of the future, rather than an artifact of a preKay, preEngelbart world.
I don’t have easy answers to that.
One possibility is they see the personal computing era as an anomaly. We edited our documents because
computers weren’t smart enough to produce and edit documents for us. We edited assumptions in Excel
spreadsheets because computers weren’t yet trustworthy enough to choose the right formulas. Soon
computers will be smart enough, and Star Trek can commence.
Another is the scale of ubiquitous computing. Perhaps there is a belief that in a universe where everything
is a computer, the prospect of having time to mess with parameters is just too overwhelming.
There’s some validity to these arguments, though it’s worth noting that these beliefs are identical to the
beliefs of the average 1960s computer scientist. Computers were smart enough and numerous enough
for them to believe that the future could be hardwired in the 1960s. And they were dead wrong.
There’s a third possibility, though, and one that scares me quite a bit. And that’s that they are unfamiliar
with how Star Trek’s technology vision was proved wrong.
In the end, perhaps it doesn’t matter. Either the personal computing revolution can be rolled back (as it
has been in many ways in the past few years) or we can push forward and see what happens. It serves
the interests of the Google’s of the world to make their computers dynamic and your interface static,
because dynamic means control (it’s not for nothing the term comes from the Greek for “power”).
For better or worse, Google, Apple, Facebook and others all are building the “ideal version of the Star
Trek computer”. If we want to move past these quaint, archaic notions, it’s up to us to build something
else.