5 ms·

I just will never understand the idea behind using technology to make us artificially dependent on technology. Take social media, it used to be made for us to

by 0dayz 3y ago

I just will never understand the idea behind using technology to make us artificially dependent on technology. Take social media, it used to be made for us to augment our social lives, but now it's to artificially make us spend more time on it to see the latest "hot take".

orbital-decay 3y ago
What technology you aren't artificially dependent on? Can't think of anything, starting from the fire.
- 0dayz 3y ago
  I didn't mean that technology is artificial but that instead of having genuine reasons for technology to exist (like fire to cook, light up the night, etc.) we invent pointless reasons to use technology that ultimately harms us.
nonbirithm 3y ago
So long as the need is there people will be driven to install the app. For all the issues it's caused, Facebook did connect parts of the world that were never connected before. It's just that the business model of Facebook isn't decoupled from the benefits it brings. In my opinion the only thing preventing this is the lack of technological progress. If the technology exists, someone will attempt to apply it to problems they perceive - brainstorming, throwing things at the wall, looking for untapped markets. Whether out of trying to secure a revenue stream or out of optimism for the future of humanity through the changes they bring, or some mix of multiple motives, it seems the end result is the same - a mix of the good and bad. The issue I perceive is some of what makes people human is the flaws they carry for their entire lives. However, what gets the attention of biological sensors are qualities that are near perfection. So I guess the disconnect in this case is the founder of this company watching the turmoil of person-to-person relationships and seeing that as a business opportunity. They could frame it as: making up for those flaws could be lucrative, because why would having flaws help someone? Why would confronting people with their flaws help us? For what it's worth, I think there is a market out there of people who retreat when confronted and don't respond to traditional therapy, and maybe there are others who don't want a human relationship, whether by choice or circumstance. There might always be an interested audience for this sort of thing in the case that the technology allows for it to come true one day. So I'm gradually becoming more concerned about the idea of an up-to-now untested software platform with potential ramifications for millions of people can come out of nowhere and be deployed at the push of a button. Unfortunately, because the effects of large platforms like these take years to become apparent as in the case of social networking and ADHD-like symptoms, the damage may have to be assessed when the platform is already cemented in place as a perceived inalienable right. Just how smartphones are now ubiquitous and billions of people can't imagine life without them any longer, someday consumers may become very attached to their ownership of AI and its integration into society. It worries me if the results of even non-general AI turn out to be anything like the second-order effects of smartphones and social networking. But I don't think it's within many technologists' playbook to slow down and question what they're doing, since someone else could seize the opportunity and revenue instead. If anything I'd be curious as to what dedicated users of this service would think about interpersonal human relationships in contrast to AI ones.
- prometheus76 3y ago
  We can't expect technologists to slow down and question what they're doing, but on an individual level, we certainly can slow down and question the rapid adoption of said technologies in our lives.
prometheus76 3y ago
This is the nature of technology itself. It's a quandary that goes all the way down to the simplest form of technology: clothing. Clothing makes you more capable of being comfortable (or at least surviving) in a wider range of climates. Say, you go to the top of a mountain because of your Goretex jacket and boots. So you are now more capable. However, simultaneously, you are also now more dependent. You're still at the mountaintop in a snowstorm. No problem. You take off your clothing, and now you immediately find out how dependent you are on technology. This scales to any level of technology you can imagine. GPS? You know what time it is and you know how to get to your new friend's house! Battery goes out on the way? Uh-oh. You were dependent on technology. The paradox of technology is that it simultaneously makes us more capable but more dependent (vulnerable).

by 0dayz 3y ago

orbital-decay 3y ago

What technology you aren't artificially dependent on? Can't think of anything, starting from the fire.

0dayz 3y ago
I didn't mean that technology is artificial but that instead of having genuine reasons for technology to exist (like fire to cook, light up the night, etc.) we invent pointless reasons to use technology that ultimately harms us.

nonbirithm 3y ago

So long as the need is there people will be driven to install the app. For all the issues it's caused, Facebook did connect parts of the world that were never connected before. It's just that the business model of Facebook isn't decoupled from the benefits it brings. In my opinion the only thing preventing this is the lack of technological progress. If the technology exists, someone will attempt to apply it to problems they perceive - brainstorming, throwing things at the wall, looking for untapped markets. Whether out of trying to secure a revenue stream or out of optimism for the future of humanity through the changes they bring, or some mix of multiple motives, it seems the end result is the same - a mix of the good and bad. The issue I perceive is some of what makes people human is the flaws they carry for their entire lives. However, what gets the attention of biological sensors are qualities that are near perfection. So I guess the disconnect in this case is the founder of this company watching the turmoil of person-to-person relationships and seeing that as a business opportunity. They could frame it as: making up for those flaws could be lucrative, because why would having flaws help someone? Why would confronting people with their flaws help us? For what it's worth, I think there is a market out there of people who retreat when confronted and don't respond to traditional therapy, and maybe there are others who don't want a human relationship, whether by choice or circumstance. There might always be an interested audience for this sort of thing in the case that the technology allows for it to come true one day. So I'm gradually becoming more concerned about the idea of an up-to-now untested software platform with potential ramifications for millions of people can come out of nowhere and be deployed at the push of a button. Unfortunately, because the effects of large platforms like these take years to become apparent as in the case of social networking and ADHD-like symptoms, the damage may have to be assessed when the platform is already cemented in place as a perceived inalienable right. Just how smartphones are now ubiquitous and billions of people can't imagine life without them any longer, someday consumers may become very attached to their ownership of AI and its integration into society. It worries me if the results of even non-general AI turn out to be anything like the second-order effects of smartphones and social networking. But I don't think it's within many technologists' playbook to slow down and question what they're doing, since someone else could seize the opportunity and revenue instead. If anything I'd be curious as to what dedicated users of this service would think about interpersonal human relationships in contrast to AI ones.

prometheus76 3y ago
We can't expect technologists to slow down and question what they're doing, but on an individual level, we certainly can slow down and question the rapid adoption of said technologies in our lives.

prometheus76 3y ago

This is the nature of technology itself. It's a quandary that goes all the way down to the simplest form of technology: clothing. Clothing makes you more capable of being comfortable (or at least surviving) in a wider range of climates. Say, you go to the top of a mountain because of your Goretex jacket and boots. So you are now more capable. However, simultaneously, you are also now more dependent. You're still at the mountaintop in a snowstorm. No problem. You take off your clothing, and now you immediately find out how dependent you are on technology. This scales to any level of technology you can imagine. GPS? You know what time it is and you know how to get to your new friend's house! Battery goes out on the way? Uh-oh. You were dependent on technology. The paradox of technology is that it simultaneously makes us more capable but more dependent (vulnerable).