I've always felt that the human-centered approach to computer science leads to more interesting, more exotic, more wild, and more heroic adventures than the machine-supremacy approach, where information is the highest goal.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Computers seem a little too adaptively flexible, like the strange natives, odd societies, and head cases we study in the social sciences. There's more opposable thumb in the digital world than I care for; it's awfully close to human.
In fact what I would like to see is thousands of computer scientists let loose to do whatever they want. That's what really advances the field.
I write more for the children of the computer revolution, who are also interested in speculation and exploring the human condition, but approach it from an information perspective.
I don't look at computers as opponents. For me it is much more interesting to beat humans.
People think that computer science is the art of geniuses but the actual reality is the opposite, just many people doing things that build on eachother, like a wall of mini stones.
I just think there's a general interest in the world of computers.
Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility.
I closely follow everything about user interface or human-computer interface: technology that makes computers closer to the way the human being actually functions.
Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
I think computer science, by and large, is still stuck in the Modern age.