Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#21

Post by _bxg1 »

bem94 wrote: post #2

> Most people do not subscribe fully or exclusively to the ideals embedded in the smart-tech utopian vision, yet they’ll have no choice but to live by those ideals. All too true. The kinds of comment like "but they can just not use X" always appear in the context of Facebook/Google (often when they appear on HN). But that's like saying you should just "not use CCTV". I'm not a user of FB/Google/Smart Tech, it uses me…

It's even more the case in China, where their big tech companies have integrated with the government. Imagine being unable to get a loan without a Facebook account, or being unable to vote without Google.

It's tempting to see these trends and just cut yourself off even further; boycott Big Tech and claim that they don't affect you because you're opting-out. But we're reaching a point where that's not enough, because eventually we won't have the option to opt-out unless we do something about it now.

Instead we have to engage with our society and take action in our democratic channels, to change things before they get to that point.

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#22

Post by selestify »

brianjoseff wrote: post #19
throwawayjava wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post and my post are both full of hypotheticals, so let's stick to the core empirical claim that could prove you're more correct: > the activities you cite are so far faring badly. Putnam and Murray (Bowling Alone/Coming Apart)... There are two problems with Bowling Alone. 1. Bowling is boring; I'd rather grab a cappucino. Putnam and Murray suppose that the social institutions and conventions of 1910-1940 were a…

I agree with your contention that the examples of modern annoyances chosen by the author are not hidden pinnacles of humanness to be preserved at all costs. However, I think the author's deeper point still stands, despite his poor support for the argument. Can we not agree that the _je ne sais quoi_ of humanness is threatened, on some level, by modernity? It is a very difficult empirical case to make, as you have mad…

The book addresses some of those points. Individual volunteering may be up, for example, but not forms of volunteering that are more community based. Charitable donations require no cooperation with other members of the community, so it is irrelevant.

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#23

Post by throwawayjava »

brianjoseff wrote: post #19
throwawayjava wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post and my post are both full of hypotheticals, so let's stick to the core empirical claim that could prove you're more correct: > the activities you cite are so far faring badly. Putnam and Murray (Bowling Alone/Coming Apart)... There are two problems with Bowling Alone. 1. Bowling is boring; I'd rather grab a cappucino. Putnam and Murray suppose that the social institutions and conventions of 1910-1940 were a…

I agree with your contention that the examples of modern annoyances chosen by the author are not hidden pinnacles of humanness to be preserved at all costs. However, I think the author's deeper point still stands, despite his poor support for the argument. Can we not agree that the _je ne sais quoi_ of humanness is threatened, on some level, by modernity? It is a very difficult empirical case to make, as you have mad…

> but I do believe that there are things worth preserving. Another important question to answer is, why are those things valuable to us? Is it because they titillate our neurons in just the right way? Or is there something more there?

The article discusses the fact that there are things beyond happiness that are important to humanity/humans. The author mentions self-determinism ("...a dystopian nightmare wherein humans are reduced to automatons") as well as seredipity and randomness ("...value of searching, browsing, being bored, being lost, failing, missing out, daydreaming, being surprised, going off script...")

My own opinion is that a liberal mindset of the form Wallace discusses in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water is important.

If we leave human rights in-tact and preserve the 40 hour work week (or less), there's no shortage of personal freedom, serendipity, randomness, and wonder to be found in this world. But if these things do not happen naturally, then we'll need to teach them.

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#24

Post by m3mpp »

_bxg1 wrote: post #20

"There’s more that matters about being human than happiness" I would go a step further and argue that happiness itself requires that friction, and can't be optimized or quantified. It's human nature to grow discontent and even depressed when given any kind of constancy for too long, no matter how "perfect". The idea that you can use social-engineering to perfect human happiness isn't just incomplete, it's fundamental…

Indeed, you say friction, I'd say contrast, we need frustration to be able to enjoy the ease, discomfort to enjoy comfort, and it goes on for all emotions. Too long in one state, and we're back to the dissatisfaction state.

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#25

Post by gitgud »

nerdponx wrote: post #18
MrMember wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Smart speakers" are getting to be everywhere and it really makes me uncomfortable. Like if I book a hotel I now have to remember to check if one is installed so I can unplug/disable it. Or if I'm at someone's house I have to decide if I want to look like a tinfoil wearing loony and ask them to unplug it or just accept that everything I say gets sent to some remote server.

One of the truly sad aspects of this phenomenon is that smart speakers, in principle are totally fucking cool . That's literally Star Trek technology! You have a cheery computer you can boss around! Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it. It would be one thing if the Alexa was free... but they actually charge for the thing, and they don't even develop their own apps/skills, that's on the community.

