J.C.R. Licklider’s March 1960 paper “Man-Computer Symbiosis” presents a cogent, logical, and perceptive discussion of conceptual and technical matters surrounding the term present in his title. His pontifications regarding the nature of man-computer symbiosis, how it differs from conventionally existent human-machine relationship dynamics, and possible effects on human functioning, are exemplary timeless, and remain of great interest and merit, even 47 years later. The second portion of his paper, which is concerned largely with then-current technological barriers to the achievement of such a symbiosis, shows its age, but is not without value.
Licklider’s concept of man-computer symbiosis, while perhaps seeming exceedingly outlandish when it was authored, is of particular applicability in today’s world. In our day to day operations, we humans (that have access to such technology) rely constantly on computational devices. Cell-phones facilitate instant and extremely mobile auditory communication with any other similarly enabled person. The Internet provides a global web of information, contributed by users, and easily searchable. Daily, we rely on the organizational and computational abilities of computing machines to assist us in our work; ubiquitous computing is becoming more and more of a reality. As Licklider so perceptively made light of, “Computing machines can do readily, well, and rapidly many things that are difficult or impossible for man, and men can do readily and well, though not rapidly, many things that are difficult or impossible for computers” (77,col1).
It seems however, that Licklider’s observations about the relational dynamics of humans and machines then stand remarkably similar to the way they are today. He noted that unbalanced relationships of dependence between man and machine were much more common than the interdependent and co-existent relationship he envisioned as being quantifiable by the term ‘symbiotic’ (74,col2). And still in 2007, the majority of human-computer relationships are heavily canted in either one direction or the other. We depend on computers and use them daily as tools. Some people have the specific job of maintaining computers, and keeping them functioning correctly. Relationships where the two exist in relative equality of function, however, are rare, if occurring at all. And it is as this point, as Licklider makes clear, that the fullest potential of advancement of our cognitive abilities becomes possible (76,col1). While to a certain extent the more advanced computational devices present today do aide us in the everyday simplification of tasks, as Licklider imagined, by means of their superior abilities of calculation, organization, and sheer processing power, we have not achieved by any means the idealized state of ‘symbiosis’ that he refers to. In simpler terms, we are significantly closer to some sort of human-computer symbiosis than when Licklider wrote this text, but we have not achieved it yet.
In Licklider’s dated discussion of the technological challenges of achieving man-computer symbiosis, circa 1960, he hits upon a few interesting points which stand solidly on two legs today. He writes that one of the most important problems in human-computer symbiosis is that of translation. How can two entities be cognitively symbiotic if they cannot communicate effortlessly? (79,col1). While he talks of recent advancements in programming languages as an example, this concept could easily be extended (in the context of today’s paradigm of computer-user interaction) to the concept of interface. The interface is the mechanism by which we as users communicate with a computer. We input information and commands into it, and receive output information back from it, in the form of visual output, auditory output, or processing of information. This is the essential essence of what computers are really useful for. But what devices are we still using for this medium of interaction so paramount in the dynamic of our relationship? The same devices we have been using for the last 30 or so years, the keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Though these mechanisms do provide a way for us to overcome the speed and language differences between man and computer, they are not a very elegant way of doing it, especially when seen in the context of Licklider’s idealized vision of ultimate communication and co-existing cognitive interaction.
We have made some progress in the improvement of interface, but when compared to how fast hardware speed and software complexity are advancing, the pace is truly glacial. Some recent advances do hold promise; with the integration of display device and input device present in multi-touch display devices, an increased efficiency and intuitiveness of operation might be achieved. This might bring us slightly closer to the incentive or goal-based interactivity models that Licklider talks about (79,col2).
The true paramount of human-computer interaction is one that has by no means been achieved yet, but one which is hinted at in recent technological developments. The ultimate communication with a computer would be one which would occur at the speed of thought. This sort of direct-mind interface would bypass the need for input/output devices, because there would be no need to be a medium between the output of the computer and the input of the brain, and vice-versa. Such concepts have been explored in a great deal of science fiction, especially in the cyberpunk sub-genre of work. The novels of Neal Stephenson, and William Gibson, as well as such works of Japanese anime such as Ghost in the Shell, deal directly with the sociological and phenomenological implications of this sort of mind-integrated computational interface, and its effects on the amplification of human powers of cognition, and even physical abilities through the usage of cybernetic technology.
With recent advancements in the area of brain-computer interfacing, this seemingly outlandish possibility of direct cognitive interaction with a computer does not seem that far off in the grand scope of technological progress. Indeed, already advancements have been made enabling animals to control robotic limbs with their minds, and enabling the brain-mediated capture of images perceived by a living cat. As these initial experiments proceed into concrete established practice and commercialization, there is no doubt as to where it will lead. The augmentation of human facilities that this will bring about, both in terms of cognitive power and in the physical augmentation through cybernetics, at least a definite contributing factor to the development of a Technological Singularity.
