Future of Technology? Anti-Human?

[WaterShake]

Endless, Senseless and Anti-Human: The Future of Technology?

Part 1

Please note, due to the character limit this post wil be divided into two parts. I will post the second part as soon as possible.

Preface

I often wonder what the future of computer technology bears in store for us. Computers have developed at such an incredible rate within the past 50 years that it's hard to envisage what they will be capable of in the future. With that in my mind, I recently began my own research into both the history, and future of technology. I was mortified by my initialI findings.

Many of todays technologies have embedded themselves, almost accidentally within our lives. Web 2.0 threatens to decrease our personhood and shrink our understanding of what it is to be a person. We are destined to be simultaneously locked within our design flaws and outclassed by our own tools. Within this essay, I plan to explore the worlds of both software web 2.0.

Locked-in
"Lock-in".While this term may seem alien, we are all almost irreversibly destined to become more familiar with it as technology develops further. Jaron Lanier describes the theory of lock-in at the beginning of his book: "You Are Not A Gadget"; he uses the example of MIDI. MIDI may (somewhat ironically) sound unfamiliar to most of us, but I can guarantee that all of us have heard it. MIDI is software embedded at the heart of almost all music software. MIDI was created in the early 1980's, for one man and his synthesiser. He created the software to give himself a broader spectrum of sound to experiment with. MIDI could represent simplistic musical ideas, e.g a key being played; MIDI worked well at what it was designed to do, and thus it rapidly expanded. There was MIDI this and MIDI that, everything was vying to support MIDI. However, MIDI had soon expanded far beyond its original scope of design, it was being used to represent things much more complex than a keyboard; things much more complex than it was capable of. Better, tidier and more advanced alternatives to MIDI were created, but it was too late. So many pieces of software and hardware had been created to support MIDI by this point that the fiscal investment to replace the software was unfathomable. Thus, still to this day, musicians are bound by the limitations of software almost 30 years old. MIDI is locked-in. It's quite a frightful thought indeed; that a small project of work by one man could have such a drastic impact.

Many of the technologies that we use on a daily basis are actually locked-in solutions, alternatives to which are almost unimaginable. Websites for example, were not always destined to be designed as "pages". Computer "files" were not always a certainty, yet the concepts of a "file" or a "webpage" are so fundamental to our technology that it's tricky to seriously envisage any other systems. All of these (and many, many more) concepts had equabilitylly (if not more so) credible alternatives.

"Lock-in" does not exist solely within the world of technology, it can be seen in any aspect of life with either a history or a future. Lock-in can be seen within the world of railways for instance, e.g the dimensions of tracks. The London Tube was designed with narrow tracks and matching tunnels. Many of these tunnels cannot accommodate air-conditioning because there is no room to ventilate the hot air from the trains. Thus, tens of thousands of modern-day residents in one of the world's richest cities must suffer a stifling commute because of an inflexible design decision that was made over one hundred years ago. But unfortunately, lock-in within software is much more painful than railroads. Software must always adhere perfectly to a boundlessly particular and messy system of rules. So while lock-in may be an annoyance in the world of railroads, it's death by one thousand cuts in the digital world.

There are some, although depressingly few, situations in which we escaped "lock-in". For instance, there was an active campaign in the 1980's and 1990's to promote the importance of visual aesthetics within software. Thankfully, the movement was successful due to the efforts of influential engineers within companies such as Apple and Microsoft- thus we have been saved from ugly fonts and software, for now at least.

Whilst lock-in lurks menacingly within the world of software, our online world faces dangers of its own. Anonymity, fragmentation and laziness are diminishing what it means to be a person in the online world. Lanier claims that web 2.0 is asking us to shrink ourselves and join the anonymous online masked mass.

