I'm Tired of Pretending Tech is Making the World Better
-
tech is not the problem, corporations are.
More specifically, it's capitalism that is the problem, not tech.
-
Tech definitely is. Gate-keeping, stupid pricing, etc. done by few corporations and individual isn't.
Is it a shocker most people in tech are selfish, short sighted, and self-aggrandizing?
-
The dissatisfaction is in regards to the imperative that you use all forms of tech in all aspects of your life. It is with the fact that all tech is designed around making money, not improving life. If your video games were designed around bringing joy and entertainment, then you would probably like them even more, and get more benefit from them. Instead there are loot boxes and gambling in nearly all large games.
Luckily some games are still made for fun. And some gambling games were fun before they were monetized, and still are in spite of it.
-
Tech has made things more efficient - the rewards of such are simply being funneled from the average person to the wealthy.
Maybe some tech has increased efficiency (although, when it does that increase is more often than not temporary and short lived), but there is even more "tech" that swarms that space rent seeking any time, money, or other resource saved by that increased efficiency. After the efficiencies degrade, the tech-as-a-scam persists and you end up with less efficient systems than you started with.
-
More specifically, it's capitalism that is the problem, not tech.
yes, that is the root of the problem
-
I understand the complaint, but the big picture of tech has a ton of upside.
Tech itself is not the issue. How it's applied is the issue.
Once tech takes hold, there is massive pressure to monetize the asset.
That's where this complaint lives. Amazing advance becomes ubiquitous, then two things inevitably occur. Companies are formed that apply the technology on unnecessary and unpopular ways (parking app is a perfect example) or the pressure to make more more MORE MONEY triggers the enshittification spiral, where "wow, you can print wirelessly now!?" becomes "my printer won't take any cartridges but brand name, and I have to watch an unskippable 30-second ad every time I print now??!!!"
It follows that as tech saturates our lives, the inevitability of enshittification will also saturate our lives.
The year is 2044, you don't feel old but the ticker is starting to skip several beats a day. Your doctor is forced to use the product at his disposal to help you, which is the PaceXMaker produced by the Tesla-Cola conglomerate. The device is a true miracle of modern science. The size of a fingernail, it pulses electricity into your heart in carefully measured bursts to support proper function of all valves, and ensures that any plaque is dissolved harmlessly away. Your iEye tracks the device status, and alerts you when it starts to run low on fuel, a proprietary enzyme designed by Tesla-Cola. When the iEye app notifies you that the enzyme is running low, simply crack open an ice cold, refreshing can of Tesla Cola Zero to refuel your device for another two hours. Need to sleep? We got you. Hook up the Tesla Cola Zero-Venous BeautyRest to your ArmDock (patent pending) for up to five hours of relaxing enzyme replenishment. You can remove the arm dock after you confirm six ad-watch minute credits on your iEye.
Tesla-Cola: We Got You
..always with the verification cans.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Imagine VR so real that someone severely allergic to cats can know what it's like to give one scritches and feel it purr. Imagine someone who is paraplegic knowing what it's like to swim or climb a mountain. Now imagine how much money Mark Zuckerberg will make when it's $22.95/month with ads and requires you to put in your Social Security Number.
-
Surely you can have your cake and eat it too, right?
I don't understand the question...
-
If consumers were rational Tesla stock wouldn’t be where it is, meme coins wouldn’t exist, nft craze wouldn’t have happened (btw all examples of tech spending money to trick dumb people). Consumers routinely DO NOT go for the cheapest possible option but frequently get tricked by stupid gimmicks and smoke and mirrors. For example - Colgate started wrapping their toothpaste boxes in a clear plastic that sparkles under grocery store lights. Despite raising prices, introducing wasteful plastic, and increased packaging costs they increased market share and profits - that’s not rational. You seem to have been sold on libertarian delusions.
