A very human story about our favorite computer scientist
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Heard
Jul 30, 2012, 12:12:37 PM7/30/12
to cs-6212-s...@googlegroups.com
Maya Larson
Jul 30, 2012, 2:32:12 PM7/30/12
to cs-6212-s...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for sharing this Ben. I felt the same way when I read about one of my favorite composers, Tchaikovsky. He was also a gifted person who suffered because of social norms in his community.
I have always thought that one of the nicer aspects of the internet is that it could influence our culture to to become more practical and accepting. As more of everyone's lives are recorded onto the internet, it will become harder to deny that people and societies around the world have much more in common than what sets us apart.
I have always thought that one of the nicer aspects of the internet is that it could influence our culture to to become more practical and accepting. As more of everyone's lives are recorded onto the internet, it will become harder to deny that people and societies around the world have much more in common than what sets us apart.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Ben Heard <gole...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2012/mar/19/turing-problem/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CS 6212 Summer 2012" group.
To post to this group, send email to cs-6212-s...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cs-6212-summer-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/cs-6212-summer-2012/-/dw9ouKv_q-4J.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Amrinder Arora
Jul 31, 2012, 10:51:09 AM7/31/12
to cs-6212-s...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for sharing this.
As you may have heard more recently in the news as well, the British
government rejected request consisting of 23,000 signatures to
"pardon" Alan Turing, on the basis that "Alan Turing had been properly
convicted of what had been at that time a criminal offence".
Sure, that makes sense.
In fact that makes much more sense than the British government itself
asking for forgiveness in the form of "Darn! Not only were we wrong
when we created that criminal law (which we later had to change), we
even prosecuted and convicted people under the (wrong) law!"
[We do not need to draw any special attention to the genius of Alan
Turing and his world saving "enigma"-tic heroics etc, the law after
all, applies equal to heroes and zeroes.]
British government has no claim to fame here. This is how governments
work in general, all over the world. The standing argument is that
the "law" works with the knowledge available at that time, and so, for
example if today we believe that Bisphenol A may cause cancer, than we
should ban Bisphenol A. If tomorrow we find otherwise, we may reverse
that decision. When considering such scientific settings of chemicals
and cancer, this standing argument is sound, and quite possibly, the
only way to have a lawful society. The argument however faces much
more scrutiny when there is a human element. What shall we make out
of when a person is first convicted of a crime, and many years later,
there is "improved knowledge" that may come from some key information,
introspection, or changing social norms. What shall we make of it
then? Should the government (through the judiciary or the house of
lords) then "pardon" those convicted? And what then, if the social
norms were to change again?
This may be well beyond the realm of algorithms, but then again, so
are all of you. :-)
Amrinder
As you may have heard more recently in the news as well, the British
government rejected request consisting of 23,000 signatures to
"pardon" Alan Turing, on the basis that "Alan Turing had been properly
convicted of what had been at that time a criminal offence".
Sure, that makes sense.
In fact that makes much more sense than the British government itself
asking for forgiveness in the form of "Darn! Not only were we wrong
when we created that criminal law (which we later had to change), we
even prosecuted and convicted people under the (wrong) law!"
[We do not need to draw any special attention to the genius of Alan
Turing and his world saving "enigma"-tic heroics etc, the law after
all, applies equal to heroes and zeroes.]
British government has no claim to fame here. This is how governments
work in general, all over the world. The standing argument is that
the "law" works with the knowledge available at that time, and so, for
example if today we believe that Bisphenol A may cause cancer, than we
should ban Bisphenol A. If tomorrow we find otherwise, we may reverse
that decision. When considering such scientific settings of chemicals
and cancer, this standing argument is sound, and quite possibly, the
only way to have a lawful society. The argument however faces much
more scrutiny when there is a human element. What shall we make out
of when a person is first convicted of a crime, and many years later,
there is "improved knowledge" that may come from some key information,
introspection, or changing social norms. What shall we make of it
then? Should the government (through the judiciary or the house of
lords) then "pardon" those convicted? And what then, if the social
norms were to change again?
This may be well beyond the realm of algorithms, but then again, so
are all of you. :-)
Amrinder
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages