I found this article to be interesting. It is a self reflective article in regards to a psycotherapist software program that Joseph Weizenbaum created in the 1960's. The main points of the article that I would like to discuss here are 1)Can software programs such as those used for medical reasons offer the same or better results. 2) Human emotional attachment to computers and finally, 3) Weizenbaum's own conclusions of his work.
1) The software program that Jospeh Weizenbaum created is limited in my opinion. The reason that I take this position is because the program was created by Mr. Weizenbaum. The program only offers his advice. This is disturbing since Mr. Wizenbaum had no medical training in the discipline of psycotherapy. Also, the realty of the whole therapy application is that not all psychotherapists are suited for people. Each person must make a choice in order to whom they see fit for their needs. The cookie cutter approach of "one program serves" all is not useful.
2) The article touches upon the fact that people become emotionally attached. Mr. Weizenbaum's reflection many years later alluded to the fact that people seem to have a personal attachment to their computers and will let their guard down by conveying information to a program that could be used in order to build information in regards to them. The article also empasizes the fact that this is indeed proof that computers have augmented our lives and way of thinking.
3) Joseph Weizenbaum's self reflection indicates that he was very aware of the fact that man should set limits of responsibility for which aspects of computers have in intervening the lives of humans. Can computers actually imate the the thinking process of man and make decisions? More importantly, can man put trust in these machines to run their lives? Even Mr. Weizenbaum undertood the need for a conspectual line where the impact on computers in the lives of humans should be drawn.
I agree with you that computer programs like Eliza are limited in the sense that they are created and developed by a person and with one perspective. When dealing with something like therapy and being able to manage several different personalities and circumstances having different perspectives is important to be able to meet the needs of many different people. I also like that you mentioned the dependence and connection people have with machines like computers and the concern for people’s reliance on technology. I liked that you pointed out that even Weizenbaum thinks that there needs to be limits to peoples use and dependence on technology. And that just because it is available doesn’t mean we should become reliant in it for everything we do. We should be protective of our human ability to do things and think for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree; the thought of a computer providing psychotherapy is disturbing; however, that’s not what Weizenbaum had in mind when he programmed his computer, “ELIZA,” to play doctor with a young woman. From what I understood in the article, much to Weizenbaum’s chagrin, psychiatrists jumped on Weizenbaum’s program as having the potential to provide mass-psychotherapy in hospitals and psychiatric centers when funds and people were limited.
ReplyDeleteThis was not Weizenbaum’s intention when he chose the role of a Rogerian psychotherapist for ELIZA to play, or in his own word, “parody.” He wasn’t acting as a medical doctor, or someone with medical training. He was acting as a writer of a computer program that he wanted to demonstrate to others. I think he chose a Rogerian psychotherapist to use for demonstration purposes because the methodology used in this type of psychotherapy is pretty much just parroting back what a patient says so that the patient opens up and speaks in more depth. Therefore it would be a fairly simple task for the computer to do to take what its human conversationalist partner said and turn it around as “conversation.”
In his own words, Weizenbaum wrote, “…and on the other side those who, like myself, believe there are limits to what computers ought to be put to do.” And in answer to psychiatrists wanting to hijack (my term) his program for their use, he wrote, “I had thought it essential, as a prerequisite to the very possibility that one person might help another learn to cope with his emotional problems, that the helper himself participate in the other’s experience of those problems and in large part by way of his own empathic recognition of the, himself come to understand them.”
My take on the psychotherapists who thought a computer could provide psychotherapy in hospitals and psychiatric centers where personnel and funds were limited is that I would avoid going to these psychotherapists myself because they seem to be lacking in the empathy Weizenbaum feels a person needs to have before he or she goes out to try to help someone else.
I agree with Weizenbaum that limits are required to regulate the impacts computers have on the every day lives of humans. While the technology developed by Weizenbaum is undeniably impressive it ignites great ethical considerations and as humans we need to decide whether we are satisfied with our own levels of humanity and whether or not these need to be conveyed to technology. Personally, the thought of computers possessing human functions of the cognitive and emotional kind is a truly frightening thought. I am supportive of technologies advances however believe human nature should be limited to just that; humans. In answer to your questions; I believe with the rate of technological advancement it will be no surprise to see computers in the future that are able to imitate mans thought processes however whether or not we can trust this will never be answered.
ReplyDeleteI really like your break down of this article. I thought this was the better article of the two we read this week. I really like the first point you made about how the software progrom seems to be limited. If the information put into the software is strictly Weizenbaum's then it is biased and i do agree that it is limiting. It is one mans view and as you mentioned befor, he doesnt have the credentials to be a psychotherapist. I do agree that people are willing to speak more openly on the computer which may make the software seem like a hit. This was a very inciteful post and I think you really got the essence of the article.
ReplyDelete