EdTech Consultants and Some Educators Suffer from the Borg Complex: They See Resistance to All Technologies as Futile

I think I have found an effective diagnosis of the condition currently suffered by EdTech consultants and evangelists who can't help slobbering over AI: it is called the "Borg Complex."

The Borg Complex is described in an article entitled "Borg Complex: A Primer" in 2013 by L.M. Sacasas.

These EdTech AI boosters suffer from Borg Complex because they "explicitly assert or implicitly assume that resistance to technology is futile. The Borg is a cybernetic alien race in the Star Trek Universe that tells their victims that they will assimilate them biologically and technologically into their own and that "Resistance Is Futile."

Our EdTech consultants and boosters tell us educators that we might as well adopt AI because its here. In other words, "Resistance is futile." 

They might also exhibit some of the other symptoms as well:

For example, in this article, 

Symptom 1: "Makes grandiose, but unsupported claims for technology." How often have we heard that "AI is a gamechanger" or that it is "revolutionizing education" with absolutely NO support? 

Symptom 3: "Pays lip service to, but ultimately dismisses genuine concerns." This is repeatedly done when they are presented with new research that points to cognitive outsourcing issues, or when the environmental costs of all these AI server farms are mentioned.

Symptom 4: "Equates resistance or caution to reactionary nostalgia." If you resist AI, you are simply clinging to old inefficient, unproductive ways.

And Symptom 8: "Refers to historical antecedents to solely dismiss present concerns." How many times have I heard an AI booster nostalgically call resistance to AI like the resistance to calculators when introduced.

Borg Complex Rhetoric is designed to short-circuit any critical thought and critical examination of AI. 

Sometimes All That Technology We Buy Fails and We Need to Admit It

I am not sure EdTech has ever found a technology they did not like or they labeled a failure.

EdTech gurus often say that when a technology initiative or technology program fails, it’s always due to either:

1-Lack of proper training

2-Lack of fidelity of implementation.

Very rarely will you hear, “Well, that technology use was a flop!” It is never the technology that was the problem.

Gun advocates say similar. Its the people who use technology, not the technology. (Notice you can change the word technology to guns here.)

It’s not visionary to hang on to what isn’t working just because it “looks like you’re innovative.” Or, because technology justifies your existence or job or your consulting position.

Cell phones and screens as well as tech are disruptive all right.

Their engineering for addiction works all too well. They demand the students’ focus and attention because that’s what Big Tech wants, their eyeballs glued to devices.

No Technology Is Inevitable and to Make That Claim Is to Limit Possibilities

“Educators might as well accept AI because it is here to stay” so goes one of the pet EdTech and AI evangelist arguments. That is not necessarily true, but let’s look at it more closely.

This statement actually can’t be proven right because no one can see the future. Tech comes and goes so to say it is here to stay is a prediction, not a fact.

In addition, this statement assumes that educators should accept AI in whatever form being offered. Again not necessarily true. It is possible to demand that AI be safe and that it be subject to regulations that shape it in ways that is less destructive than it is.

There is also always the consumer choice not to be a user. I do not have to have a subscription or AI account.

The problem with this statement is that is authoritarian and totalitarian by nature. It tries to remove choice, and that is a way for Silicon Valley to dictate that their products are accepted.

It is this: “If you limit and direct what people can imagine, you set the parameters of possibility.”

Don't Believe the Silicon Valley Marketing Tactic: AI Is Not Inevitable

Silicon Valley Tech companies have taken advantage of clever marketing, favorable public opinion, and shiny-magic gadgets to ensnare us with tech designed to be addictive, invasively surveilliant, and exploitative.

It is acceptable to question the reality that these techno-oligarchs and digital capitalists claim to be making and see that they aren’t actually making our world better. They only make themselves richer, which is evident from the homes they buy, the cars they drive, and even the clothes they wear. They are prospering at the expense of all their users.

Here’s just some of the examples of their past promises and what they’ve done instead.

The web was to bring glorious access to content that was free, current, and reliable. Instead, we have a internet garbage dump and sewer of nonsense. Search and you don’t know what excrement you will get next, and the stench only increases.

Next, social media was supposed to bring us closer together and connect the globe. Instead, we have never been more polarized and divided. Facebook and Twitter have proven to be misinformation machines and BS spreaders. Even Linked-In is a BS-marketing platform where if you can package it and sell it to get clicks, you become an “influencer.” Tik-Tok, YouTube, all are platforms that allow you spread excrement and get paid for it.

Then there was cell phones which were supposed to provide us constant access to all of this—the web, social media, etc. We could always be connected. Instead, it offers always-on-demand addiction and isolation. It even makes us less social…just watch a family sitting in a restaurant, all engaged with screens instead of each other. There’s connection, but it is to what these tech companies want us connected to so they can sell ads and make money from our addictions and data.

Now it is AI. It is here and it has its promises of taking away all the dirty, distasteful work we don’t like doing. It is going to solve all our problems. It promises to make us even more “efficent and free.” What will its “instead” be? Even today there are hints.

