I’m looking forward to learning more about your book on trust. Before the Trump calamity came to dominate the Canadian election I thought that one of the main ballot questions should be “how will you restore and enhance societal trust?”
It is still an important question, perhaps even more important, as Canadians stand up and together in challenging times.
Resignation is a defence against the emotional suffering that healthy empathetic folks experience when surrounded by…well…the very culture we have created. And it is connected to trust in the sense that to be fully a part of our society is to be repeatedly confronted with trauma. We begin to lose our sense of fellow feeling, partly because the rate of technological innovation has outstripped the comparatively slow rate of processing and humanely harnessing technological outputs. My sense is that we’ve gotta get psychoanalytic in our understanding of our shared predicament if we want to find a way through. So yes, Dan, keep exploring this topic. And I’ll keep reading.
You touched obliquely on a couple of my concerns around AI. The output of LLM AI is non-deterministic and you can't trust it's true. And yet its use is pervasive and I expect more than few people just believe it. When in history has a new (untrustworthy?) technology been adopted by a billion people within 3 years of its launch? The intersection of trust, truth, technology, and politics is a fascinating space. As a technologist for over 40 years I'm looking forward to peeking behind the paywall!
This is heart/head-warming news. As with an old friend, trust lies at the very core of our relationship. You will say things that I disagree with, but I will never doubt your honesty & generosity of purpose. So, thank you for being there & for the humanity & inspiration you share with so many.
Lots to ponder in this post. I, for one, am glad you will continue to offer historical perspective on the oncoming totalitariansim to south. Glad too to see the title of your new book: “The Seven Rules of Trust”. Nice coincidence that Ignatieff has a post on trust today: https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelignatieff518703/p/on-trust?r=4ulbm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=post%20viewer Also, as a self-confessed luddite, constantly being dragged into using new technologies, I look forward to the new work on people > technology.
Please note that Substack makes it impossible to “manage subscription from the app”! Not technologically determined but apparently done deliberately for some reason I can’t fathom. So explain this fully in a free post that will help those of us who want to get past the paywall to do so.
First, as a long time fan and reply guy back when twitter was twitter, this is an exciting announcement!
On the point of technological determinism: I think you’re right that there’s difficulty understanding / seeing how this creeps into how we speak about tech. I’d add: while resisting isn’t futile, thinking of tech as an actant from actor-network-theory is helpful for seeing that tech does play a role. How big a role? Ours to decide, of course but we need awareness of the choice and necessity to choose. Looking forward to this new series.
Every communication.technology has had its morality.cops. Ban books because reading was evil. Then radio was going to rot our brains. Movies were downright sinfull in some religions. Television, the worst. My father's parents weren't alllowed to read anything but the bible; everything else was the work of the Devil. I'm not convinced that smart phones are bad for.kids. I'm using a smart phone right now and thank technology for it. I'd like to see some verifiable data on it beforw I jump to a conclusion. The only bad thing about radio and tv was advertising and it's far and away worse on the cell phone. We sold our brains for crappy TV, happily submitting to brainwashing to watch mostly garbage. Just ban.advertising from cell phones - which is easily doable - and your problem is probably largely solved.
I enjoyed your article and look forward to seeing the fruits of your work on AI and technology.
Like many readers I appreciate reading the thoughts of researchers who opine about the present and future impacts of AI and emerging technologies.
No matter how fanciful some ideas put forward may be I am left with the impression that we have underestimated how important this time in our evolution really is.
The very name of your substack with its progression from past, present and future suggests a continuum , however convoluted it may be,driven by mankind . There is a thread that can be drawn from the dawn of civilization to the present.
AI and its potential, in my opinion, will create a decoupling from that thread. AI will forge a future of its own and humans will be along for the ride to the extent that we are needed or relevant.
This doesn’t mean that I am pessimistic, it just means that we will have a very turbulent future ahead of us.
It's about time! Thank you for the important observation! I hope that the drop of the curtain behind the Wizard of OZ all Mighty Technology will allow us to reclaim humanity back. Looking forward for the new book
I enjoy reading your insights. But with an income of 30000/yr I can ill afford it. I don't have cable or streaming services. I thankyou for your generous insights. Please don't forget the little guy. thanks.
