Can Computers Replace Teachers?

this could be in the debates section. but i don't think so because you couldn't ask your "teacher" a question.

 

computers are stupid, remember!
we build them, remember!
they require software, remember!
software is not perfect, remember!

here is a quote from peter drucker,
"The computer is a moron"

 

I don't think its rilly a matter of just computers but all technology since in the future for all we know we might have robots doing housework and machines filling our brains with information... Who knows?

 

Too late.

Humans aren't perfect either, and most of them are stupid too. Anyway, try telling Skynet it's a dumbass.

 

well, no. they can compute faster than humans. And they can store more knowledge even for a IQ of 200 person.

well, no. Factories do that, so unless you are a factory worker, then no. Well, i'm not anyways.

well, yes, but in the future, programmers will make the perfect one.

This is the only statement i agree with.

 

If properly programmed, then I believe so.

 

damanali is correct to say that factories build computers. how is he correct, because factories also build factories. humans never build the factories. the factory just build itself into existance.

programming is based on the person making the program, is it not?! a human is never perfect no matter what, correct?! so no matter what, the program will never be perfect, correct?! wrong! because humans are perfect in the future. we can look through history and it shows that we've become quite a perfect being.

these are somethings to consider.

 

So basically what you're saying is that if a computer replaces teachers, they will not be any more 'intelligent' as the humans already are we have to upgrade them EVERY time to match our knowlege, its a vicious circle really.

 

Umm...we don't have factory factories yet...

[quote author=ultra]programming is based on the person making the program, is it not?! a human is never perfect no matter what, correct?! so no matter what, the program will never be perfect, correct?! wrong! because humans are perfect in the future. we can look through history and it shows that we've become quite a perfect being.

these are somethings to consider.
[/quote]
programs are usually developed by a team and humans have made little or no progress towards perfection in the last 10,000+ years.
In the stone age, we are often depicted banging two rocks together, because that's probably how flint and fire were developed. Now we spend millions banging very tiny rocks together underground in particle accelerators. We still make the same mistakes of passion and constantly war amongst ourselves.

 

How have you come to this conclusion?

 

when i typed this up, i was basically re-iterating what damanali was saying. some people don't see something in a different angle. all i did was re-adjust the angle to show you a different view. it's his view so you have to ask him and others who believe this view. you're asking me, ultra, these questions while they are other peoples answers.

everyone says in the future things will be awesome, they use the example of the movie artificial intellegence and other sci fi works. if that is the case, then based on history, we've become awesome. again, it's not my arguement, it's the arguement of others. all i did was re-iterate the idea and pointed the idea into a different angle for you to see. so don't ask me to answer these questions because the only thing i, ultra, did was adjust the viewing lens for you to get a different view.

 

damanali never said that factories were building factories. You expanded well beyond what he had said or even implied.

[quote author=ultra]everyone says in the future things will be awesome, they use the example of the movie artificial intellegence and other sci fi works. if that is the case, then based on history, we've become awesome. again, it's not my arguement, it's the arguement of others. all i did was re-iterate the idea and pointed the idea into a different angle for you to see. so don't ask me to answer these questions because the only thing i, ultra, did was adjust the viewing lens for you to get a different view.
[/quote]
Everyone is a poor choice of word here as there are many stories out there about humans warring against each other, falling into decline due to their luxurious lives, or being wiped out by pollution or nuclear war. You also stated that humans would be perfect in the future as if it was fact, which you cannot know, you also said:
[quote author=ultra]
we can look through history and it shows that we've become quite a perfect being.
[/quote]
This a view I don't think I've seen expressed anywhere, how did you reach this conclusion or where did you get this from?

 

damanali says, factories build computers. but where do factories come from?! factories don't come from factories because factories don't build factories nor do factories build themselves into existance. factories come from humans. and if humans didn't build factories, then there are no computers because factories aren't making computers.

do you now understand what is going on here?!

when someone makes a reference that now, as in the present, that computer programming sucks and says that in the future programming will be better [as people are referring to artificial intelligence and other sci-fi works], they are contrasting human conditions. that the human condition now is not that great but in the future, things will be better. so to show this i used history as an example and you didn't get the reference.

do you understand what's going on here?!

i told you, i never said any of this. here is my original reply to this topic,
computers are stupid, remember!
we build them, remember!
they require software, remember!
software is not perfect, remember!

here is a quote from peter drucker,
"The computer is a moron"

all i did was re-iterate some stuff. if you want answers, ask the people who support these ideas like damanali.

 

If you mean reiterate by putting it in your messed up brain blender, in which case skews everything you read, and making up your own point with it. then yes, you reiterate.

 

so are you suggesting that you do agree with damanali about factories building computers?
so where do factories come from?

 

Where did you get that from?

I was just suggesting that your definition of reiteration is so wrong that it's ridiculous.

 

then re-iterate damanli's arguement without what i've used. you can't because you actually believe it.

also,
How have you come to this conclusion? which you asked me. so that means you believe damanali's point.

 

This has become a debate, so moved to the Debates section.

 

What did you mean by this? Here you have said (or what I infer you have said):
-damanali is correct, factories do build computers
-factories also build factories
-factories build themselves into existence (implying they do it autonomously)

I would dispute the second two facts, and will give reasons why if you confirm that this is what you meant.

Here's what you have said (or what I infer you have said):
-A program is only as good as the programmer who wrote it
-Humans will definitely become perfect in the future
-Because future humans will be perfect, programs written by them will be perfect
-Humans have become closer to perfection since their earlier history.

I'd like to know what you mean when you say "perfect" because to me it means "without a flaw" and we have not become any closer to perfection by my definition.

 

Fixed.

Lolololololol at humans being perfect. Aside from that, I shudder at your very definition of perfection.