Tech Word

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, 14 April 2011

The Chinese Tent

Posted on 10:21 by Unknown
Welcome to the Chinese Tent...

Imagine a large tent, and in it, a person who speaks only English. We'll call this person the respondent. Outside the tent is a person who speaks only Chinese. We'll call this person the questioner. The questioner writes a message in Chinese and passes it to the respondent through an opening at the front of tent. The respondent receives the message, then using an infinitely complex look-up system, matches the message on the card with a corresponding card containing a response in Chinese. The respondent delivers the pre-written response back to the questioner.

From the perspective of the Chinese questioner, the English respondent has read the message and understood it, demonstrating intelligence. However, has the respondent actually responded intelligently? Remember, the respondent does not understand a word of Chinese - he has simply matched up a pre-defined response to the received message.

This is not intelligence, but an elaborate forgery. The Chinese Tent exposes the folly of thinking that computers can actually be intelligent. Computers can simulate all sorts of reality; this does not make the reality they simulate real.

When a computer runs a virtual stock market exercise and makes millions of virtual dollars, the user does not become wealthy. When a computer runs a weather simulation that has 40cm of rain falling in one day, the user doesn't get wet. Yet when a computer simulates intelligence, we all rush to believe it's actual intelligence, and not a pale imitation.

It all comes down to definitions, something technical communicators are very fussy about. So how do you define intelligence? Here's one standard dictionary definition:

"the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings"
    The key word here is understanding, which implies consciousness; the knowledge that one exists. This is something that computers simply don't have. 

    However, if you define intelligence as the ability to give a meaningful response to a question, then computers could indeed be intelligent. A recent example of this was Watson, a super-computer developed by IBM. Watson was a contestant on the Jeopardy game show, beat his human opponents and won a million dollars. 

    Depending on the definition of intelligence you choose, Watson is intelligent or simply another version of the Chinese Tent. It is able to analyze questions and supply responses, but if you were to ask it how it felt about winning against humans, it would have no response.

    What, then, is an "intelligent" document? It is one which understands the information requirements of the user and then seamlessly delivers them. Now, there are help systems that allow a question to be entered and then try to give a relevant response, but these are very complex to set up and have mixed results. A far simpler solution is to create a complete and meaningful index, one which anticipates all the strange and wonderful ways a user might look up a topic.

    An index also has the advantage of revealing potential gaps in your content or the index itself.  For example, you may have the following index entries:
    records,
      creating
      editing
      deleting

    files,
      creating
      deleting

    Where is the entry for editing files? Doh!
     
    A complete and meaningful index is an intelligent index, and helps to make your document intelligent. Of course, once a user finds the topic they are after, it has to be intelligently written. This means that the topic should answer questions, and not raise them. Questions such as:
    • What is this object, thing or concept?
    • What is it used for? Why would I use it?
    • How do I perform a specific task?
    • What are specific things I need to be aware of?
    • What things or tasks are related?
    An effective document, then, is one giant answer book. An intelligent document gives the user the answers they need, without the user even realizing the effort they made to find them.
    Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
    Posted in philosophy | No comments
    Newer Post Older Post Home

    0 comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Popular Posts

    • Six Things That Should Be Single Sourced
      Single-sourcing, as we all know, is the art and science of using a single repository of information to produce multiple outputs. Typical ex...
    • Interviewing and Dating: A Single Source Solution
      Last month, people celebrated "Valentine's Day", a day to celebrate romance and love, a day to be extra-nice to your partner, ...
    • The Power of Words
      There's nothing like an election to illustrate how powerful words are. Politicians, pundits, and the media use words to advance their ca...
    • The Governing Dynamics of Documentation
      Game theory is a specialized field of mathematics that analyzes choices and results in strategic situations, or games , as the players try t...
    • Why info systems fail
      If you only have time to read one news article today, read this one from the Financial Post. Don't leave IT to the techies - Three probl...
    • How to update a document - NOT!
      Canadian International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda needs to work on her document management skills. She hand wrote the word 'NOT'...
    • Publishing for Pollard
      Most of you probably have never heard of Jonathan Pollard, the American who has been languishing in prison since November 21, 1985, almost 2...
    • The Dynamic Blogger
      Some of you may have noticed the new look of this blog. It's a new Blogger feature called dynamic views . You can now choose how this bl...
    • Dude, where's my document?
      Try this experiment: Think of a printed guide you worked on. Find the source document from your current location. Make a minor change to the...
    • Security breach!
      It's always entertaining to read about non-lethal lapses in security at a major event. Remember the debacle at the 2010 Winter Olympics?...

    Categories

    • art
    • autism
    • bad communication
    • business
    • career
    • cloud computing
    • computers
    • creativity
    • entertainment
    • finance
    • food
    • Google
    • history
    • interviewing
    • math
    • media
    • medicine
    • misc.
    • music
    • nature
    • news
    • philosophy
    • politics
    • quantum theory
    • religion
    • resume
    • resumes
    • science
    • security
    • simplicity
    • sport
    • technology
    • usability

    Blog Archive

    • ►  2012 (9)
      • ►  September (1)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (1)
      • ►  April (2)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (2)
    • ▼  2011 (36)
      • ►  December (2)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (6)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (4)
      • ►  July (5)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (6)
      • ▼  April (2)
        • Failsafe
        • The Chinese Tent
      • ►  February (3)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ►  2010 (47)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (6)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (2)
      • ►  May (3)
      • ►  April (5)
      • ►  March (11)
      • ►  February (7)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ►  2009 (36)
      • ►  December (11)
      • ►  November (5)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (2)
      • ►  July (3)
      • ►  May (1)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  January (3)
    • ►  2008 (24)
      • ►  December (9)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  October (7)
      • ►  July (1)
      • ►  June (1)
      • ►  May (1)
      • ►  April (1)
      • ►  March (1)
      • ►  February (1)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ►  2007 (10)
      • ►  December (1)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  March (1)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ►  2006 (4)
      • ►  September (1)
      • ►  June (1)
      • ►  April (1)
      • ►  February (1)
    • ►  2005 (10)
      • ►  December (1)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  October (1)
      • ►  September (1)
      • ►  June (1)
      • ►  May (1)
      • ►  April (1)
      • ►  March (1)
      • ►  February (1)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ►  2004 (9)
      • ►  December (1)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  September (1)
      • ►  June (1)
      • ►  May (1)
      • ►  April (1)
      • ►  March (1)
      • ►  February (1)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ►  2003 (9)
      • ►  December (1)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  September (1)
      • ►  June (1)
      • ►  May (1)
      • ►  March (1)
      • ►  February (1)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2002 (3)
      • ►  December (1)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  October (1)
    Powered by Blogger.

    About Me

    Unknown
    View my complete profile