I hear you. I'm going to use paywalls as little as possible. And mostly for lesser stuff. Maybe I'll call it "bonus material." And of course if anyone ever emails to say I really want to read this but can't afford yet another bloody subscription (something I say regularly) I'll take care of that.
I enjoy reading your insights. But with an income of 30000/yr I can ill afford it. I don't have cable or streaming services. I thankyou for your generous insights. Please don't forget the little guy. thanks.
Congratulations on your new endeavour. You certainly have your work cut out for you. I look forward to reading more.
While I certainly use technology and love that it opens up a world to me now that I am not travelling much, I am also profoundly disturbed by the assumptions built into technological determinism and the loss of traditional skills that may be very necessary in a world of extreme climate change, where power is erratic. In terms of assumptions, digital determinism is built on the notion of human progress and unlimited natural resources.
While things do change constantly, change is often not linear and not always predictable. Since humans are by nature story tellers, we may see connections that are spurious, biased or which are not helpful at regulating behavior. We have built this tendency for prediction into our computers, even when we know the assumptions are wrong because it is simpler.
But human interpretation and emotion are ultimately personal, occurring in our own brains, and those interpretations and emotions make human and world interactions far more complex and nuanced. We are storytellers by nature, but the story changes with each telling and with each raconteur Yuvall Harari argues that it is story telling that makes us human...and I think he may be right. I might go farther and say that as we lose touch with manipulating and interacting with the physical world, we lose a bit of our diversity ( as well as knowledge).
This knowledge and ability to manipulate the physical world ( apart from joysticks and keyboards) has kept humans alive for thousands of years. It is easier to do a search on line than to try to figure things out by trial and error or just taking the time to puzzle it through. Our digital society is so complex and interconnected, it would not take much to unravel. I mentioned climate change which can undermine power generation, or the availability of the raw materials necessary for the digital devices. But war, natural disasters, loss of trust, sabotage and corruption can also rip holes in our digital world.
Secretary General Guterres stated that Covid 19 was like an ex-ray that exposed the fractures in global societies and just how fragile and unequal the world is. Five years later, we still act as if technology and modern society is invincible. But how many of us living in the global North could survive without electricity or our digital tools? Do we have the life skills of those who lived through WWI and WWII?
My granddaughter was not taught to write in school because the assumption was she would be using a keyboard ( and her typing beats mine hands down). When she live with me, she bristled at being told she had to read a real book for an hour each day if she wanted to spend time on TikTok. It nearly drove her crazy when golly gee the power went out for five hours . I don't think my granddaughter is any different from most adults who have grown up in a digital world.
So I wholeheartedly approve the Australian approach...But wonder if perhaps the world might be better off if all digital services were off line for a few hours every day. The adults might have to take a walk, take a nap or indulge in a new hobby. If you are old enough, you will remember when TV channels went off the air for a few hours every night. Making it a bit harder to access digital services online might make us all appreciate the miracle instead of taking them for granted. But it might also give us experiences and patience to survive when we do lose power or something undermines our modern life.
… Through the 20-teens. The ubiquitous Internet age is really little more than 20 years old and we’re still in an unregulated Wild West stage. I very much look forward to reading your lessons from history, Dan.
Welcome to the Technology Policy debate! What you have just outlined is sometimes called the "nerd harder" argument. This is very commonly seen in the perennial backdoor encryption proposals, where nontechnical people want a backdoor to encrypted files which only works for law enforcement, but not criminals. When technical people tell them this is impossible, they reply something like "You're smart folks, you can figure it out".
Years ago, I was particularly involved in this identity matter. Can I ask you why the following considerations don't affect your thinking? There is a fundamental conflict between identity and privacy. What you have outlined is a system which requires a WORLDWIDE consideration of identity. People absolutely cannot be allowed privacy, because all sites must be able to determine if they are allowed to have the requested material, under penalty of law. Now, this is a short comment, not a position paper, so I won't outline everything in detail. But I found it very frustrating that this just "bounces off" as I put it. "You're smart folks, you can figure it out".
I’m looking forward to learning more about your book on trust. Before the Trump calamity came to dominate the Canadian election I thought that one of the main ballot questions should be “how will you restore and enhance societal trust?”
