Losing the Smartphone: You Can Choose Who's In Control, You or That Infernal Device of Intrusion and Behavior Modification

Today, I got into the car and on the way to pick up a take-out order, I discovered I had left behind my cell phone. I was reminded of this fact when I looked at the center console screen and it read: "No cell phone found." There was instant, organic feeling of panic for just a moment accompanied by the thought, "Oh no! I've forgotten my phone!"

This discovery and these thoughts were immediately followed by "So what!" and  I began to realize that forgetting it was not a bad thing. Actually, it was a good thing. I had left behind my 21st century intrusion and life modification device, and all was going to be just fine. Why did I react with these notions and the reaction of "Oh No!"?

It was in these moments and all moments like them, I am reminded of just how successful Silicon Valley and the Techno-Optimists have been able to market and condition all of us with the notion that "We must be connected at all times, 24 hours a day."

I was additionally reminded of another equally important fact: "I control my life. I can choose to leave my technological-intrusion device when I CHOOSE to do so. It is not a blasphemous act. It is not an act of the Luddite. The world and my world is not going to end. Despite the techno-optimist babble and blather, I am not irrelevant nor left behind without that infernal mechanism of beeping, chirping, and ringing.

Perhaps, without that thing connecting me to the intruding world outside and beyond my immediate one, I am perhaps at that moment closer to just being and living than ever. 

I have to add a final technological note of disclosure...I have have already turned off all notifications on my cell phone. This has been liberating and has no negative effect on my work or life. I am in charge of my device. I check my messages, email, and even the news when I CHOOSE. What's more, I've learned that this works fine. Rarely do any of these intruders of my life and my thoughts require immediate attention despite what the techno-optimists and marketers say.

Questioning Whether to Adopt and Adapt to Tech Including AI: It Is Still a Choice

Photo by Author: Blueridge Afternoon Blooms

The idea that a technology is inevitable so we might as well accept it and adapt to is an unquestioned norm our our current society. When a new invention comes along--the desktop PC, the smartphone, social media, and now artificial intelligence--we are told that it is inevitable; that it is fruitless to resist. We should just acquiesce, adopt, and adapt to that technology-machine. To not do so is to be a Luddite. To not accept and adapt will somehow put you "behind." But is this the case? What if we question this so-called "doctrine of technological inevitability" used to promote these gadgets?

The idea of "technological inevitability" is largely unquestioned in our tech-worshipping world. As new gadgets come and go, consumers race in circles to keep up. But is this idea of inevitability reality, or is it a tactic of manipulative-marketing? Nichols Fox, in her book, Against the Machine, poses a question that gets to the heart of this inevitability doctrine:

"People must, in other words, adapt to the machine. The idea that it should be the other way around--that machines should adapt to humans--seems not to have occurred to anyone. And yet it would seem obvious. Who, after all, is in control here?"

This a clear statement that pierces through the inevitability doctrine of tech integration. We were told when PCs, social media, smartphones, (you insert whatever tech gadget you wish here)..."you have no choice but to use and adapt your lives around these devices." Now, AI is the latest and the inevitability doctrine of tech integration is again being invoked. But, Fox's question reminds us that I-you-we are still in control here.

The notion and question of who is in control at the advent of a new technology is immediately hijacked bu a promo-marketing assemblage of tech-inventors, entrepreneurs, consultants, salespersons, all who stand to gain a bundle and even establish their professional identities on getting more and more people to acquiesce, adopt, and adapt to this new technology. Their doctrine of technological inevitability immediately says, "You can't control this...you can't resist, so you might as well let this technology into your life as it is." These tech-promo-optimists frame the entire argument around the "get-on-board-or-be-behind-or-be-irrelevant" argument. It is their old promo-rhetorical tactic used over and over again. But it is wrong and manipulative. I-you-we are still in control. We can still choose which technologies we allow into our lives; we can choose how we use those technologies, and if they do not work for us, we can choose not to use them. We must see through the manipulative application of the inevitability doctrine of tech integration and adoption.

