machines are trying to be more human, but are we?

Overtime we’ve begun to treat this nuance and ambiguity as friction and something to program out. Computers don’t like it. Algorithms can’t categorize it. So we remove it.

Yet we so desperately need this “in between” and neither “yes” nor “no” thinking.

Do the dichotomies of reason vs. feeling, objectivity vs. subjectivity, man vs. machine, and physics vs. metaphysics still make sense?

MK: This is the computer-thinking speaking. These are binaries . 0’s and 1’s are for computers, and arguably should only be for computers.

I thoroughly believe, alongside thinkers like Douglas Rushkoff, that we must ... See more

Apple Maps has tried to make its guidance feel more natural, in part by using common, human-sounding phrases. For example: “Go past the light and make a left.” This language is intended to replace now-familiar and robotic phrasings such as In 300 yards, turn left . Google Maps is also trying not to be so tortuous or wordy.