I never mentioned salaries and I very distinctly did mention that majority of the people in the world live in smaller communities with limited choices. If a tech overlord buys out their businesses (e.g buying all local newspaper and replacing them with mostly ai slop and agenda articles) there are not many alternatives. Insisting that because you have some choice in some matters it means everyone does is naive … and also another example of an irrational consumer lol
Consumers don't buy stock, and deifnieltely not enough to influence trillion dollar company valuation, let's begin with that.
I never said they go for "the cheapest option, period". They are willing to spend extra if they get perceived, or real, value, like aestelhetics (your example) , social status (cars for instance) or functionality (iPhone).
I'm very far from libertarian, so let's abstain about speculating about each other's beliefs and let's talk about ideas.
Majaority of people in the world do NOT live in smaller communities, first, and tech only increases choices, second, so even if the first was true it's still an argument in favor of tech. I can get the new York times (or the helsingin sanomat) in the smallest village of Germany, again thanks to technology.
-
How was that your takeaway from this thread
You attack capitalism in an article about tech, so let's ask how is that your takeaway, then I'll answer.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That is what naked apes they said about clothes
-
I understand the complaint, but the big picture of tech has a ton of upside.
Tech itself is not the issue. How it's applied is the issue.
Once tech takes hold, there is massive pressure to monetize the asset.
That's where this complaint lives. Amazing advance becomes ubiquitous, then two things inevitably occur. Companies are formed that apply the technology on unnecessary and unpopular ways (parking app is a perfect example) or the pressure to make more more MORE MONEY triggers the enshittification spiral, where "wow, you can print wirelessly now!?" becomes "my printer won't take any cartridges but brand name, and I have to watch an unskippable 30-second ad every time I print now??!!!"
It follows that as tech saturates our lives, the inevitability of enshittification will also saturate our lives.
The year is 2044, you don't feel old but the ticker is starting to skip several beats a day. Your doctor is forced to use the product at his disposal to help you, which is the PaceXMaker produced by the Tesla-Cola conglomerate. The device is a true miracle of modern science. The size of a fingernail, it pulses electricity into your heart in carefully measured bursts to support proper function of all valves, and ensures that any plaque is dissolved harmlessly away. Your iEye tracks the device status, and alerts you when it starts to run low on fuel, a proprietary enzyme designed by Tesla-Cola. When the iEye app notifies you that the enzyme is running low, simply crack open an ice cold, refreshing can of Tesla Cola Zero to refuel your device for another two hours. Need to sleep? We got you. Hook up the Tesla Cola Zero-Venous BeautyRest to your ArmDock (patent pending) for up to five hours of relaxing enzyme replenishment. You can remove the arm dock after you confirm six ad-watch minute credits on your iEye.
Tesla-Cola: We Got You
Tech itself is not the issue. How it’s applied is the issue.
At this point, I would argue that technology is the issue. Or, at least, the current iteration of it.
Internal Combustion Engines, always-on internet connections, and digital financial systems are generating real physical hazards that stretch beyond their benefits. This isn't just an issue of use. There is no "proper" method of employing - for instance - cryptocurrency or single-use plastics or a statewide surveillance network that doesn't result in a degradation of quality of life for the population at large. To take a more dramatic angle, there's no safe application of a nuclear bomb.
When the iEye app notifies you that the enzyme is running low, simply crack open an ice cold, refreshing can of Tesla Cola Zero to refuel your device for another two hours. Need to sleep? We got you.
Except this isn't a technological innovation, its a Science Fantasy. iEye isn't a real thing. Tesla Cola Zero isn't a real thing. Not needing sleep isn't a real thing. You're not a cyborg and you will never be a cyborg.
But the science fantasy is still having its own cost. People are making real material nationally-transformative (or de-transformative) decisions based on the fantastic promises we've been sold about Tomorrow. We're underdeveloping our mass transit infrastructure and relying entirely too much on unregulated air travel to speed up travel. At the same time, we're clinging to old bunker-fuel laden container ships and decimating the aquatic ecology, because we refuse to adapt proven nuclear powered shipping that's over 60 years old at this point. We're investing more and more and more money in digital surveillance and personal tracking. We're off-loading our ability to collect and process information to unreliable digital tools (LLMs being only the latest in overhyped AI as a replacement for professionalized human labor). And then we're trying to justify the bad decisions we make as a result by claiming secret wisdom inherent in machines.