Human-Computer Symbiosis and the Technology of Today
J.C.R. Licklider’s March 1960 paper “Man-Computer Symbiosis” presents a cogent, logical, and perceptive discussion of conceptual and technical matters surrounding the term present in his title. His pontifications regarding the nature of man-computer symbiosis, how it differs from conventionally existent human-machine relationship dynamics, and possible effects on human functioning, are exemplary timeless, and remain of great interest and merit, even 47 years later. The second portion of his paper, which is concerned largely with then-current technological barriers to the achievement of such a symbiosis, shows its age, but is not without value.
Licklider’s concept of man-computer symbiosis, while perhaps seeming exceedingly outlandish when it was authored, is of particular applicability in today’s world. In our day to day operations, we humans (that have access to such technology) rely constantly on computational devices. Cell-phones facilitate instant and extremely mobile auditory communication with any other similarly enabled person. The Internet provides a global web of information, contributed by users, and easily searchable. Daily, we rely on the organizational and computational abilities of computing machines to assist us in our work; ubiquitous computing is becoming more and more of a reality. As Licklider so perceptively made light of, “Computing machines can do readily, well, and rapidly many things that are difficult or impossible for man, and men can do readily and well, though not rapidly, many things that are difficult or impossible for computers” (77,col1).
It seems however, that Licklider’s observations about the relational dynamics of humans and machines then stand remarkably similar to the way they are today. He noted that unbalanced relationships of dependence between man and machine were much more common than the interdependent and co-existent relationship he envisioned as being quantifiable by the term ‘symbiotic’ (74,col2). And still in 2007, the majority of human-computer relationships are heavily canted in either one direction or the other. We depend on computers and use them daily as tools. Some people have the specific job of maintaining computers, and keeping them functioning correctly. Relationships where the two exist in relative equality of function, however, are rare, if occurring at all. And it is as this point, as Licklider makes clear, that the fullest potential of advancement of our cognitive abilities becomes possible (76,col1). While to a certain extent the more advanced computational devices present today do aide us in the everyday simplification of tasks, as Licklider imagined, by means of their superior abilities of calculation, organization, and sheer processing power, we have not achieved by any means the idealized state of ‘symbiosis’ that he refers to. In simpler terms, we are significantly closer to some sort of human-computer symbiosis than when Licklider wrote this text, but we have not achieved it yet.
In Licklider’s dated discussion of the technological challenges of achieving man-computer symbiosis, circa 1960, he hits upon a few interesting points which stand solidly on two legs today. He writes that one of the most important problems in human-computer symbiosis is that of translation. How can two entities be cognitively symbiotic if they cannot communicate effortlessly? (79,col1). While he talks of recent advancements in programming languages as an example, this concept could easily be extended (in the context of today’s paradigm of computer-user interaction) to the concept of interface. The interface is the mechanism by which we as users communicate with a computer. We input information and commands into it, and receive output information back from it, in the form of visual output, auditory output, or processing of information. This is the essential essence of what computers are really useful for. But what devices are we still using for this medium of interaction so paramount in the dynamic of our relationship? The same devices we have been using for the last 30 or so years, the keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Though these mechanisms do provide a way for us to overcome the speed and language differences between man and computer, they are not a very elegant way of doing it, especially when seen in the context of Licklider’s idealized vision of ultimate communication and co-existing cognitive interaction.
We have made some progress in the improvement of interface, but when compared to how fast hardware speed and software complexity are advancing, the pace is truly glacial. Some recent advances do hold promise; with the integration of display device and input device present in multi-touch display devices, an increased efficiency and intuitiveness of operation might be achieved. This might bring us slightly closer to the incentive or goal-based interactivity models that Licklider talks about (79,col2).
The true paramount of human-computer interaction is one that has by no means been achieved yet, but one which is hinted at in recent technological developments. The ultimate communication with a computer would be one which would occur at the speed of thought. This sort of direct-mind interface would bypass the need for input/output devices, because there would be no need to be a medium between the output of the computer and the input of the brain, and vice-versa. Such concepts have been explored in a great deal of science fiction, especially in the cyberpunk sub-genre of work. The novels of Neal Stephenson, and William Gibson, as well as such works of Japanese anime such as Ghost in the Shell, deal directly with the sociological and phenomenological implications of this sort of mind-integrated computational interface, and its effects on the amplification of human powers of cognition, and even physical abilities through the usage of cybernetic technology.
With recent advancements in the area of brain-computer interfacing, this seemingly outlandish possibility of direct cognitive interaction with a computer does not seem that far off in the grand scope of technological progress. Indeed, already advancements have been made enabling animals to control robotic limbs with their minds, and enabling the brain-mediated capture of images perceived by a living cat. As these initial experiments proceed into concrete established practice and commercialization, there is no doubt as to where it will lead. The augmentation of human facilities that this will bring about, both in terms of cognitive power and in the physical augmentation through cybernetics, at least a definite contributing factor to the development of a Technological Singularity.