Wrapped up Nicholas Carr’s The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google
As the last 3rd of the book picked up steam, I was particularly interested in the psychology and sociological terminology, perspective and studies Carr brought up to talk about the effects of centralization, de-centralization, control, and the prospects for artificial intelligence in the lives of people.
I’d never before heard the term “bounded rationality” though I’d seen something like it very early in my life as a comic book publisher. EVERYBODY wants a piece of certain talented people. We were fortunate enough to work with, very early on, a few hugely significant artists who lent their talents to our humble project. From those 2 or 3 artists came a flood of other artists who were willing to work with us –I’m sure because we paid well and were good people– but largely on account of the association with those other folks. Rational bounding, as I understand it, explains that we’re not always able to make the most rational decision, and so we are forced to rely on “filters” to screen ideas, people, etc. Our early association with those great artists opened up a lot of other doors to people who would otherwise have no time to rationally consider who my company was, what our projects were, and other factors to weigh in the decision to lend one’s name to a new startup. There’s probably a connection in there somewhere to be made with Gladwell’s Tipping Point
Back to The Big Switch
I’ve also heard many times the concern that while the internet opens up a world of information and richly contrasting opinions in theory, what we actually observe is a system whereby people filter to them only information they want to hear or are likely to agree with in practice. “Ideological amplification” is what Carr calls it, and he’s particular eloquent speaking about the dangers of groupthink on the web and “it’s power to undermine the spirit of compromise and practice of consensus-building that lies at the heart of democracy itself…[Indeed] That the Web will create a more bountiful culture and that it will promote greater harmony and understanding should be treated with skepticism. Cultural impoverishment and social fragmentation seem equally likely outcomes.”
From that reading came an idea, to ME at least, to engage students in an assignment as part of their coursework that asks them to confront something they may have a strong adverse reaction to. Postman may have approved.
Carr writes near the end that ”Technology is amoral, and inventions are routinely deployed in ways their creators neither intend nor sanction…to hold inventors liable for the misuse of their inventions is to indict progress itself.” While I understand and agree with this, a part of me still gets mighty antsy with all the discussion of Google/Skynet’s efforts to develop AI. For me, it’s much clearer how the development of a “better brain beyond our own brain” is a bad idea. I don’t know if it’s my classics training and grounding in the western cult of the individual, but I think that thinking machines would have little patience for the crap we humans do. Logic is inherently inhuman, and if logic and efficiency will drive these new superbrains, it seems logical and efficient to eliminate such wasteful, petty, short-sighted things as Man. I like Man, but I don’t know that other intelligences will share my appreciation for the subtle good mixed in with so much obvious bad. * Note – This is NOT to be construed that I believe in original sin or man’s inherent evil; I reject both notions.
~benc