We're eating our seed corn after being told technologists will eliminate our need to eat ever again.
This is a direct result of technological developments we have made (or promised to make and failed to deliver) over the last twenty years. Revolutions in racial profiling, viral marketing, planned obsolescence, military expansionism, and genocide have not improved our quality of life in any material sense.
The cow has not benefited from industrial agriculture. And the prole has not benefited from de-skilling of labor.
-
factory example
Thanks. I think I get it now. Besides physical constraints (availability of resources, natural laws and the knowledge of them), society's inherent values and rules (like work safety, minimum wage, worth attributed to a group of people/ the environment / animals) affect the way things are done.
If work force is cheap and abundantly available and the workers' health or wellbeing isn't considered as too relevant the resulting solution to achieve something is very different from one with different preconditions.
computers ... because they're so general purpose, more cultural values get embedded. Like in the example above, there are decisions that aren't determined by the goals of what you're trying to accomplish, but because computers are so much more open ended than physical robots, there are more decisions like that, and you have even more leeway in how they're decided.
The moral/ social/ economic decisions which are made are affected by the opportunities which a technology has to offer? OK, yes.
The versatility of computer technology makes it a tech which can be used in many harmful ways. The potential for harm is bigger than let's say with the invention of the wheel or the plow but not as big as with nuclear fission.Responsibility for the usage of a technology and finding common rules for its usage and enforcing them... hmm.
Technology and what we do with it can't be viewed as independent aspects?
I'd say that's mostly right, but it's less about opportunities, and more about design. To return to the example of the factory: Let's say that there was a communist revolution and the workers now own the factory. The machines still have them facing away from each other. If they want to face each other, they'll have to rebuild the machine. The values of the old system are literally physically present in the machine.
So it's not that you can do different things with a technology based on your values, but that different values produce technology differently. This actually limits future possibilities. Those workers physically cannot face each other on that machine, even if they want to use it that way. The past's values are frozen in that machine.
-
Instead of speaking to you directly, and see your face and features, I relate to you through pure text... A whole lot of important factors disappear as I do.
Yes. That's an aspect to keep in mind.
I think distorted is a bit negative. Communication with filters, yes. I see advantages and disadvantages. It really depends on the case. It's technology-bound but not exclusive to the digital age - Letters existed before.
Advantages: asynchronity, time to think and reply. Use of different media. Less stressful because less information to process - there is a reason why video telephony isn't mainstream. Less bias, for all you know I could be Gregor Samsa - you don't see my gender, age, skin, clothing style. just my text. Disadvantages: misunderstandings can become more likely, since you dont know me. It's more time consuming to talk through an issue... and so on.
See for example Heidegger, Ellul, Arendt.
Would you recommend one specific article or book?
For recommendations you can't go wrong with Martin Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology. It's a difficult read without previous knowledge of Heidegger's philosophy (or phenomenology), but the essay is so influential that there is plenty of secondary literature on it, from videos to podcasts to texts.
His argument, in essence, is that technology is a way of being that makes everything appear as resources for technology to use. As we become a technological society we see people as "human resources", nature as a depot to be emptied: wind as power, rivers as kinetic energy, the ground as a chest of minerals.
The same phenomenon can also be seen in everything that digital technology does to the persons and society. For example Cambridge Analytica, they are an expression of technology as a way of being, and what they see is untapped resources to be harvested for political gain.
The argument is so influential that Arendt appropriated it to argue that technological/scientific politics will always become self-deluding without actual human intervention. Ellul argued that the technological society becomes self-referential, so that technology creates new issues that we can only solve with technology, which creates new issues (and so on). In the end we become able to do anything... but unable to either stop the cycle or understand what is going on.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I kinda agree with the article, I genuinely think humanity peaked with the computer of the PS2 era. Or maybe it had something to do with the patriot act. Just feels like after that things had gotten worse substantially
-
The dissatisfaction is in regards to the imperative that you use all forms of tech in all aspects of your life. It is with the fact that all tech is designed around making money, not improving life. If your video games were designed around bringing joy and entertainment, then you would probably like them even more, and get more benefit from them. Instead there are loot boxes and gambling in nearly all large games.
