Computer science is one of the worst things that ever happened to

When Neil Gershenfeld declared, “Computer science is one of the worst things that ever happened to either computers or to science,” he was not merely offering a critical reflection on a field he likely held deep knowledge of. Rather, he was addressing a fundamental paradox of the digital age — that progress, when driven by unchecked ambition and narrow specialization, can sometimes hinder the very advancements it seeks to foster. Gershenfeld’s words urge us to question the direction of technological growth and to examine how the very systems and institutions we create may ultimately limit the broader potential of the tools they are designed to improve.

In the ancient world, there were many who questioned the consequences of unchecked innovation. Plato, in his famous work The Republic, warned that the pursuit of knowledge, when disconnected from the larger good of society, could lead to hubris and disorder. His caution was clear: progress should not be pursued at the cost of wisdom, nor should it be made an end in itself. Gershenfeld’s statement echoes this ancient wisdom, suggesting that while computer science has brought about unprecedented advances, its narrow focus on algorithms and systems has sometimes sidelined the deeper questions about how technology should serve the human condition.

The origin of Gershenfeld’s quote lies in the ongoing transformation of both science and technology. As computer science has evolved, it has become increasingly specialized, with the emphasis placed more on the technical mechanics of programming and machine learning than on the broader applications of those technologies to human life. In his view, this narrow focus has led to a situation where computers have become more sophisticated but, in some ways, less connected to the real problems they were meant to solve. Science, too, has become increasingly fragmented, with disciplines like computer science often operating in isolation from other fields of human inquiry, such as ethics, philosophy, or even the humanities.

A historical example of this can be found in the early work of Alan Turing, the father of modern computing. Turing’s vision was not just to create a machine that could compute, but to ask fundamental questions about what it means to be human and how machines can replicate human thought. Turing’s famous concept of the Turing machine was not merely a theoretical tool for computation but also a way of exploring the very nature of intelligence. His work, however, was often stymied by the increasing specialization of the field, where the deeper philosophical questions he posed were drowned out by the relentless push for faster, more efficient machines. In this sense, computer science has, at times, lost the broader vision that Turing embodied — one that sought to understand the human in the machine.

Gershenfeld’s criticism of computer science is not a call to abandon the field, but a plea for a return to the roots of scientific inquiry. Science, at its best, is a search for truth that connects all areas of knowledge — from the physical sciences to the philosophical and the humanistic. When science becomes too focused on a single pursuit, like the technicalities of computer programming, it risks losing sight of the larger purpose: to serve humanity, to improve lives, and to understand the world in a deeper way. The rise of computer science has, in many ways, made life easier and more interconnected, but it has also created new challenges that need to be addressed by a broader and more holistic approach.

The lesson in Gershenfeld’s statement is twofold: first, that progress should not be pursued at the cost of humanity or wisdom; and second, that true innovation comes not from specialized, isolated fields, but from a collaborative approach that includes diverse perspectives. Technology must be used not just for efficiency, but for human flourishing. In this sense, we must be wary of becoming so engrossed in the technical details of our tools that we forget the larger questions — questions of how our inventions serve our deepest values, needs, and aspirations. In the same way, philosophers like Socrates urged us to examine the purpose of life, we must now examine the purpose of technology.

In the modern age, technology and science must not be allowed to evolve in isolated silos. If we are to move forward, we must bring together the best of computing, ethics, humanities, and arts, to create a world where technology is not just a tool for efficiency, but a force for good. This requires collaboration, open-mindedness, and a willingness to engage with questions that do not have clear-cut answers. For progress to truly serve humanity, it must always be balanced by a commitment to understanding the broader consequences of our actions.

Practical actions to bring about a more holistic approach to technology and science:

1. Foster interdisciplinary collaboration: Encourage dialogue between computer scientists, philosophers, humanities scholars, and other fields to explore the deeper implications of technology.

2. Engage with the ethical dimensions of technology: As we develop new technologies, we must always ask: how does this serve humanity?

3. Keep sight of the bigger picture: In the rush for efficiency, don’t lose track of the human side of innovation. Ask not just how it works, but why it matters.

4. **Prioritize holistic education: Equip future generations with the tools to understand both the technical and ethical aspects of technology. This way, they can ensure that science serves human progress in every sense.

For as Neil Gershenfeld warns, specialization and narrow focus can blind us to the true potential of technology. Only by considering the bigger picture, and by embracing the holistic approach of the great thinkers of the past, can we ensure that our innovations lead to a future that is not just technologically advanced, but deeply connected to the values and needs of humanity. It is this balance between science and wisdom, between progress and reflection, that will guide us to a world where technology serves the common good.