Those are not downstream from technologies in point of fact even though tech oligarchs desperately want us to believe they are. They know things can be rejected at the level of customs & norms—that’s why they lean SO hard on advertising to get buy in & fake narratives of inevitability early on.
Y’all remember google glass? Y’all remember what killed it? And it looked way less goofy than holding your phone up to record like people do now. But it failed because the social contract at the time (and still) said you don’t semi-surreptitiously record people in public unless you’re a creep.
The introduction of Ray Ban as (meta?) partner is meant to make it fashionable I guess
Don’t let billionaires convince you that creepy, problematic technologies aren’t creepy & problematic. Because once they can convince enough people of that, well… then we’ve lost. But we (the 99%) haven’t lost til then. Technology is not destiny & they KNOW it. They’re terrified we might know too.
Kinda feels like you’re just recommending widespread personal/consumer responsibility. Maybe let’s to think of something with better chances of success?
If anyone at @wired.com is interested I would love to write an op ed or thinkpiece about this right about now.
Pass that offering plate this way!!!
I think you just did
it's nice to get paid for your work though
Good point. Mea culpa.
I think you just did. This is so insightful!
it's nice to get paid for your work though
From what I’m told Wired isn’t doing guest columns for now. I’d love to read it when you find a place! Have you tried @theconversation.com?
Case in point is nuclear weapons. Since the first two uses in war, nukes have never been used once in combat in the last eighty years, despite there having been lots of efforts to develop strategies and tactics for their use, and instances of generals and advisors advocating for a nuclear strike.
I'd love to read that, too! how about @404media.co ?
Or maybe @aftermath.site
Thanks! I didn’t know about them!
We do not need to use technologies. Just because someone invented it doesn't mean we have to use it. If it doesn't improve your life, you don't need it.
Excellent 🧵 Mar! As you say, norms/expectations matter. “We’re constructing the rules for an emerging digital society. If those rules fail to give effect to core values of personhood & choice, we’ll be facilitating the cultivation of a dehumanized & dehumanizing society.” medium.com/@nturkewitz_...
Mom wanted to share a genAI image of what a family member would look like if he were alive today. I expressed my opposition to the tech and the responses were "it's inevitable, accept it" and "it doesn't even look like him" YOU AGREE ITS NOT GOOD BUT STILL LET THEM CONVINCE YOU IT'S INEVITABLE?!?!
What took me by surprise is how vehemently against genAI my kids are. I imagine they’re the demographic the tech bros are keenest to have buying into their stuff, so I wonder what proportion of young people feel the same? Are they outliers or representative of the majority? Also, great username 😁
I was so relieved when a Gen Z nibling said to me "I totally agree with you about the plagiarism machine" The kids are alright!
Honestly, I think the world will be in better hands with them than it has been with my generation. My kids are all really chill & accepting of everyone. They don’t care what bathroom someone uses or whether they wear a burqa or what shade of skin they have. It’s a nothing burger to them.
I don't think sticking your head in the sand is the way to deal with the problems these new technologies are revealing. And if you think what's happened so far is bad - just wait! We're bound and determined to experience a technological singularity and getting there will NOT be fun.
Disruptive technology==Strip mine value from a sector
Exactly. Though even strip mines have been regulated to have to put things back to how they were before that mine got there, which doesn’t apply to Silicon Valley :/ (And yeah, I know that unfortunately those strip mine regulations don’t undo all the harm.)
Also don't let them convince you that the social contract is dead, empathy is bad and people are, generally speaking, evil. Very good thread!
I saw an interesting report recently, in the UK, that estimated maybe 30%-50% of public sector jobs could be supported by Gen AI. Seems reasonable and not the robot overlord takeover the tech bros are desperately trying to monetise.
Supported how? Who is doing the estimating and on what basis? Have they actually asked the opinion of the people doing the jobs now?
Here is the link... 2 weeks time saved per person per year, not quite the revolution that the tech bros imagine (and have sunk money into) www.gov.uk/government/n...
Better methodology than i suspected, but it still seems to depend on self-reporting which — as somebody who has to do the same in my own job — i know is enormously subject to telling mgmt what they want to hear
I work in a sector (medical coding) that tech bros have been trying to automate via algorithm for DECADES, and my current employer uses a platform with an “ai” enhancement that’s supposed to “pre-code” so all I have to do is double check the codes and drop the chart to billing.
It does not help. 90+% of the time it is easier, faster, and INFINITELY more accurate for me to strip out all the codes the computer has added, read the chart with my own human eyeballs, and code it from scratch.
To add insult to injury, even though it’s supposed to be a “learning” system, since I started here it’s gotten less accurate in code assignment while pulling ever more codes from thin air.
Those glasses promised so much hope for the vision impaired.
Maybe calling the users “glassholes” had something to do with it as well. 🤪
It was killed by Google because they pulled the plug on it; turned off the servers that supported it and disabled most functionality. The camera was probably the least useful feature - I only used it occasionally. But it was a *killer* HUD for navigation and aviation!
And which is why they spend so much money on propaganda and trying to get us to hate each other.