In “Is Google making us stupid?” » by Nicholas Carr, Carr himself states that technology renovates us. What he means by this is that when we create new technology, it creates a whole new style of reading, thinking and writing in our minds. He speaks more precisely about today, in the software era where we have adapted to what sociologist Daniel Bell calls “intellectual technology”,…. tools that extend our mental powers – classifying information, formulating and articulating ideas, etc. (Square 5). The Internet is an example of “intellectual technology.” However, Carr argues that the Internet has not only become a distraction, but also a part of our daily lives. He speaks from a decade of experience on the net and reflected on the feeling that his mind is changing. His ability to think and read deeply has now become a struggle. His friends also seem to have the same problem. He noticed that there is content around the network that causes the mind to “disperse our attention and diffuse our focus” (Carr 6). Carr also mentions "skimming activity" suggested by researchers at University College London, who found that users jumped from one reference to another and skimmed through articles, reviews, etc. as a form of “power navigation”. According to studies highlighted by Carr, “speed browsing” involves users scanning “horizontally across titles, content pages, and summaries for quick wins” (Carr 3). Essentially, users do not retain the necessary information and often mislead on the wrong main points. Carr continues to say that the Internet has become "incredibly powerful," absorbing other "intellectual technologies." Internet becomes our daily object, the fact that we are able to tell time, print, know our location, calculate, watch movies, etc. is destabilizing for Carr. When we read on the Internet, “we tend to become simple decoders of information” rather than thoughtful readers (Carr 4). These statements highlighted by Carr caught my attention and I couldn't agree more. However, after reading the last two pages, I felt skeptical about his latest claims. At first, I didn't know whether or not I agreed with Carr. A small part of me thought I should be biased. Afterward, I thought about it more and realized that I should disagree with Carr more than I can agree with him. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Carr had me lost when he mentioned how the clock was a valuable tool that benefited and impacted economic growth, but he counterattacks his own answer and says the clock has taken away our sanity . This doesn't make much sense to me. He also highlights “Taylorism,” named after Frederick Winslow Taylor, who liked to call it his “system,” an algorithm he invented that brought out the “best way of working” (Carr 7). According to him, in today's modern society, the Internet is an example of a perfect algorithm or "one method." Nothing seems wrong with that, except that Carr is talking specifically about Google and its computer engineers and software coders. He says they are trying to find “the best method” – “for carrying out each mental movement of what we have come to describe as ‘knowledge work’” (Carr 8). Then he talks about Googleplex, which is Google's headquarters, andexplains how they use “Taylorism” as a religious practice. It seems a bit much, but there's more. Carr specifically explains how Google's founders are trying to replace our brains with artificial intelligence, or, according to Carr, replace our minds with a HAL-like machine. It seems to me that Carr is thinking over his head and that his arguments are a bit exaggerated. While I agree that the new "intellectual technology" renovates us in a way where we operate and process information, it also robs us of our ability to focus and dive into the sea of ​​words. I can't say the same about his belief that we think like computers. To say that new “intellectual technology” is influencing our brains to calculate like computer algorithms or that our brains will soon be replaced by artificial intelligence is disingenuous. Carr asserts that the human brain is capable of being shaped and modified. According to his sources, the nerve cells in our brain “break old connections and form new ones” and have “…the ability to reprogram themselves on the fly, thereby changing its functioning” (Carr 5). Even if this is true, the brain cannot calculate like a computer. Carr seems to misunderstand that just because we're in the software age doesn't mean our brains work like computers. There is a big difference between how a brain works and how a computer works. They can work in similar ways, such as retaining information or performing calculations. There are, however, major differences between the two. The brain has the ability to generate ideas, while the computer can perform accelerated calculations. The brain is powered by neurons that collect and transfer data, and the computer is powered by electricity. Then you have the most obvious difference: a computer does not have the ability to possess human-like consciousness or emotions. If we return to “Taylorism,” we know that Carr wants us to believe that Google is trying to create what Taylor once did, a perfect algorithm. A utopia that resembles “a utopia of perfect efficiency” (Carr 7). The Internet most resembles this perfect algorithm, designed to efficiently transmit and manipulate information, as well as automate its collection. Google's intention, according to Carr, is to develop "the perfect search engine" by collecting behavioral data through its search engine to distinguish unwanted algorithms that "increasingly control how people find information and extract meaning from it. Google defines its “perfect search engine” as “something that understands exactly what you mean and gets you exactly what you want.” For Carr, Google is nothing more than a commercial company looking for the opportunity to “collect information about us and serve us advertisements.” It assumes that Google views information as a valuable thing or a useful resource and that when it is able to allow users to access information easily and quickly, they automatically become thinkers. Carr makes a lot of assumptions about Google and I wonder if he had a bad experience with them. To me it seems like he's moving towards a more biased state towards Google and expressing a lot of his personal opinion rather than stating facts. Sergey Brin and Larry Page are the founders of Google, whose desire is to supplement or replace Google's brains. artificial intelligence according to Carr. However, it is not simply a matter of/306868/.