Our lives will certainly not end, and we will not be destined to a life of inefficiency and unproductivity if we choose not to adopt or adapt to the latest offering by Tech. The opposite could also be true that the adoption and adaption of our Tech will help us be more efficient and productive. The point, however, is, we can and should choose for ourselves if, how, and when we allow the shining baubles of tech to enter our lives. We need to take control of these instead of being controlled by these machines. 

We also need to see through the manipulative marketing of tech-peddlers, consultants, and prophets of prosperity and discover for ourselves the role technologies play in our lives and work.

I-you-we still have the power of choice. We can demand that the technologies adapt to us, and if they do not, it is not a sin to say "No thanks."

Is Adoption of AI in Our Collective Common Interest?

Photo by Author: Gnarly Tree

More thoughts on the current AI-hype...

Nobel Prize winning economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson (2023) in their book Power and Progress make another interesting point about the persuasive and marketing tactics and strategies employed by technology-promoters.  They engage in creating a vision of their product that makes adoption of it both efficacious and the right thing to do, even if that adoption is sometimes detrimental to those who adopt it.

This vision-creation for their technological solutions is an appeal to "common interest."

Acemoglu and Johnson (2023) write:

A vision that articulates a common interest is powerful even when--especially when--there are losers as well as winners from new technologies because it enables those doing the reorganization and the technology adoption to convince the rest. (p. 127)

Silicon Valley minted this tactic early on. Going to back to Steve Jobs who was famous for using promo-tropes like "A computer is a bicycle for the mind" or it is "for every man," the Valley and all of the tech industry has become adept over the years in the utilization of this "appeal to common interest tactic."

Moving ahead a bit, it was Mark Zuckerberg and the social media promoters who employed this same tactic. Social media was in our "common interest" because it was going to connect everyone; give everyone a voice; and equalize society according totheir promo-rhetoric. We listened, and we have never never been less connected and more divided and polarized than ever. Yes, we have given voices to everyone as well, even those who spew misinformation and mal-information across the web  with social media megaphones. The result is that finding the truth is nearly impossible on these sites. Never mind whether the tech promoters in this instance really thought it is a good idea to give a megaphone to everyone. Now every bigot and conspiracy theorist has the chance to be of equal standing to those who spend their time and lives trying to ensure they get out reliable information. The information waters of the web are so muddied that it is near impossible to get at the truth, and, you can even live in a bubble where everything you read, view, and hear verifies your own narrow, biased views.

Then there's the smartphone. The techno-promoters worked hard on this one. It was in the common interest of everyone to adopt because it would provide instantaneous access to the web and its world of information, and it would allow us to be forever connected. With this device we can live in a 24-hour cycle of efficiency and productivity. Our jobs can go home with us. And, we have a computer in our pocket to access all the information of the web and also carry our narrow, biased worlds with us too. In addition, this device gives us the ability to "content create" and add to the web babble as well. And, don't forget, all these app companies can now follow us around too and track everything we do and then turn around and sell us "personalized ads" for stuff we don't even want. Sure, the smartphone could be a product that it is in the common interest for all to adopt, but more likely it is in the interest of the tech-promoters.

In both these examples, embedded in the technology-promo marketing rhetoric was an appeal to common interest or the common good. Nothing can be wrong with that, correct?

Now, the AI-Promoters are working overtime and bombarding us with rhetoric that has this vision of common interest embedded in it. "We're going to solve climate change; miraculously cure diseases; and end poverty with the advent of Artificial General Intelligence" they say. It is in our "common interest to adopt and quietly accept AI as a part of our lives.

The truth is, as Acemoglu and Johnson argue, technology adoption rarely works in the common interest and it serves only the interests of those who promote it. This common interest marketing tactic is a classic play in the Silicon Valley marketing playbook.

