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

Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia
cyberlaw.stanford.edu

The idea that modern annoyances (sitting in traffic, waiting in checkout lines, searching/browsing for information) are somehow essential to the human experience is super weird given that most of these things have only been around for 50ish years in their current form and less than 1,000 years in any form.

If I didn't have house chores or a commute, then I could spend a lot more time learning new pieces of Mathematics. Or work through the rest of the half-finished anatomy textbook on my bookshelf. Or finally get around to building a digital simulation of a human heart. Or start a garden. Or just hang out with a coffee at the hackerspace or coffee shop or church basement.

There are a lot of opportunities for serendipity, many ways to build grit, and infinite opportunities to socialize.

Sitting on a 1950's style cement highway for 30 minutes to go to a mall where I stand in the 1960's style Macy's checkout line is not the end-all and be-all of what it means to be human. That lifestyle an odd cultural aberration unique to the 20th and early 21st century.

The idea that doing dishes or vacuuming or driving a car in rush hour traffic are necessary to experience serendipity or frustration or boredom is a truly tyrannical vision of what it means to be human.

It's certainly true that we're not headed for a tech utopia (or dystopia), and that new technologies will have unintended and probably negative consequences (in addition to positive consequences).

But I'm not worried about ending commutes or killing the modern grocery shopping experience. Those things are inessential to the human experience and a net drag on society.

There two ways (at least) that the argument can still be perfectly valid:

1) Recentness or not doesn't matter. Women vote and no slavery/segregation are also recent things that have also "only been around for 50ish years" (or close enough), but one would presumably still consider them essential.

2) The gist of the argument is probably not about those particular annoyances per se, but about having annoyances (or non-optimizations or room for error, etc) in general (all of which are driven away by technology).

Now we have to know how to navigate healthcare.gov to understand our insurance options, understand email, text, and all other smart phone etiquette. We need to know how to scan our own items at the store, how to use GPS and other touch systems in our vehicles, and know how to use multiple operating systems on computers, tablets, and other devices.

It is never ending! In 20 years, I imagine most engineers and computer scientists won't really be able to understand the scope of all tech we need on a daily basis. Technology will eventually become the equivalent of a magic crystal we carry in our pocket, but have no clue what it's source of power is or how it functions. Technologists will effectively become wizards! Without those wizards, the tech-powered society would crumble into dust.

The author is right that most people will effectively become automatons, mindlessly obeying the little taps and chimes of their tech-addled existence. They wouldn't have a choice of course, unless they are one of the few capable of obtaining a couple masters degrees in STEM.