[WaterShake]

Part 2

Web 2.0
Tom Young used his last column article on computing.co.uk to highlight some of the "creeping dangers" embedding themselves within the internet. He claims that the foremost, and most prominent danger is anonymity. He asks us to "glance at the comments below any newspaper opinion article and you will be given a whirlwind tour of the most unpleasant aspects of the public psyche". Whilst I do disagree with his assertion of "any", I think all of us are very much aware of what Young is referring to. The freedom and anonymity offered by the internet encourage many people to express themselves in ways they may be unable to within the "real world". Young suggests that this freedom has negative consequences, as people with controversial opinions are given free reign to broadcast themselves. However, if we begin to judge and censor the internet; then we risk net-neutrality and the nature of the internet itself. Whilst I agree that anonymity is an ailment, I disagree with Young's diagnosis.

I think the real danger of anonymity is the impact it has upon our individuality.I think that the individuality of internet users is rapidly losing ground to a collective, unknown, omnipresent crowd. As Lanier states "Real people must has left all those anonymous comments on blogs and video clips, but who knows where they are now, or if they are dead? The digital hive is growing at the expense of individuality".

WriteSomething epitomises the anonymous, digital hive described by Lanier. WriteSomething asks us to write anything, something, as long as we do it quickly and without thinking (and of course, anonymously). The website was established as an "endless, senseless, collaborative book". However, the project has somewhat predictably degenerated into picayune chatter. Interestingly however, the rare, well written pieces on the website usually stem form the few registered and named members. This somewhat crude pattern of identifiable=good and anonymous=bad seems to apply to other online communities as well.

Lanier embellishes upon the idea of a "digital hive mind "in an online essay "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism". He states "If we start to believe that the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people [creating the content] and making ourselves into idiots.".

Wikipedia is often targeted by Lanier for a multitude of reasons. The sterile style of writing on Wikipedia removes any flavor or trace of humanity. In doing so, it filters the subtlety of authors opinions and essential information is lost. Furthermore, the collective authorships approach of Wikipedia tends towards the ideas and opinions of the crowd, potentially devaluing its own content.

Web services such as Twitter ask us "what are you doing now?", yet the question is fundamentally flawed. Twitter does not ask us to share ourselves, it asks us to share fragments of ourselves. Twitter is asking us to adapt our own behavioural habits for ease of exploitation; it's much easier to collect fragments than it is to collect people. It's worth remembering that "you have to be somebody before you can share yourself".

But even more worrying than the prospect of computers changing us, is the idea of computers "replacing" us. There is a peculiar, but increasingly popular trend of thought within digital communities: "Anti-human". Kevin Kelly states we no longer require authors or identifiable writers as all information can be compiled into one single, global book. Chris Anderson (editor of Wired) proposes that science should no longer seek theories that scientists can understand, because the digital cloud will understand them better anyway. This anti-human rhetoric is literally madness; people seem to be willing their purpose away. Computers were created as tools for humans. To say that humans are useless because of computers is akin to saying gardeners are useless because of lawnmowers. "You can believe that your mind makes up the world, but a bullet will still kill you. A virtual bullet however, doesn't even exist unless there is a person to recognise it as a representation of a bullet. Guns are real in a way that computers are not."

Ideas of computers replacing or outpacing humans are evident within our popular culture as well. Successful film franchises such as Terminator and Matrix have made millions of dollars from the concept. Literature such as I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream explores similar concepts.

People seem to be becoming blasé with their own intelligence. It's true that computers have achieved many remarkable things: they've beaten the world-chess champion, they can recognise different types of dog bark, heck some of them can almost climb stairs. But let's not forget that a computer is just a tool.

We are quick to blame ourselves when software or hardware doesn't work as it's supposed to. Instead of demanding that technology be created that suits our needs, we continually adapt ourselves to the whims of our own tools.

Bumblebees can perform calculations faster than supercomputers. We can generate grammar and understand language at a rate unimaginable within the world of computers. We can build computers. We create life and some of us create art. We feel; we're alive in a way that computers will never be. As Pablo Picasso once said "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers". We should stop aiming to be mechanical or robotic with our decision making and remember how very good it is to be human.

