3 ms·

In the middle comes the refrain "But instead, the computers are controlling us". Does anyone here have a good understanding of that belief? I wonder whether it

In the middle comes the refrain "But instead, the computers are controlling us". Does anyone here have a good understanding of that belief? I wonder whether it's universal, or correlates with being a non-programmer, or with growing up without computers, or with bad experiences due to poorly-designed user interfaces. I've haven't talked with enough people who share that feeling to figure it out. Most times I see it stated as fact, but this article does attempt to justify it, though the explanations were unsatisfying. Perhaps the lawyer doesn't view bagging groceries as losing control and taking on extra work: it may be an improvement over passively waiting in line, which is its own kind of work. She could then say that the technology is letting her take control of checkout, instead of waiting for a cashier, which was the bottleneck that customers previously couldn't avoid no matter how much shadow work they were willing to do.

Natsu 15y ago
Computers don't control us, no, we control them. But for someone like a factory worker or call center rep, the computers might as well control them, because the humans in charge will gladly manage based on automatically-measured performance numbers without knowing or caring about what's actually happening. The computers can track, measure and grade everything they do. For example, when I go to Target, I can't help but notice that their checkout screens have a pass/fail system grading whether the checker has processed the person quickly enough. In other places, computers may even make decisions on who to fire based on the rules fed to it. For example, the computer's report might say that employee #12345 has high average call lengths. They don't care if it's because that phone rep was unusually helpful. The computers enable them to enforce their policies to the letter. Even if the rules present no win situations at times, they'll just fire the guy for breaking the rules and hire someone new. So like I said, the computers are never going to control us. We'd hack the damn things if necessary to do things right. But for the people at the bottom of the food chain, a computer might already be their boss.
- mmahemoff 15y ago
  This is true for the way some companies handle recruitment too. CV screening software.
- wladimir 15y ago
  Good point. Many low-level jobs are already driven by tight bureaucratic rules enforced by based computer statistics and ubiquitous surveillance. Computers empowered the bureaucracy to such a point that it (figuratively spoken) took a life of its own. So like I said, the computers are never going to control us I don't buy that "never". It's not that black and white. Computers are making high-level decisions already, for example, what about automated trading algorithms? (especially those based on AI). What if the shareholders that control public companies are, at least, heavily motivated in their decisions by computers? Then it will be the computer allocating capital, and what choices do humans have? We just follow the way that our computer algorithms point to the profit. Sure, strictly spoken there will still be humans in control. But in the worst case they will have at most a ceremonial function, to explain in human terms what the numbers say. If they decide to not follow the computer's "advice" they take a great risk. That's one of the reasons many people feel that we live in a "machine state" (an automated bureaucracy with humans trained as mere robots) these days, or that is going to happen...
  - Natsu 15y ago
    > I don't buy that "never". It's not that black and white. We, the hackers, would (by definition) simply hack any computer trying to control us. Granted, it's not quite so black and white as that, but I think that the HN crowd would be able to do something if their workplace tried some of the computer monitoring crap that is currently foisted upon those at the bottom of the food chain. That said, I wonder if middle management types won't start to vanish a bit more. I mean, they already let the computer make almost all of their decisions for them. At some point, they have pretty questionable utility. Sure, maybe they want a babysitter or two, but they hardly need a full management crew if the computer does all the work.
- ashearer 15y ago
  That's certainly a good point. But I get the impression that people who feel that way aren't just talking about their employee performance reviews. We had impersonal, narrowly-defined performance metrics for low-level workers long before computers (see any assembly line, or the increasing speed of the meat packing lines in The Jungle). That the metrics now tend to be tabulated by computer may have extended the practice to more fields, but doesn't seem like a fundamental shift.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    You're right that people have other things in mind, generally. But I think things like this, where their boss is all but absent and the computer grades them make such a future feel more real.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

Natsu 15y ago

Computers don't control us, no, we control them. But for someone like a factory worker or call center rep, the computers might as well control them, because the humans in charge will gladly manage based on automatically-measured performance numbers without knowing or caring about what's actually happening. The computers can track, measure and grade everything they do. For example, when I go to Target, I can't help but notice that their checkout screens have a pass/fail system grading whether the checker has processed the person quickly enough. In other places, computers may even make decisions on who to fire based on the rules fed to it. For example, the computer's report might say that employee #12345 has high average call lengths. They don't care if it's because that phone rep was unusually helpful. The computers enable them to enforce their policies to the letter. Even if the rules present no win situations at times, they'll just fire the guy for breaking the rules and hire someone new. So like I said, the computers are never going to control us. We'd hack the damn things if necessary to do things right. But for the people at the bottom of the food chain, a computer might already be their boss.

mmahemoff 15y ago
This is true for the way some companies handle recruitment too. CV screening software.
wladimir 15y ago
Good point. Many low-level jobs are already driven by tight bureaucratic rules enforced by based computer statistics and ubiquitous surveillance. Computers empowered the bureaucracy to such a point that it (figuratively spoken) took a life of its own. So like I said, the computers are never going to control us I don't buy that "never". It's not that black and white. Computers are making high-level decisions already, for example, what about automated trading algorithms? (especially those based on AI). What if the shareholders that control public companies are, at least, heavily motivated in their decisions by computers? Then it will be the computer allocating capital, and what choices do humans have? We just follow the way that our computer algorithms point to the profit. Sure, strictly spoken there will still be humans in control. But in the worst case they will have at most a ceremonial function, to explain in human terms what the numbers say. If they decide to not follow the computer's "advice" they take a great risk. That's one of the reasons many people feel that we live in a "machine state" (an automated bureaucracy with humans trained as mere robots) these days, or that is going to happen...
- Natsu 15y ago
  > I don't buy that "never". It's not that black and white. We, the hackers, would (by definition) simply hack any computer trying to control us. Granted, it's not quite so black and white as that, but I think that the HN crowd would be able to do something if their workplace tried some of the computer monitoring crap that is currently foisted upon those at the bottom of the food chain. That said, I wonder if middle management types won't start to vanish a bit more. I mean, they already let the computer make almost all of their decisions for them. At some point, they have pretty questionable utility. Sure, maybe they want a babysitter or two, but they hardly need a full management crew if the computer does all the work.
ashearer 15y ago
That's certainly a good point. But I get the impression that people who feel that way aren't just talking about their employee performance reviews. We had impersonal, narrowly-defined performance metrics for low-level workers long before computers (see any assembly line, or the increasing speed of the meat packing lines in The Jungle). That the metrics now tend to be tabulated by computer may have extended the practice to more fields, but doesn't seem like a fundamental shift.
- Natsu 15y ago
  You're right that people have other things in mind, generally. But I think things like this, where their boss is all but absent and the computer grades them make such a future feel more real.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]