I love this article and share most of his concerns. Thanks.
Computers are an oppressive technology
131–140 of 145 posts
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#132A deeply and clearly thought out argument for why immutable blockchains and code as law are terrible ideas, yet the conclusion is that crypto-anarchist technologies are a net good. No explanation or exploration of why that might be the case, given the preceding damning indictment of the principles such technologies are based on. Very odd. As to the broader issue, I agree with those here pointing out that indifference…
> A deeply and clearly thought out argument for why immutable blockchains and code as law are terrible ideas, yet the conclusion is that crypto-anarchist technologies are a net good. I think there's an important distinction between things like bitcoin and the technologies described in the article. The technologies mentioned in the article all take some sort of action without ongoing human input. Things like bitcoin (…
>Things like bitcoin (and other crypto-anarchist technologies), on the other hand, preserve human agency.
You have a point about simple transactions, to some extent they just do what you tell them, but etherium is the poster child for crypto-anarchism. Code is law is literally the rallying cry of these systems, because taking out trust in humans and institutions is the whole point.
Even many of the stablecoins are supposedly beyond trust because they're based on financial instruments that "guarantee" their stability. Of course that's not turning out very well. If these systems are subject to human oversight, then they're open to exactly the problems of governance, institutional control and politics as anything else. Crypto-anarchism is about automating all of that away, but that puts implacable emotionless code in the driving seat, and the article explains very eloquently why that's a bad thing.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A deeply and clearly thought out argument for why immutable blockchains and code as law are terrible ideas, yet the conclusion is that crypto-anarchist technologies are a net good. I think there's an important distinction between things like bitcoin and the technologies described in the article. The technologies mentioned in the article all take some sort of action without ongoing human input. Things like bitcoin (…
>Things like bitcoin (and other crypto-anarchist technologies), on the other hand, preserve human agency. You have a point about simple transactions, to some extent they just do what you tell them, but etherium is the poster child for crypto-anarchism. Code is law is literally the rallying cry of these systems, because taking out trust in humans and institutions is the whole point. Even many of the stablecoins are su…
> but that puts implacable emotionless code in the driving seat, and the article explains very eloquently why that's a bad thing.
To re-iterate my previous point, putting code in the driver's seat would imply that something like the etherium network decides what transactions to make (or possibly entering into their flavor of smart contracts by itself). I have not heard of any proposals for this.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#134Computers will not carpet bomb, rape and execute you. "Soulful" humans do it all the time.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#135Right conclusion, wrong rationale. The oppressiveness of computers comes from the fact that they can only exist through mass production techniques. Much of the cost-efficiency of computing comes from operating fabs at ever increasing economies of scale. Our current set of devices couldn’t exist without hundreds of millions of people coming together to work on the common purpose of producing those devices and their su…
> It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are.
By utilizing older processes that have become more commoditized. A large part of why creating computers requires so much centralization is that the R&D (not just theoretical, but also developments in layout, lithography, air filtration, etc, etc.) necessary is expensive so development costs must be kept low through centralization to pay R&D costs back. This isn't the case for older processes who have had their R&D paid back through massive runs. This is why you have so many crowdfunded hardware platforms targeting more niche usecases that use older chipsets, boards, and processes.
As usual, the answer lies in either trying to work in the current landscape to bring the change you want or to fund the creators that are doing this. I'd love to see a fab run and operated by a small company or cooperative specializing in working with more bespoke firms creating products for smaller audiences. Costs would be a bit higher as these runs would lack the economies of scale and labor centralization that occurs with current flagship chip designs, but it's a small price to pay (pun not intended) for variety.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#136Clickbait headlines are an oppressive use of technology.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#137Maybe computers are "inherently oppressive" but this is about the weakest and most inneffective argument for that I can imagine. Let's start with the "ruthlessness" of closing automated train doors in the tedious and pointless opening anecdote. Why is that bad? It's bad if you have main character syndrome. But that one person missing their train might otherwise be a delay for hundreds of other people. It may have a k…
> Maybe computers are "inherently oppressive" but this is about the weakest and most inneffective argument for that I can imagine. The whole thing was an incoherent mess. The author didn't even realise that every point he made concerning the "ruthlessness" of the machine, applies to all external natural forces as well. A storm doesn't ask for permission to destroy a house, a flood cannot be bargained with and indiscr…
> The author didn't even realise that every point he made concerning the "ruthlessness" of the machine, applies to all external natural forces as well.