We have allowed computers to become much more than the sum of their parts. The first step to avoiding Lanier's future is to wake up and remember that these things are our tools. We think of them as integral and invincible, but they're mostly just plastic. Stupid plastic.

[WaterShake]

Muse Questions

1) How do you envisage the future of our computers?
2) How do you envisage the future of the internet and web 2.0
3) Do you support or oppose anonymity online?
4) What impact have computers and the internet had upon you?
5) What do you wish you could do with technology?

[Strength]

You do realize this is General, right?

[NonPlusUltra]

Humans? Anti-Human?

[Rawnern]

The world is going down!

[Oolaph]

This seems like a really interesting read and future conversation, but unfortunately I don't have the time to read and ponder upon this subject right now. Perhaps I'll return later and bump it with some discussion or something.

[WaterShake]

At 1/10/11 01:15 PM, Xarnor wrote: Very interesting read, dude. Well written and thought provoking.

Thank you.

At 1/10/11 01:06 PM, WaterShake wrote: 1) How do you envisage the future of our computers?

It seems to me that currently, we're only expanding in what we already have. Everyone seems to be thinking of how we can make our computers better, not how we can make better computers.

I agree whole heartedly. Intel can make faster processors until the cows come home, it won't help anyone do anything new. We need innovation, not re-generation.

I think the biggest problem with creating new technology products though is "the pain killer test". Almost all venture capitalists will ask start-up tech companies "what problem does your gadget/software solve", if they cannot answer this question satisfactorily then the majority of VCs will chose not to invest. This is ridiculous. The iPad doesn't solve any real problems for it's users, but it's become a monumental success.

People need to stop asking "what problem can i solve" and start asking "what does this allow us to do?"

I'm not sure that there will be any drastic advancement in computers any time soon.

2) How do you envisage the future of the internet and web 2.0

In light of Obama's "Internet ID" idea, I think that the internet might someday not provide anonymity. The internet I think will become much more personalized and begin to mimic the "real world" more and more until many people don't even bother with social interactions. It's not likely, but it is possible.

I saw the news of the "internet ID" just as I was putting the finishing touches to this writing this morning. I think the idea looks very promising indeed.

I don't think the internet will ever replace physical social interaction for the majority of people. I'm "introverted" but even I enjoy to be around other people regularly.

I'll be interested to see how the line between online and offline lives continues to blur. E.g many more people now actively photograph their lives so they can share the pictures on FaceBook.

3) Do you support or oppose anonymity online?

I don't necessarily oppose it, but I think that a lot of things about the internet would be better without it. People are obviously not held accountable for the things that they say and do on the internet (for the most part) and I think this lack of accountability is leaking into real-world interactions.

Supporting/opposing online anonymity/accountability can be tricky. Do you support WikiLeaks?

4) What impact have computers and the internet had upon you?

I don't have the slightest idea who I would be if it wasn't for computers and the internet.

5) What do you wish you could do with technology?

I wish I could interact with the 3D environments that I render. That would be AMAZING.

[Heretic-Anchorite]

At 1/10/11 01:06 PM, WaterShake wrote: Muse Questions

1) How do you envisage the future of our computers?

2) How do you envisage the future of the internet and web 2.0

I see computers merging more into the net, I.e they become less individualize computers and more one massive electronic web, like a new electronic reality A good example would be the internet, and computers in the amine series Ghost in the shell.

3) Do you support or oppose anonymity online?

I support anonymity to an extent.

I'd rather have people not know who I am when I'm online, I'm just a more private, reserved person.

4) What impact have computers and the internet had upon you?

A massive impact.

I've been using the internet since I was 7-8 not only have I psychologically developed from observing others, and absorbing information, all that info was available online. the web is an almost infinite library of information.

5) What do you wish you could do with technology?

I have a few ideas :P

But seriously, I suppose it would be interesting to be able to insert my consciousness, or awareness into the net, but be able to remove myself, and sever all connections with the net at will.

[Damien]

That some serious food for thought man.

