Reading Licklider’s Man-Computer Symbiosis, I can see the faith and optimism humans placed in computers during that era. From today’s perspective – living in the age of algorithms and AI – I can see many of the ideas he imagined have been realized, such as the computer’s capacity for “information storage and retrieval.” Yet, many of the foundational problems he grappled with still remain with us. There is also a common belief, still present today, that algorithms – because they are based on math and logic – are free from human biases. This belief often leads to the idea that reducing or removing human participation could eliminate error and imperfection. Yet computers and algorithms are designed by people, trained on historical data, and inevitably shaped by society’s existing predispositions. Incorporating them into decision-making, then, may not erase flaws but instead risk reinforcing the very structures they were intended to correct.

Alongside this, I sense a deeper human anxiety in the emphasis on “problem solving.” We are constantly trying to anticipate difficulties in advance, to prevent undesirable outcomes, and to secure some sense of control over the world. But there is no such thing as a perfect decision. Moreover, If everything could be predicted, humans might actually find it harder to be inspired. Lastly, I also question his choice of the word symbiosis. In biology, symbiosis implies interdependence – both sides are shaped by the presence of the other, whether through mutual benefit, parasitism, or commensalism. That doesn’t quite describe the human–machine relationship. Humans and machines influence each other, but neither’s survival truly depends on the other. The partnership is powerful, yes, but not vital in the same sense.