No surprise that I agree with you Keith but there is another twist on this. Those who promote all things technology are also guilty of "smearing meaning" and creating the equivalent of green wash wrt all things AI and computer. It you believe the likes of Kurzweil and Harari et al then there is nothing that AI won't be able to do and there is all kinds of oohing and ahhing about computer modeling that has been going on for decades. It is just repackaged as AI and oh wow! So there is a need to be more precise about the benefits of the technology as well as the downsides.
I am on record stating that Starlink is a game changer of perhaps Gutenberg proportions simply because it will extend the entire corpus of human knowledge contained on the internet to kids in the developing world. (Calling all potential Einsteinian kids who would otherwise never be identifiable!) But along with the knowledge will come the filth and lies of pornography and other dark corners of said human knowledge. But these are solvable problems whenever we get off our butts long enough to solve the problem. So the technology is not inherently bad, but rather it is our sloth in solving the problems that come with all new breakthroughs. The printing press caused the largest institution of the world to split and somehow the world muddled through. And there is a good argument that this split led to the enormous burst of creative energy called the Protestant church and the rise of western civilization.
All this to say that the issue is not the technology but the changing worldviews of those who seek to exploit, for good and for ill, the potential of the technology. Sorry... got carried away... with me it is always about underlying worldview. 1525 came and went as will 2025. I remain optimistic even as we flatter ourselves about the power of our technologies. I will bet that Luther and Melanchthon had a similar conversation. lol
"It you believe the likes of Kurzweil and Harari et al then there is nothing that AI won't be able to do and there is all kinds of oohing and ahhing about computer modeling that has been going on for decades..."
Totally agree. I've written about this before, and have in mind an entire post about the distorting effect on our thinking of talking about AI in anthropomorphic terms. I'll probably be shouting into the wind, but the entire AI vocabulary is a kind of fabulist self-flattery on the part of people who work in AI. But it works like some kind of jamming system, somehow constraining the way people reason about AI. Anyway, I entirely agree that the issue cuts both ways and the techno-enthusiasts are just as guilty of imprecision as the techno-doomers.
Very good points, thank you. When I look through old FB posts (I rarely post anymore, but I did for many years and I have not removed anything) it actually surprises me how recent the reaction buttons are. I actually had to explain to my eldest daughter why her baby picture didn’t have a ton of “hearts”. “Well at that time there wasn’t that reaction….” (She is not on any social media but she knows generally how it works. Explaining the details to her made me cringe. She also wanted to know who could see her baby photo - good for her! - and so I explained all my safety options and why I no longer post her photos.)
I use and benefit from many technologies, even while being critical of some aspects. I like the safety features of my car, though it can feel like driving with a neurotic ghost when it bleeps at me and tries to steer itself. But I consider driving deeply unnatural so it seems acceptable to augment myself. GPS technology is a must when driving too.
I also love Google classroom and the whole Google suite; the tools are great for special needs students and Google classroom has helped me be more organized, more collaborative and has reduced my daily stress level significantly.
At the same time, the claim that “it’s just about how you use technology” and the implication that our moral choices somehow exist outside of the technological environment seems a too pat, even foolish answer. If nothing else, resisting the omnipresence of technologies helps reveal just how powerful they are, and that awareness is revelatory. When I took steps to reduce my Facebook engagement it was actually funny how desperately the algorithms tried to get it back. My feed is almost nothing but ballet, shoes and historical art because those are the only things I would sometimes click on.
Anyway, this is far too long. With regards to medical technology….we’ll I’m not sure what my thoughts are but I kinda want to see someone take that on. It would be controversial I know, but I’d like to see someone question if medical tech is always good. I know with regards to fertility technologies, I started having doubts quite a while ago, and they have gotten stronger with time.
Keith, you raise an important point with regard to specificity. In a recent interview Grant Martsolf for the Beatrice Institute, Peco and I addressed this point as follows:
When we raise concerns that "technology is making us less human" we specifically refer to technology that 1. corrupts our relationships and 2. corrupts our attention:
"If we lose all train of thought, we can't attend to each other; we can't attend to what we are reading; we can't learn; we can't produce quality work; we can't attend to democracy, because we can't attend to what is true, what is not true. We can't attend to scripture or our prayer. So, I think it's making us less human because it corrupts our attention, which is necessary for everything that we do."
An additional component worthy of critique is the assumption that technology must necessarily be part of our lives:
"...in addition to the increasing intrusion of technology in all aspects of life, there's almost this ideological component in which there's an assumption that we need to do this, that we need technology. Technology has to be the solution to most, if not all, of our major problems. So when we talk about the Machine, it's not just this dominant effect of technology, but more of a techno-ideological system that is imposed on society."
This is a really excellent observation on multiple levels. I entirely agree with you regarding the dehumanizing affects of usurping our attention. I think the observation in your quote, "a techno-ideological system" is very insightful and very important. There are technophiles for whom technology is close to a religious commitment and an entire worldview.
I’m generally for the new technology! What I’m concerned about is my ability as a layman to know enough to make decisions that align with my faith and morality. Often satire and entertainment are obvious because you know the truth, but there is some uses too difficult to verify. How do we embrace the benefits and at the same time be aware of the deception?