Although I still believe the face of the internet is widely misinterpreted. People and governments still believe that they can put borders and rules on this cloud.
However the internet runs purely on user generated content. It grows in a way the human mind grows and is not limited to borders or nationality.
It cannot be controlled by one man.

The internet will always be an unstoppable force that will grow beyond it's expectations and beyond our imagination because of the collect mind that lies behind it.
Since that day we send the first electronic message, was the beginning of a new tech-era.
And this new era has started a chain reaction of creativity.

I think that lock in you (or the other guy) predicted can not be possible because of the freedom we will always have.
People will always find a way to break rules.

The internet is not dependent on those few people that twitter and facebook from their smartphones.
But on the people that all share a same vision.

I have been thinking of many things to respond, but I just cannot find a coherent reply.

You have just baffled me man.
I still wish to believe that a lock in will instantly be broken down by the way we advance because we all work together.
That one factor, that some might see as a weakness, is actually the true force behind it. The factor that internet isn't just one thing run on one computer. But it is there because millions of different users with different capabilities.

Look at radio stations. Everyone could broadcast and they were called pirates.
The same on the internet. There will always be pirates, even if they try to get rid of anonymity, we are still behind a screen and technology can try to break through that but we will always find ways to bypass it.

I don't know man. You suck, stop being so smart.

[WaterShake]

At 1/10/11 04:43 PM, Damien wrote: That some serious food for thought man.

Although I still believe the face of the internet is widely misinterpreted. People and governments still believe that they can put borders and rules on this cloud.

True. I think most "would be" legislators have only realised how complicated internet law can be as a result of the recent Wikileaks scandal.

However the internet runs purely on user generated content. It grows in a way the human mind grows and is not limited to borders or nationality.
It cannot be controlled by one man.

The internet will always be an unstoppable force that will grow beyond it's expectations and beyond our imagination because of the collect mind that lies behind it.

Given that you just stated all technology on the internet is user generated, it's literally impossible for it to develop beyond our imagination. One of your statements can be true; not both.

Since that day we send the first electronic message, was the beginning of a new tech-era.
And this new era has started a chain reaction of creativity.

I think that lock in you (or the other guy) predicted can not be possible because of the freedom we will always have.

Lock-in is unfortunately, unavoidable. As I explained, there are already countless "locked-in" flaws within our tech. It will be virtually impossible to avoid creating any more "lock-ins" in the future. However, we can do our best to minimise its effect.

People will always find a way to break rules.

The internet is not dependent on those few people that twitter and facebook from their smartphones.
But on the people that all share a same vision.

True, it's these people that we need to ensure a prosperous future for the internet.

I have been thinking of many things to respond, but I just cannot find a coherent reply.

You have just baffled me man.
I still wish to believe that a lock in will instantly be broken down by the way we advance because we all work together.
That one factor, that some might see as a weakness, is actually the true force behind it. The factor that internet isn't just one thing run on one computer. But it is there because millions of different users with different capabilities.

Look at radio stations. Everyone could broadcast and they were called pirates.
The same on the internet. There will always be pirates, even if they try to get rid of anonymity, we are still behind a screen and technology can try to break through that but we will always find ways to bypass it.

I don't know man. You suck, stop being so smart.

[deadroad]

Lol, Anti-Human? wtf?

[grime-reaper]

this is all way too smart for NG, fuck, I bet half the people that clicked this thread didn't even bother to read the whole ting.

shame really.

[Elsid]

Woah I wasn't going to read it, but then I did and its actually very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

[Makakaov]

Part 4:

Even human is not stupid enough to destroy his own mankind and economy with his own invention in such obvious way.

[Light]

At 1/10/11 01:06 PM, WaterShake wrote: Muse Questions

1) How do you envisage the future of our computers?

I'd imagine that the future that you seem to want humanity to avoid in regards to this subject is the future of computers, as too many people are simply apathetic to the issue of anonymity on the Internet.

