In my never-humble opinion as a math educator, calculators used too soon are one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Calculators used to do calculations *that a student can already do by hand*, in the context of a problem that would otherwise be bogged down by all the hand calculations, are appropriate. They’re almost never used that way though. I want a dollar for every remedial college algebra student I’ve had in my office literally shaking because they never learned how to add fractions by hand and now it’s coming back to bite them in the butt. Teaching kids how to use calculators is good. Teaching them to be calculator jockeys in lieu of actual math is “too dang lazy”.

It’s the part where we foist off personal responsibility onto the machines that pushes us over the line from “useful tool” into “too dang lazy.”

Engineers like me work hours and hours so we don’t have to do the repetitive and boring tasks over and over again, and so you don’t have to, either.

As far as lost knowledge, understanding the core concepts doesn’t mean you have to keep doing them in perpetuity. I understand binary math, digital electronics, and a bundle of other underlying technologies, but I’d rather spend my time making a cool device while the computer spends its time resolving the underlying trash.

It works well. I come up with the great ideas on how the big pieces work, and the computer helps me keep the underlying portion in order, without any need for me to go through and change all the little pieces underneath.

If there is a problem, the computer lets me know so I can explore alternatives that fit within the underlying structure. The computer lets me explore more possibilities and build better products faster thanks to it freeing me from the grunt work.

In automobiles and motorcycles, the electronics serve to help put a curb at the edge of the envelop, so that should conditions alter that edge I can still stay within the envelop.

I’m not a pure technophile; I love old bikes for the feel and the need to exercise skills to really make use of the vehicle’s capabilities. But on a long, cross country trip, or when scratching in the mountains, a little bit of extra margin is a good thing.

Any erosion of brainpower from computer assistance is purely a result of the end user neglecting their brain.

The people watching aren’t playing the game and a computer isn’t playing the game, but it is a step in the direction of people watching a computer game without actually playing it.

When good AI is developed that watching two AI strategies battle each other is entertaining, expect to see people watching replays (or live ‘casts) of computers playing war games against each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yueRyfCPXso

If this level of mayhem where due to war, we’d see protests in every city in the country.

And I’d be marching with them.

But you final question is a great one. How much of our lives do we turn over to machines? Answer: the closer we are to our technology – the more we accept it as part of ourselves – the more we will be willing to turn over to it.

As we further integrate digital capabilities in our lives and eventually inside our bodies, we will continue to refine our respective roles.

And, as with most of life, the boundaries will always be fuzzy. On any given day or moment, we might want to be mostly in control, and at another moment we will hand over the reins to the machine, for fun or rest or just random choice. Along the way, both we and the machines will expand our capabilities.

Back and forth, over the years, and the point is not whether a human entity or a machine entity takes exclusive control of anything. The point is adjusting to a world where either entity can run the show, and then finally to a world where we are inseparable from our machines.