I have never played loot box / gambling / gacha games. I will admit that I have given in and I do play games with DRMs, which are most games these days.
-
Consumers don't buy stock, and deifnieltely not enough to influence trillion dollar company valuation, let's begin with that.
I never said they go for "the cheapest option, period". They are willing to spend extra if they get perceived, or real, value, like aestelhetics (your example) , social status (cars for instance) or functionality (iPhone).
I'm very far from libertarian, so let's abstain about speculating about each other's beliefs and let's talk about ideas.
Majaority of people in the world do NOT live in smaller communities, first, and tech only increases choices, second, so even if the first was true it's still an argument in favor of tech. I can get the new York times (or the helsingin sanomat) in the smallest village of Germany, again thanks to technology.
So you’re just gonna make stuff up as you feel it’s true?
“Consumers do not buy stock” lol yes they do
“iPhone can be the cheapest option” (as long as you don’t care how much you spend and it has perceived value”
“Tech only increases choices” (biggest laugh I had in a while)
“Most people in the world do not live in smaller communities”Fucking lol my dude. Sounds like you’re really projecting your life into facts of the world which is a common disease among programmers.
You know that places outside of US exist right? You know that the tech created in US cities disproportionately adversely affects 3rd world countries. If you ignore all that and go full bootlick mode on tech oligarchs then yes all you say is true, but back in the real world you couldn’t be further off base
-
I understand the complaint, but the big picture of tech has a ton of upside.
Tech itself is not the issue. How it's applied is the issue.
Once tech takes hold, there is massive pressure to monetize the asset.
That's where this complaint lives. Amazing advance becomes ubiquitous, then two things inevitably occur. Companies are formed that apply the technology on unnecessary and unpopular ways (parking app is a perfect example) or the pressure to make more more MORE MONEY triggers the enshittification spiral, where "wow, you can print wirelessly now!?" becomes "my printer won't take any cartridges but brand name, and I have to watch an unskippable 30-second ad every time I print now??!!!"
It follows that as tech saturates our lives, the inevitability of enshittification will also saturate our lives.
The year is 2044, you don't feel old but the ticker is starting to skip several beats a day. Your doctor is forced to use the product at his disposal to help you, which is the PaceXMaker produced by the Tesla-Cola conglomerate. The device is a true miracle of modern science. The size of a fingernail, it pulses electricity into your heart in carefully measured bursts to support proper function of all valves, and ensures that any plaque is dissolved harmlessly away. Your iEye tracks the device status, and alerts you when it starts to run low on fuel, a proprietary enzyme designed by Tesla-Cola. When the iEye app notifies you that the enzyme is running low, simply crack open an ice cold, refreshing can of Tesla Cola Zero to refuel your device for another two hours. Need to sleep? We got you. Hook up the Tesla Cola Zero-Venous BeautyRest to your ArmDock (patent pending) for up to five hours of relaxing enzyme replenishment. You can remove the arm dock after you confirm six ad-watch minute credits on your iEye.
Tesla-Cola: We Got You
Transmetropolitan had in-dream advertising. I think you got it from breathing in some sort of gas when walking around in public.
The most unrealistic thing about the Transmetropolitan series was the fact that Spider was able to make a living as a journalist.
-
More specifically, it's capitalism that is the problem, not tech.
Tech enables capitalism to take the exploitation to new lows.
-
You attack capitalism in an article about tech, so let's ask how is that your takeaway, then I'll answer.
First of all, follow the thread brother, I'm not the same person you originally replied to.
Second of all, this article is just as much about capitalism as it is about "tech". If you actually read the article and just thought "this is just about tech" and not "this is about tech and how it has leaked unnecessarily into nearly every transaction", then IDK what to tell you
