7 ms·

Because using technology to solve social problems leads to restraining people's personal freedom, choices, and expression in a much more direct manner than othe

Because using technology to solve social problems leads to restraining people's personal freedom, choices, and expression in a much more direct manner than other domains of problem solving. Furthermore, this restraint tends to impact people unevenly. As ineffective as the government may or may not be, at least the goal is for all people to be considered equal in the eyes of the law. With technology the power lives with those who own and create the technology, who have even less oversight and accountability than those who make the laws.

maratc 4y ago
The inequality issue exists as well with Covid vaccines and with weapons — other applications of technology, so societal problems are not standing alone there. The unequal access to nuclear weapons is... a good thing I guess? What still needs to be explained is why throwing technology at power generation problems, economic problems, healthcare problems, or warfare problems is seemingly ok regardless of inequality, but social problems are a no-go zone.
- ddingus 4y ago
  It is about technology alignment, and the nature of people. Right now, our tech is not capable of understanding meaning a mere child does easily. This makes it very poorly aligned with the problem domain in that applying it will create at least as many and probably more problems than it will solve. Other problem domains have seen better tech alignment and have also seen greater success, though one could argue we also poorly understand the new problems created in some cases. (Global warming makes burning fuels a much worse deal than initially believed) The side effects inherent with such blunt instruments as appear to be required to apply tech to social, human problems warrant consideration well beyond, "just because we can." In the future, when our tech is much better, perhaps it can address human, social problems with far fewer costs to those subjected to the solutions. Just how much control over your life and expression do you feel is necessary? Right now it is well beyond anything I feel good about and it has just gotten started!
  - maratc 4y ago
    This thread has started with a problem of cheating in online games (like head-aiming bots in first-person shooters) and (non-free) anti-cheating software as a solution to that (not ideal, but closing that gap somewhat). GGP pointed out it's "a social problem" and suggested we shouldn't attack it with technology (anti-cheating software). I still stand unconvinced with regards to that. Otherwise, I had been denied boarding in the Covid era because the software had had a bug, so I tend to generally agree with your sentiment that the technology has too much control over my life already.
    - ddingus 4y ago
      Well let's break it down I am the ggp. I think this is a good conversation personally. Now, are you unconvinced that the act of cheating itself is a social problem? I did use course terminology, it could be a moral failing as well. I lump a lot of those under social. And that's to my detriment obviously. But let's sort that out. And then there's the part I'm convinced that I understand you on, and that is I believe our current state of technology is not a good fit for social problems, and you believe that it is. Or maybe more accurately, the solutions work and you're happy with that I'm concerned about costs and risks associated with said solutions. I think once we understand one another there let's have a short chat.
      - maratc 4y ago
        I don't disagree with your classification of cheating. I don't believe that technology is necessarily always a good fit for social problems. What I take issue with is a blunt dismissal of technology as a practical solution for social problems. Sometimes it's a good fit, sometimes it's a bad fit, sometimes it's the only solution we've got and the other solutions are either imaginary or worse ones.
        ddingus 4y ago
        Fair. I was coarse. Reading through, I was able to see it Life, people, come with a bazillion, edge, corner, intersection cases, right? I am moved by the likes of Lessig, RMS, others in that we are super complex! And computer tech right now is missing a couple big things! Meaning and reasoning basically. Context is hard. In the "we just want to play on a fair field" context, of course! I get it. Tech can help with cheaters for sure, though I do think it is a temporary help at best. The really brilliant people with resolve get through and may well be as great of a gamer as they are cheater. The challenge, "real game" is what really gets them going. One could say the same of a cartel leader, thief, and others who play this game of life in that way. And we struggle with tech and law constantly! There are parallels. Poor law causes a lot of grief, wasted time, people enduring punishment that should not, and we have a process for that. And it is a shitty process! I would feel a lot better with a similar dynamic applied where we do reach for tech tools. Another parallel: mandatory sentencing. We put people, many of whom are elected, others selected, who we believe worthy of judgement (And I know how debatable that all is, just roll with it for sake of discussion please!), into a position of real power, and we accept that because our lives are generally better for having done it. Mandatory Sentencing is a mess. Now we basically take this complex human capable of judgement and boil it down to a more rule based thing not so unlike what computers would do. I am not sure that ever made sense. Whether it does is an interesting discussion, but what I really want to say here is more about where tech falls short and put some meat behind "social", as I should have done. We are perhaps not so far apart on this. Seems my lazy comment got me a robust discussion I find far more worthy than the comment was! Nice when that happens. Circling back then, if I am to say anything, it is process which bothers me the most. When we are really impacting people, ruining lives or changing them seriously, or improving them frankly, there are no do overs. Our time here is our time and taking that very, very seriously seems like it should matter a whole lot more than it often does with tech and social / society. We are trending toward more bad fits than good in my view. RMS, character that he is, absolutely does take it hard to an extreme. He should not have ruling power, but we need that voice, just as we need ours. In that context, your push back was solid and for me useful and productive! I am better for having worked at this a bit. And these matters are important. Increasingly so. I hope my attempt to clarify and back away from the worst of my thoughts here is similar for you. We both are likely to come away from this tuned up a bit and better at the topic at the very least. (True for me) Cheers and game on!