The ruthlessness is not only with machines but also with all the natural powers. But in the case of machines that are made by humans, the author specifically created a term called machine-assisted ruthlessness for such behavior, which distinguishes between the two.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe computers are "inherently oppressive" but this is about the weakest and most inneffective argument for that I can imagine. The whole thing was an incoherent mess. The author didn't even realise that every point he made concerning the "ruthlessness" of the machine, applies to all external natural forces as well. A storm doesn't ask for permission to destroy a house, a flood cannot be bargained with and indiscr…
> The author didn't even realise that every point he made concerning the "ruthlessness" of the machine, applies to all external natural forces as well. The ruthlessness is not only with machines but also with all the natural powers. But in the case of machines that are made by humans, the author specifically created a term called machine-assisted ruthlessness for such behavior, which distinguishes between the two.
A rose by any other name... Also:
> In this way the machine becomes an abstraction and a disguise for human ruthlessness.
That's the key point right there. A machine is nothing but a predictable and designed application of natural forces. This begs the question what the author is even arguing about in this context. Does he argue that collections of levers, gears, or transistors require a benevolent mind in order to not be "ruthless"? Does he honestly require a sentient mind, or as he puts it "a face to talk to" and "brook an argument", in every human-made apparatus?
Demanding to be able to argue with a set of gears, pipes, and wires is exactly like demanding to being to argue with lightning or gravity. Machines are the opposite of an abstraction after all, as an abstraction is - by its very definition - not applied or practical and considered apart from concrete existence.
The author completely turns the definition of a well defined term on its head to artificially construct a difference between natural forces and the effect of machines. A difference that cannot exist unless you consider machines magic - which, looking at his complaint about not being able to reason with them, doesn't seem far fetched.
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Things like bitcoin (and other crypto-anarchist technologies), on the other hand, preserve human agency. You have a point about simple transactions, to some extent they just do what you tell them, but etherium is the poster child for crypto-anarchism. Code is law is literally the rallying cry of these systems, because taking out trust in humans and institutions is the whole point. Even many of the stablecoins are su…
> but that puts implacable emotionless code in the driving seat, and the article explains very eloquently why that's a bad thing. To re-iterate my previous point, putting code in the driver's seat would imply that something like the etherium network decides what transactions to make (or possibly entering into their flavor of smart contracts by itself). I have not heard of any proposals for this.
That's literally what a smart contract is. From the Etherium website:
"Smart contracts are a type of Ethereum account. This means they have a balance and they can send transactions over the network. However they're not controlled by a user, instead they are deployed to the network and run as programmed. User accounts can then interact with a smart contract by submitting transactions that execute a function defined on the smart contract. Smart contracts can define rules, like a regular contract, and automatically enforce them via the code. Smart contracts cannot be deleted by default, and interactions with them are irreversible."
So if they can send transactions over the network, and are not controlled by a user, how is that not putting code in the driver's seat?
Re: Computers are an oppressive technology
#140Right conclusion, wrong rationale. The oppressiveness of computers comes from the fact that they can only exist through mass production techniques. Much of the cost-efficiency of computing comes from operating fabs at ever increasing economies of scale. Our current set of devices couldn’t exist without hundreds of millions of people coming together to work on the common purpose of producing those devices and their su…
> It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are. By utilizing older processes that have become more commoditized. A large part of why creating computers requires so much centralization is that the R&D (not just theoretical, but also developmen…
This is a good point. There are people that want decisions around computer technology to be humane. They form groups that change this landscape for the better, and if its revolutionary, the rest follow suit.
I think that the Framework Laptop is a good example of redefining technology to improve the impact on our environment and create more freedom for people who want there devices more repairable. Its not perfect, as we are still living in a world of propitiatory hardware, but this project has the capability to change that landscape as well, where its needed. Consider support Frameworks mission