You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you tell me precisely what it is a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that.
John Von NeumannRead
It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years.
Interpretation
This quote reflects the idea that technological advancements have limits, yet those limits may change over time as new discoveries are made.
John Von Neumann's quote highlights the inherent uncertainty in predicting the future of technology. While one might feel that current technological capabilities are at their peak, history shows that breakthroughs often surpass our expectations, making such definitive statements seem naive in hindsight. It serves as a reminder to maintain an open mind about the evolving nature of technological progress.
In practice
This quote can be used in a tech conference to emphasize how rapidly technology evolves.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you tell me precisely what it is a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that.
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work-that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area.
Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin.
Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin. For, as has been pointed out several times, there is no such thing as a random number - there are only methods to produce random numbers, and a strict arithmetic procedure of course is not such a method.
Technological possibilities are irresistible to man. If man can go to the moon, he will. If he can control the climate, he will.
I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space any more.
Today every invention is received with a cry of triumph which soon turns into a cry of fear.
If every sector of business and society will be driven by software - how does that get enabled? By highly-paid computer scientists funded by risk capital in Silicon Valley? Or by lots of engineers who can build it themselves?
We make the best phone, we don't make the most phones.
It's a fact that more people watch television and get their information that way than read books. I find new technology and new ways of communication very exciting and would like to do more in this field.
Machines are admirable and tyrannize only with the user's consent. Where, then, is the enemy? Not where the machine gives relief from drudgery but where human judgment abdicates. The smoothest machine-made product of the age is the organization man, for even the best organizing principle tends to corrupt, and the mechanical principle corrupts absolutely.
Digital technology can be a great resource, but it can also be a pernicious one, so it's how we, as a society, really study the cognitive impact of that and use evidence-based research to go after the technology designers to do a better job of dealing with the problems of memory and attention we are seeing.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.