To me it would be more concerning if the Alexa was free. I would always be wondering what the nefarious business model was (data collection, advertising...) Free as in open source would be nice though

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#26

Post by [deleted] »

tjr225 wrote: post #14
iamcasen wrote: post #9

This is such a conundrum. When I really sit down and think about all the modern tech in my life, and how much of it is a promise to make my life easier, I can't help but laugh. The modern world is far more complicated and difficult to navigate than ever before. Each new piece of tech just adds to it. Now we have to know how to navigate healthcare.gov to understand our insurance options, understand email, text, and al…

I think it goes even further than that. In my day to day use of my smartphone, even, an iPhone 7, I find the experience largely unpleasant. Even what is essentially just a touch screen computer connected to the internet seems to have all sorts of unpredictable and strange reactions to my inputs. Or it will do something strange without any input at all. I would argue that the future we have created with technology is…

[deleted]

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#27

Post by humanrebar »

nerdponx wrote: post #18
MrMember wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Smart speakers" are getting to be everywhere and it really makes me uncomfortable. Like if I book a hotel I now have to remember to check if one is installed so I can unplug/disable it. Or if I'm at someone's house I have to decide if I want to look like a tinfoil wearing loony and ask them to unplug it or just accept that everything I say gets sent to some remote server.

One of the truly sad aspects of this phenomenon is that smart speakers, in principle are totally fucking cool . That's literally Star Trek technology! You have a cheery computer you can boss around! Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it. It would be one thing if the Alexa was free... but they actually charge for the thing, and they don't even develop their own apps/skills, that's on the community.

> Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it.

One of the big plot holes of the Star Trek universe is that money and bartering would ever go away (they ended up back tracking in a major way on this) or that anything like the Federation would ever be as benevolent or magnanimous as it is portrayed.

That is, I don't think taking corporations or greed out of it will make the tech better. People are people, whether they report to the Minister of Stuff or the Chief Whatever Officer.

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#28

Post by antidesitter »

bem94 wrote: post #2

> Most people do not subscribe fully or exclusively to the ideals embedded in the smart-tech utopian vision, yet they’ll have no choice but to live by those ideals. All too true. The kinds of comment like "but they can just not use X" always appear in the context of Facebook/Google (often when they appear on HN). But that's like saying you should just "not use CCTV". I'm not a user of FB/Google/Smart Tech, it uses me…

Concerning Facebook and Google specifically, what makes them “impossible to live without”? That would be very surprising considering I (and many others) don’t use them.

Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment.

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#29

Post by Nasrudith »

humanrebar wrote: post #27
nerdponx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the truly sad aspects of this phenomenon is that smart speakers, in principle are totally fucking cool . That's literally Star Trek technology! You have a cheery computer you can boss around! Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it. It would be one thing if the Alexa was free... but they actually charge for the thing, and they don't even develop their own apps/skills, that's on the community.

> Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it. One of the big plot holes of the Star Trek universe is that money and bartering would ever go away (they ended up back tracking in a major way on this) or that anything like the Federation would ever be as benevolent or magnanimous as it is portrayed. That is, I don't think taking corporations or greed out of it will make the tech better. People are people, whethe…

Personally I don't see it as a plothole so much as not receiving sufficient backstory justification - or doing so not fitting the genre well.

Like if the earth spent a while as a cyberpunk dystopia and had "ancestors" of Augments who had lesser issues but were used to give the elites a self-perpetuating edge writ large, disregarded space as having no profit, and refused to provide any welfare despite a pitance of their production being required to prevent horrific suffering could give justification for why the federation is so radical on certain issues and why Ferngari would consider Wall Street worthy of pilgrimage - awed that humans of all species once "bested" them. Granted that should probably be regarded with about as foreigners visiting sites of travesties to celebrate them.

Re: Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

#30

Post by antidesitter »

_bxg1 wrote: post #20

"There’s more that matters about being human than happiness" I would go a step further and argue that happiness itself requires that friction, and can't be optimized or quantified. It's human nature to grow discontent and even depressed when given any kind of constancy for too long, no matter how "perfect". The idea that you can use social-engineering to perfect human happiness isn't just incomplete, it's fundamental…

happiness... can’t be optimized or quantified

Neither of these is true in my experience. Happiness definitely can be optimized by changing your lifestyle (less stressful work, more free time, a healthy diet, regular exercise, adequate sleep, etc). To see it from the other direction, consider how events like onset of chronic pain and permanent disabilities negatively impact long-term happiness.

Post reply on HN