2) How do you envisage the future of the internet and web 2.0
3) Do you support or oppose anonymity online?

I support anonymity to an extent. I believe that the current state of anonymity online is just fine the way it is, but I don't know if either less or more anonymity is a good thing. An increase in anonymity would probably be bad, as a decrease may also benefit no one in a positive way. Maybe I am too ignorant of the situation to make an informed response to your question.

4) What impact have computers and the internet had upon you?

Well, a large on to be blunt. I use my computer to go on the Internet all the time, but I do register as a member on some of my favorite sites, this site included obviously. Since this is the case, you can imagine that I am not the biggest advocate of anonymity online, but I still defend the concept to a good degree.

5) What do you wish you could do with technology?

It's a rather open ended question, wouldn't you say? There are too many things that I'd wish for to be listed here.

I love your threads WaterShake. Seriously, they're thought provoking.

[grime-reaper]

ive seen a whole load of news stories talking shit about twitter and facebook recently, they seem to be saying stuff similar to you

[Lintire]

Sorry man, but all I got from that was a load of shit. I read through it, scratching my head more with every turn, trying to figure out where these authors and articles that you quote got their... opinions. Doom and Naysayers, attempting to impede progress with well-intentioned but completely bullcrap fears.

I've heard the same exact fears, in a different skin, from homophobes and racists, worrying that because "A" is happening, among path "B", "C" will happen. Bullshit.

I could argue that information piling has been happening since the first encyclopedia, and dare these peoples to go ahead and get their computers to write a novel for them. I could say that anonymity has happened since the first account of vandalism, that Hive Minds have been happening since... well, who knows when the first mob was, and mobs will continue to happen regardless.

It's technophobic drivel, and I hard a hard time stomaching. For the sake of forming a cohesive argument, I'll answer the questions for you - those were the highlight of the 3 posts.

1) How do you envisage the future of our computers?

There's no question that computers are going to take over a lot of the menial chores for humans - just as servants did the exact same thing in days gone by. I can clearly envisage, visualize, humanity in the future dedicating lives to ones of pursuit in the Arts and Science, in Leisure and Socializing.

This dependence on computers is very real - each day, driving Humanity to be more intellectual as a whole, to basically encourage humanity to pursue their goals without fear of being "stuck" in menial jobs that lead nowhere.

It will shape society. But as a tool, an immense, ground-braking tool able to grant insight into the furthest reaches of mystery.

2) How do you envisage the future of the internet and web 2.0

I'm going to be honest, I had to Google what Web 2.0 actually was. One swiftly ordered crash course later, and I can honestly so that, socially, I expect it to ponder along as it is. Sites and programs will be created for convenience and distraction, but I don't expect it to radically change from the moment the teenage demographics got its hand on the internet in the first place.

Supply and Demand, that sort of thing. It'll just go along whatever paths it wants. Commercially.

3) Do you support or oppose anonymity online?

Support, of course. Being anonymous is a choice, always has been. If one chooses to protect their identity from a world they don't trust, then by all means I encourage it. Hell, you don't give out your name and address to every stranger you meet, do you?

It's essentially the same thing (giving out details, at all, paths the way for further intrusion into privacy), albeit with perks.

Not everyone means well.

4) What impact have computers and the internet had upon you?

I use it to connect to the world. I'm isolated, have been for a while, and without the internet my time spent in a country town, literally in the sticks, would have been... maddening. I can't connect to anyone here. They know it, I know it, and we all gave up trying a while ago. Can stand each other in small doses, but I tend to think along a different path, have an absolutely different interests (I like to discuss art techniques, literature, and video games, while the majority of people here like sports and simply social happenings. See the problem?) to absolutely everything else here.

It's my tool, my link to the world. Computers gave me a way to express myself, to learn about the world, and to pop open a cock joke without fear of reprise, or awkwardness.

5) What do you wish you could do with technology?

Nothing more then what we are doing - studying the stars, connecting with the world, making life more convenient. It's coming along nicely.