Instead of fulfilling its promises, AI will bring us a more polluted world because of its increased demands for power needed for their server farms. Coal plants that were going to be decommissioned are being kept online, furthering polluting the environment. There is even talk of restarting the use of a nuclear plant on the East Coast that almost made a big swath of Pennsylvania into the American version of Chernobyl. 

In addition, instead of fulfilling its promises, AI is causing tech companies to consume even more scarce fresh water resources to cool their massive server farms  in many areas of the country at a time it is becoming harder and harder to provide safe drinking water to populations. 

Finally, instead of fulfiling its promises, AI is adding more garbage and sewage to the Internet garbage dump with its growing pile of AI slop. The web will become more and more a place of misinformation and nonsense. One can only imagine what the web will be in 15 or 20 years!

As these AI companies and those that keep peddling their products as a replacement for human workers, we seem to be getting closer to the utopia of machines that Kurt Vonnegut describes in his novel Player Piano where people who have no purpose in life live in cities with no future and no hope.

Here’s the lesson: NOTHING BIG TECH INVENTS WAS AND IS INEVITABLE. Our purpose in life is not to use their products or adapt our lives to use their products. We can, with leadership and vision, demand they create products that serve our ends and not just theirs.

Educators who are scrambling to “adapt to AI” because they’ve been sold on its inevitability are misguided. There is no evidence that it has to be inevitable in its current form or any form. Choices can be made, and we do not have to surrender to make these products successful.

EdTech AI Promoters Need a New Argument...They Sound Like a Tired Over-Aired Commercial

 LinkedIn AI promoters need new promo tactics.

The tired, worn-out statement used by AI cheerleaders:

AI isn’t going to replace _____ (insert whatever job title the person is peddling AI to, i.e., teacher, programmer, or school leader); it will replace _____ (insert same from above) who do not use AI.

One would wish that AI cheerleaders would at least come up with some original arguments, instead of using old, tired, and unproven statements like this.

If you want to convince someone of the necessary utility of your pet product at least try to make some new, supported, valid arguments.

AI cheerleaders’ posts on here is like seeing that same, boring commercial that runs every commercial break while watching the news. And, I would add it is about as convincing. One can only impatiently wait until the tired commercial is over.

Perhaps Its Time for a "Screenless" Charter School Focused on Teaching How to Be Human

Perhaps it is time to establish a “screenless” charter school in NC. It could have as its central mission to educate without using EdTech as a crutch for learning and technology as a means of controlling teachers, students and the learning.

The school could make a commitment to teaching students to be critical, independent and responsible citizens not proper consumers of the latest product on offer from Silicon Valley and Big Tech.

The school could still utilize technology, but that technology would be in control of the teachers and parents not Ed Leaders and EdTech consultants.

The goal of this screenless charter school would be to create a space where teachers connect with students and their parents without the constant mediation of impersonal devices whose goals are to addict and capture attention. A place for people not machines.

Students would learn the foundations that would make them critical consumers instead of EdTech fad chasers.

Do I Really Care If My Dishwasher Is Silcon Valley Smart?

 

Photo by Author: Implements of Progress

“Smart technologies” are all around us. Walk into an electronic store, and there are gadgets everywhere, from light switches to TVs that proudly wear the label “smart.” But do we really need “smart” devices? Does my overhead light turning on by itself really provide any value? Am I just so lazy and obsessed with efficiency that flipping a light switch won't do? Tech companies to car companies hope you fall for smartness. They have worked overtime to make sure “smart” label is something that sells. In the end, who's the sucker and has really earned the label "dumb"?

What does “smart” mean? I think the simplest definition of this term is offered by Jathan Sadowski in his book Too Smart: How Digital Capitalism Is Extracting Data, Controlling Our Lives, and Taking Over the World. He writes:

...’smart’ means a thing is embedded with digital technology for data collection, network connectivity, and enhanced control.”

The question is, Do I really care whether my TV collects data, is connected to network, and provides enhanced control? Perhaps I do for some of these, I like being able to stream to my TV, because it is much easier way of getting programming than by antenna or cable, so network connectivity I care about. The other two, well, not so much.

I really do not want my devices collecting data about me and my usage. Someone out there knowing which shows I watch is not something I value at all. I don’t even like the recommendations that pop up in Netflix and would prefer the old fashioned way of reading descriptions and then deciding what I want to watch. And, the “control?” Whose control I would ask? If means I have more control, I thought I was already in control. If it means someone else's, that's creepy.

I once purchased a dishwasher that self-declared to be “smart.” Admittedly, hearing that it had that feature seemed to be an added plus at first. Then, I realized, I bought a dishwasher to wash the dishes, not to send back my usage data to some company in the cloud so that they can profit from it. I disabled the smartness, and the dishwasher continues to do what I bought it for in the first place: wash the dishes.

"Smartness" has been peddled by companies as innovative and must-have. When Big Tech throws around its “innovative” products and ideas, we would do well to ask: “For whom is this product really innovative?” “Who is really gaining the most from this “smartness” thing?

Chances are, the answers to those questions are not "me" or at least entirely me. The whole industry of Big Tech kind of reminds me of Leroy, the used car salesman. He’d tell you that the car could fly if it means you would buy it. Silicon Valley Tech Companies have earned that same label, slimy salesmanship.