It is still an important question, perhaps even more important, as Canadians stand up and together in challenging times.
Resignation is a defence against the emotional suffering that healthy empathetic folks experience when surrounded by…well…the very culture we have created. And it is connected to trust in the sense that to be fully a part of our society is to be repeatedly confronted with trauma. We begin to lose our sense of fellow feeling, partly because the rate of technological innovation has outstripped the comparatively slow rate of processing and humanely harnessing technological outputs. My sense is that we’ve gotta get psychoanalytic in our understanding of our shared predicament if we want to find a way through. So yes, Dan, keep exploring this topic. And I’ll keep reading.
You touched obliquely on a couple of my concerns around AI. The output of LLM AI is non-deterministic and you can't trust it's true. And yet its use is pervasive and I expect more than few people just believe it. When in history has a new (untrustworthy?) technology been adopted by a billion people within 3 years of its launch? The intersection of trust, truth, technology, and politics is a fascinating space. As a technologist for over 40 years I'm looking forward to peeking behind the paywall!
This is heart/head-warming news. As with an old friend, trust lies at the very core of our relationship. You will say things that I disagree with, but I will never doubt your honesty & generosity of purpose. So, thank you for being there & for the humanity & inspiration you share with so many.
Lots to ponder in this post. I, for one, am glad you will continue to offer historical perspective on the oncoming totalitariansim to south. Glad too to see the title of your new book: “The Seven Rules of Trust”. Nice coincidence that Ignatieff has a post on trust today: https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelignatieff518703/p/on-trust?r=4ulbm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=post%20viewer Also, as a self-confessed luddite, constantly being dragged into using new technologies, I look forward to the new work on people > technology.
Please note that Substack makes it impossible to “manage subscription from the app”! Not technologically determined but apparently done deliberately for some reason I can’t fathom. So explain this fully in a free post that will help those of us who want to get past the paywall to do so.
You can do it on mobile web! And it’s not available in-app because Apple would charge a fee (if you’re on iOS)
First, as a long time fan and reply guy back when twitter was twitter, this is an exciting announcement!
On the point of technological determinism: I think you’re right that there’s difficulty understanding / seeing how this creeps into how we speak about tech. I’d add: while resisting isn’t futile, thinking of tech as an actant from actor-network-theory is helpful for seeing that tech does play a role. How big a role? Ours to decide, of course but we need awareness of the choice and necessity to choose. Looking forward to this new series.
Every communication.technology has had its morality.cops. Ban books because reading was evil. Then radio was going to rot our brains. Movies were downright sinfull in some religions. Television, the worst. My father's parents weren't alllowed to read anything but the bible; everything else was the work of the Devil. I'm not convinced that smart phones are bad for.kids. I'm using a smart phone right now and thank technology for it. I'd like to see some verifiable data on it beforw I jump to a conclusion. The only bad thing about radio and tv was advertising and it's far and away worse on the cell phone. We sold our brains for crappy TV, happily submitting to brainwashing to watch mostly garbage. Just ban.advertising from cell phones - which is easily doable - and your problem is probably largely solved.
I enjoyed your article and look forward to seeing the fruits of your work on AI and technology.
Like many readers I appreciate reading the thoughts of researchers who opine about the present and future impacts of AI and emerging technologies.
No matter how fanciful some ideas put forward may be I am left with the impression that we have underestimated how important this time in our evolution really is.
The very name of your substack with its progression from past, present and future suggests a continuum , however convoluted it may be,driven by mankind . There is a thread that can be drawn from the dawn of civilization to the present.
AI and its potential, in my opinion, will create a decoupling from that thread. AI will forge a future of its own and humans will be along for the ride to the extent that we are needed or relevant.
This doesn’t mean that I am pessimistic, it just means that we will have a very turbulent future ahead of us.
It's about time! Thank you for the important observation! I hope that the drop of the curtain behind the Wizard of OZ all Mighty Technology will allow us to reclaim humanity back. Looking forward for the new book
I enjoy reading your insights. But with an income of 30000/yr I can ill afford it. I don't have cable or streaming services. I thankyou for your generous insights. Please don't forget the little guy. thanks.
