3 ms·

Thought about what? I find the only truly excellent tool for thought is a long walk. From analysing many recent articles on Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos caper a

Thought about what? I find the only truly excellent tool for thought is a long walk. From analysing many recent articles on Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos caper and Bankman-Fried FTX snafu, I see a much deeper criticism of "silicon valley values" is afoot. Focus is on the tendency of digital system zealots to optimise naively, prematurely and (paradoxically) inefficiently for the human value problems they claim to solve. Both placed the "ethical" dimensions of their projects at the fore, but created loss and misery because the lens through which they see (and interact with) the world, their tools, mono-cultural environment and communication bubbles led to optimising on investment, risk, presentation (appearance over reality) and so on. Both were enchanted by their own story, and "because technology good" gave them the excuse. Nobody, even Ken Thompson or Steve Jobs (Unix, Apple) can create a transparent "tool for thought" that doesn't impose hidden values on the operator. Stare into the digital abyss and it stares back at you. The best tool for thought is a human brain that can operate alone, treat technology as a tool that has its place, and use it as the need arises.

robertlagrant 4y ago
I think SBF and EH were transparently doing things that were never going to work. The Silicon Valley issue is the overreliance on backing the right founders as opposed to the right ideas, and that - just like backing the right ideas - can be successfully gamed.
- orhmeh09 4y ago
  Backing the right idea may not get you anywhere, though. Ideas are cheap.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    That's true. And, as I say, can be gamed.
CrypticShift 4y ago
I'm from a generation that used all-physical systems (pen/paper/articles...). Now everything is digital. So, for example, for work that need intensive digital research and such, our actual tools are almost "unhealthy" (I did not say unproductive) to use for any length of time. That is why we need to experiment with better tools for information manipulation and discovery (I did not say tool for thought). I'm, like you, quite familiar with the explosion in digital music. Don't you think we need better designed "tools for music creation" to explore this infinite ocean of sound possibilities that has opened before us? I believe we do. It is very similar for Knowledge. But given the more fundamental, "personal" and malleable nature of "thought", this will take a lot of guess work (and stupid ideas). In the long term though, I believe we need these better tools to adapt ourselves to this almost unhuman ocean of (mostly outer) information.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  You use the word explore. I like that and definitely agree we should pursue tools for exploration. To me, knowledge and music do seem like infinite landscapes, and I'm excited by the idea of ways to extend the range and speed of exploring that infinity. But to many people - I dare say a majority - that's not how they use technology. They want right answers. Correct opinions. Curated lists. Approved facts. Selected content channels... And our industry has shaped itself to "deliver" that, in cheap convenient forms. Or rather, that's not what technology allows them. An additional layer has grown over the top; People who have opinions on what others should think, say, do and listen to, and those critics, censors, pundits, marketers, influencers and companies who fence-off the roads and place their signposts decide what may or may not be explored. To call that exploration is a stretch. The tools they end up with, perhaps from choice, are not a pith hat, map and compass for exploration. Not a hitchhikers guide. Not even a taxi service. They are strapped into a roller-coaster and spun around a track by someone who has decided their "user experience". Exploration is risky. Explorers freeze to death, or are eaten by lions. I don't see a lot of call for that, sadly. Given what we've built in entertainment I am a little pessimistic about extending that to knowledge engineering. The idea that computers might bring that same culture of constraint and approval to the very act of thought, a kind of thinking-on-rails, is depressing.

robertlagrant 4y ago

I think SBF and EH were transparently doing things that were never going to work. The Silicon Valley issue is the overreliance on backing the right founders as opposed to the right ideas, and that - just like backing the right ideas - can be successfully gamed.

orhmeh09 4y ago
Backing the right idea may not get you anywhere, though. Ideas are cheap.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  That's true. And, as I say, can be gamed.

CrypticShift 4y ago

I'm from a generation that used all-physical systems (pen/paper/articles...). Now everything is digital. So, for example, for work that need intensive digital research and such, our actual tools are almost "unhealthy" (I did not say unproductive) to use for any length of time. That is why we need to experiment with better tools for information manipulation and discovery (I did not say tool for thought). I'm, like you, quite familiar with the explosion in digital music. Don't you think we need better designed "tools for music creation" to explore this infinite ocean of sound possibilities that has opened before us? I believe we do. It is very similar for Knowledge. But given the more fundamental, "personal" and malleable nature of "thought", this will take a lot of guess work (and stupid ideas). In the long term though, I believe we need these better tools to adapt ourselves to this almost unhuman ocean of (mostly outer) information.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
You use the word explore. I like that and definitely agree we should pursue tools for exploration. To me, knowledge and music do seem like infinite landscapes, and I'm excited by the idea of ways to extend the range and speed of exploring that infinity. But to many people - I dare say a majority - that's not how they use technology. They want right answers. Correct opinions. Curated lists. Approved facts. Selected content channels... And our industry has shaped itself to "deliver" that, in cheap convenient forms. Or rather, that's not what technology allows them. An additional layer has grown over the top; People who have opinions on what others should think, say, do and listen to, and those critics, censors, pundits, marketers, influencers and companies who fence-off the roads and place their signposts decide what may or may not be explored. To call that exploration is a stretch. The tools they end up with, perhaps from choice, are not a pith hat, map and compass for exploration. Not a hitchhikers guide. Not even a taxi service. They are strapped into a roller-coaster and spun around a track by someone who has decided their "user experience". Exploration is risky. Explorers freeze to death, or are eaten by lions. I don't see a lot of call for that, sadly. Given what we've built in entertainment I am a little pessimistic about extending that to knowledge engineering. The idea that computers might bring that same culture of constraint and approval to the very act of thought, a kind of thinking-on-rails, is depressing.