We should be very specific and careful with our words. pseidemann said "most humans cannot properly control a computer", which isn't the same as "most people are incapable of using a computer".
I would agree with pseidemann. There's a level of understanding and care and focus that most people lack. That doesn't make those people less worthy of love and care and support, and computers are easier to use than ever. Most people don't know what EFI is, nor should they have to. If all someone needs from the computer to be able to update their facebook, the finer details of controlling a computer aren't, and shouldn't be important to them, and that's okay!
Humanity's goal should have been to make the smartest human possible, but no one got the memo, so we're raising the bar by augmenting everyone with technology instead of implementing eugenics programs.
Well written but I disagree with the eugenics part. I think we can all achieve high quality of life with (very) good education and health care alone, and we have to. All other ways eventually turn into chaos, imho.
It’s the same old superiority complex that birthed the “IT Guy” stereotypes of the 90s/aughts. It stems from a) not understanding what problems non-developers need computers to solve for them, and b) ego-driven overestimation of the complexity of their field compared to others.
Ok, but you didn’t define what “proper” use of a computer means to you, which leaves the entire thing open to interpretation. I would say practically everyone is capable of using a computer to complete an enormous range of tasks. Is this not “proper” usage in your opinion?
You are conflating "use" and "control". I mean literal proper control of a computer, meaning the human controls (also programs), and especially understands, every aspect of what the computer is doing and can do. This is what a real AGI would be capable of, presumably. This includes knowledge of how programs are executed or how networks and protocols work, among a lot of other low-level things.