I hear you. I'm going to use paywalls as little as possible. And mostly for lesser stuff. Maybe I'll call it "bonus material." And of course if anyone ever emails to say I really want to read this but can't afford yet another bloody subscription (something I say regularly) I'll take care of that.
I enjoy reading your insights. But with an income of 30000/yr I can ill afford it. I don't have cable or streaming services. I thankyou for your generous insights. Please don't forget the little guy. thanks.
Congratulations on your new endeavour. You certainly have your work cut out for you. I look forward to reading more.
While I certainly use technology and love that it opens up a world to me now that I am not travelling much, I am also profoundly disturbed by the assumptions built into technological determinism and the loss of traditional skills that may be very necessary in a world of extreme climate change, where power is erratic. In terms of assumptions, digital determinism is built on the notion of human progress and unlimited natural resources.
While things do change constantly, change is often not linear and not always predictable. Since humans are by nature story tellers, we may see connections that are spurious, biased or which are not helpful at regulating behavior. We have built this tendency for prediction into our computers, even when we know the assumptions are wrong because it is simpler.
But human interpretation and emotion are ultimately personal, occurring in our own brains, and those interpretations and emotions make human and world interactions far more complex and nuanced. We are storytellers by nature, but the story changes with each telling and with each raconteur Yuvall Harari argues that it is story telling that makes us human...and I think he may be right. I might go farther and say that as we lose touch with manipulating and interacting with the physical world, we lose a bit of our diversity ( as well as knowledge).
This knowledge and ability to manipulate the physical world ( apart from joysticks and keyboards) has kept humans alive for thousands of years. It is easier to do a search on line than to try to figure things out by trial and error or just taking the time to puzzle it through. Our digital society is so complex and interconnected, it would not take much to unravel. I mentioned climate change which can undermine power generation, or the availability of the raw materials necessary for the digital devices. But war, natural disasters, loss of trust, sabotage and corruption can also rip holes in our digital world.
Secretary General Guterres stated that Covid 19 was like an ex-ray that exposed the fractures in global societies and just how fragile and unequal the world is. Five years later, we still act as if technology and modern society is invincible. But how many of us living in the global North could survive without electricity or our digital tools? Do we have the life skills of those who lived through WWI and WWII?
My granddaughter was not taught to write in school because the assumption was she would be using a keyboard ( and her typing beats mine hands down). When she live with me, she bristled at being told she had to read a real book for an hour each day if she wanted to spend time on TikTok. It nearly drove her crazy when golly gee the power went out for five hours . I don't think my granddaughter is any different from most adults who have grown up in a digital world.
So I wholeheartedly approve the Australian approach...But wonder if perhaps the world might be better off if all digital services were off line for a few hours every day. The adults might have to take a walk, take a nap or indulge in a new hobby. If you are old enough, you will remember when TV channels went off the air for a few hours every night. Making it a bit harder to access digital services online might make us all appreciate the miracle instead of taking them for granted. But it might also give us experiences and patience to survive when we do lose power or something undermines our modern life.
Historical perspective is so welcome. My own (short) perspective is filing news stories from afield and abroad from the 1980s through the
… Through the 20-teens. The ubiquitous Internet age is really little more than 20 years old and we’re still in an unregulated Wild West stage. I very much look forward to reading your lessons from history, Dan.
Welcome to the Technology Policy debate! What you have just outlined is sometimes called the "nerd harder" argument. This is very commonly seen in the perennial backdoor encryption proposals, where nontechnical people want a backdoor to encrypted files which only works for law enforcement, but not criminals. When technical people tell them this is impossible, they reply something like "You're smart folks, you can figure it out".
Years ago, I was particularly involved in this identity matter. Can I ask you why the following considerations don't affect your thinking? There is a fundamental conflict between identity and privacy. What you have outlined is a system which requires a WORLDWIDE consideration of identity. People absolutely cannot be allowed privacy, because all sites must be able to determine if they are allowed to have the requested material, under penalty of law. Now, this is a short comment, not a position paper, so I won't outline everything in detail. But I found it very frustrating that this just "bounces off" as I put it. "You're smart folks, you can figure it out".