Asking the questions when AI-promo evangelists come calling such as, "Who is likely to benefit most by the adoption of this technology?" reveals a great deal. History provides an answer as well and it "ain't" necessarily who the AI-promo and cheerleaders say it will be. Just take a glance at the lifestyles of those who run these tech companies and it is clear who benefits most. It is clear that there is a buck to made from AI: just look at the army of promoters and cheerleaders. In the end, however, we are left at best with scraps, and at the worst with their "unintended consequences."

How Can a Country Choose to Neglect the Least Able? Thoughts on Current Political Situation

 

Photo by Author: Serenity at the Falls

Just a thought about our current state...

The question is certainly being asked, "How can any politician create and vote for a budget that knowingly cuts funding for programs that clearly serve the least-able among us? In addition, "How does one justify in one's own mind that millions of people lose medical coverage or food access at the same time providing tax relief for those who are least in need?"

It's rather simple, as Nobel Prize economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson write in "Power and Progress" (2023):

"...the socially powerful often convince themselves that it is their ideas (and often their interests) that matter and find ways of justifying neglecting the rest."

In other words, those in power have so convinced themselves that their ideas and interests matter over everything else. They then turn to ways of justifying the neglect of others in this pursuit.

This suggests that those lead totally lack any humility and have no problems even exploiting others as long as their interests are served and their ideas win the day. No discussion, no deliberation, it's only about mine.

So it is in modern America.

Should We Join the Race to Adopt New Technologies Such as AI?

Photo by Author: NC Mountain Laurel

Spent some time reading the book Power and Progress by Nobel Prize-winning economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson. In that book they basically point out that all the "promises of progress and prosperity" by technology entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley are not automatic. 

History shows that an automatic increase in prosperity by all after the introduction and adoption of a new technology does not always happen. Case in point: "the cotton gin." Perhaps it made a lot of Southern planters rich, but it seriously caused a degrading in the lives of those in slavery. 

Those constantly peddling new technological "machines" and solutions try to foreclose any questions about whether those are really beneficial to all by emphasizing what I call the "Silicon Valley Promise." At a basic level, this promise says we will all benefit from the latest innovation to come from these tech-entrepreneurs.

There are many books written in the service of indoctrinating people with the "Silicon Valley Promise." One such book by Erik Byrnjolfsson in 2013 entitled " The Second Machine Age" is typical of this genre generated by tech-cheerleaders of Silicon Valley. In this book, he  aptly captures a singular doctrine of the Silicon Valley Technology Cult when he writes: 

"What can we do to create shared prosperity? The answer is not to slow down technology. Instead of racing against the machine, we need to race with the machine. That is our grand challenge." 

In other words, whatever is invented by Silicon Valley and the Technology Cult, it will bring about prosperity and progress, so we might as well accept it, adopt it, and race along with it. Don't take time to even question whether it is needed or desired or really even beneficial. Let's just adopt it and make millions.

The problem is, what if that technology is racing toward a cliff? Not to be apocalyptic, but it doesn't have to be a world-ending cliff to be detrimental. It might simply be a cliff of unforeseen, negative consequences because we have been too busy "racing with the technology." 

Don't get me wrong, I am not a believer in the cult of a futuristic Artificial General Intelligence" that is somehow going to be our savior and lead us out of this mess technology created in the first place. I do not believe machines will ever be able to totally think and be like humans. But nonetheless, we have participated in this race to nowhere many times before.

This racing that Brynjolfsson speaks of is the best foundational marketing that any product could possibly have.  Short-circuit any all moral and social questions and criticism in the beginning. No matter what is invented is going to bring prosperity to all. Upon introduction of a new technology, the inventor is prosperous of course, but the marketers can jump aboard and make their money too. Then the consultants join in and become prosperous. The salespeople join in and become prosperous. There are those who even invent new careers based on this technology who become prosperous. 

Everyone who races along with the technology instead of fighting it become prosperous. Never mind those who are pre-empted from joining the race to begin with and who do not have the means to do so. But, there is no harm here, correct?