maratc 4y ago

The inequality issue exists as well with Covid vaccines and with weapons — other applications of technology, so societal problems are not standing alone there. The unequal access to nuclear weapons is... a good thing I guess? What still needs to be explained is why throwing technology at power generation problems, economic problems, healthcare problems, or warfare problems is seemingly ok regardless of inequality, but social problems are a no-go zone.

ddingus 4y ago
It is about technology alignment, and the nature of people. Right now, our tech is not capable of understanding meaning a mere child does easily. This makes it very poorly aligned with the problem domain in that applying it will create at least as many and probably more problems than it will solve. Other problem domains have seen better tech alignment and have also seen greater success, though one could argue we also poorly understand the new problems created in some cases. (Global warming makes burning fuels a much worse deal than initially believed) The side effects inherent with such blunt instruments as appear to be required to apply tech to social, human problems warrant consideration well beyond, "just because we can." In the future, when our tech is much better, perhaps it can address human, social problems with far fewer costs to those subjected to the solutions. Just how much control over your life and expression do you feel is necessary? Right now it is well beyond anything I feel good about and it has just gotten started!
- maratc 4y ago
  This thread has started with a problem of cheating in online games (like head-aiming bots in first-person shooters) and (non-free) anti-cheating software as a solution to that (not ideal, but closing that gap somewhat). GGP pointed out it's "a social problem" and suggested we shouldn't attack it with technology (anti-cheating software). I still stand unconvinced with regards to that. Otherwise, I had been denied boarding in the Covid era because the software had had a bug, so I tend to generally agree with your sentiment that the technology has too much control over my life already.
  - ddingus 4y ago
    Well let's break it down I am the ggp. I think this is a good conversation personally. Now, are you unconvinced that the act of cheating itself is a social problem? I did use course terminology, it could be a moral failing as well. I lump a lot of those under social. And that's to my detriment obviously. But let's sort that out. And then there's the part I'm convinced that I understand you on, and that is I believe our current state of technology is not a good fit for social problems, and you believe that it is. Or maybe more accurately, the solutions work and you're happy with that I'm concerned about costs and risks associated with said solutions. I think once we understand one another there let's have a short chat.
    - maratc 4y ago
      I don't disagree with your classification of cheating. I don't believe that technology is necessarily always a good fit for social problems. What I take issue with is a blunt dismissal of technology as a practical solution for social problems. Sometimes it's a good fit, sometimes it's a bad fit, sometimes it's the only solution we've got and the other solutions are either imaginary or worse ones.
      - ddingus 4y ago
        Fair. I was coarse. Reading through, I was able to see it Life, people, come with a bazillion, edge, corner, intersection cases, right? I am moved by the likes of Lessig, RMS, others in that we are super complex! And computer tech right now is missing a couple big things! Meaning and reasoning basically. Context is hard. In the "we just want to play on a fair field" context, of course! I get it. Tech can help with cheaters for sure, though I do think it is a temporary help at best. The really brilliant people with resolve get through and may well be as great of a gamer as they are cheater. The challenge, "real game" is what really gets them going. One could say the same of a cartel leader, thief, and others who play this game of life in that way. And we struggle with tech and law constantly! There are parallels. Poor law causes a lot of grief, wasted time, people enduring punishment that should not, and we have a process for that. And it is a shitty process! I would feel a lot better with a similar dynamic applied where we do reach for tech tools. Another parallel: mandatory sentencing. We put people, many of whom are elected, others selected, who we believe worthy of judgement (And I know how debatable that all is, just roll with it for sake of discussion please!), into a position of real power, and we accept that because our lives are generally better for having done it. Mandatory Sentencing is a mess. Now we basically take this complex human capable of judgement and boil it down to a more rule based thing not so unlike what computers would do. I am not sure that ever made sense. Whether it does is an interesting discussion, but what I really want to say here is more about where tech falls short and put some meat behind "social", as I should have done. We are perhaps not so far apart on this. Seems my lazy comment got me a robust discussion I find far more worthy than the comment was! Nice when that happens. Circling back then, if I am to say anything, it is process which bothers me the most. When we are really impacting people, ruining lives or changing them seriously, or improving them frankly, there are no do overs. Our time here is our time and taking that very, very seriously seems like it should matter a whole lot more than it often does with tech and social / society. We are trending toward more bad fits than good in my view. RMS, character that he is, absolutely does take it hard to an extreme. He should not have ruling power, but we need that voice, just as we need ours. In that context, your push back was solid and for me useful and productive! I am better for having worked at this a bit. And these matters are important. Increasingly so. I hope my attempt to clarify and back away from the worst of my thoughts here is similar for you. We both are likely to come away from this tuned up a bit and better at the topic at the very least. (True for me) Cheers and game on!