No surprise that I agree with you Keith but there is another twist on this. Those who promote all things technology are also guilty of "smearing meaning" and creating the equivalent of green wash wrt all things AI and computer. It you believe the likes of Kurzweil and Harari et al then there is nothing that AI won't be able to do and there is all kinds of oohing and ahhing about computer modeling that has been going on for decades. It is just repackaged as AI and oh wow! So there is a need to be more precise about the benefits of the technology as well as the downsides.
I am on record stating that Starlink is a game changer of perhaps Gutenberg proportions simply because it will extend the entire corpus of human knowledge contained on the internet to kids in the developing world. (Calling all potential Einsteinian kids who would otherwise never be identifiable!) But along with the knowledge will come the filth and lies of pornography and other dark corners of said human knowledge. But these are solvable problems whenever we get off our butts long enough to solve the problem. So the technology is not inherently bad, but rather it is our sloth in solving the problems that come with all new breakthroughs. The printing press caused the largest institution of the world to split and somehow the world muddled through. And there is a good argument that this split led to the enormous burst of creative energy called the Protestant church and the rise of western civilization.
All this to say that the issue is not the technology but the changing worldviews of those who seek to exploit, for good and for ill, the potential of the technology. Sorry... got carried away... with me it is always about underlying worldview. 1525 came and went as will 2025. I remain optimistic even as we flatter ourselves about the power of our technologies. I will bet that Luther and Melanchthon had a similar conversation. lol
"It you believe the likes of Kurzweil and Harari et al then there is nothing that AI won't be able to do and there is all kinds of oohing and ahhing about computer modeling that has been going on for decades..."
Totally agree. I've written about this before, and have in mind an entire post about the distorting effect on our thinking of talking about AI in anthropomorphic terms. I'll probably be shouting into the wind, but the entire AI vocabulary is a kind of fabulist self-flattery on the part of people who work in AI. But it works like some kind of jamming system, somehow constraining the way people reason about AI. Anyway, I entirely agree that the issue cuts both ways and the techno-enthusiasts are just as guilty of imprecision as the techno-doomers.
Very good points, thank you. When I look through old FB posts (I rarely post anymore, but I did for many years and I have not removed anything) it actually surprises me how recent the reaction buttons are. I actually had to explain to my eldest daughter why her baby picture didn’t have a ton of “hearts”. “Well at that time there wasn’t that reaction….” (She is not on any social media but she knows generally how it works. Explaining the details to her made me cringe. She also wanted to know who could see her baby photo - good for her! - and so I explained all my safety options and why I no longer post her photos.)
I use and benefit from many technologies, even while being critical of some aspects. I like the safety features of my car, though it can feel like driving with a neurotic ghost when it bleeps at me and tries to steer itself. But I consider driving deeply unnatural so it seems acceptable to augment myself. GPS technology is a must when driving too.
I also love Google classroom and the whole Google suite; the tools are great for special needs students and Google classroom has helped me be more organized, more collaborative and has reduced my daily stress level significantly.
At the same time, the claim that “it’s just about how you use technology” and the implication that our moral choices somehow exist outside of the technological environment seems a too pat, even foolish answer. If nothing else, resisting the omnipresence of technologies helps reveal just how powerful they are, and that awareness is revelatory. When I took steps to reduce my Facebook engagement it was actually funny how desperately the algorithms tried to get it back. My feed is almost nothing but ballet, shoes and historical art because those are the only things I would sometimes click on.
Anyway, this is far too long. With regards to medical technology….we’ll I’m not sure what my thoughts are but I kinda want to see someone take that on. It would be controversial I know, but I’d like to see someone question if medical tech is always good. I know with regards to fertility technologies, I started having doubts quite a while ago, and they have gotten stronger with time.
An unrelated point; There is something about your writing style I find incredibly pleasant.
Good article
Keith, you raise an important point with regard to specificity. In a recent interview Grant Martsolf for the Beatrice Institute, Peco and I addressed this point as follows:
When we raise concerns that "technology is making us less human" we specifically refer to technology that 1. corrupts our relationships and 2. corrupts our attention:
"If we lose all train of thought, we can't attend to each other; we can't attend to what we are reading; we can't learn; we can't produce quality work; we can't attend to democracy, because we can't attend to what is true, what is not true. We can't attend to scripture or our prayer. So, I think it's making us less human because it corrupts our attention, which is necessary for everything that we do."
An additional component worthy of critique is the assumption that technology must necessarily be part of our lives:
"...in addition to the increasing intrusion of technology in all aspects of life, there's almost this ideological component in which there's an assumption that we need to do this, that we need technology. Technology has to be the solution to most, if not all, of our major problems. So when we talk about the Machine, it's not just this dominant effect of technology, but more of a techno-ideological system that is imposed on society."
Thanks again for this reminder to be specific!
This is a really excellent observation on multiple levels. I entirely agree with you regarding the dehumanizing affects of usurping our attention. I think the observation in your quote, "a techno-ideological system" is very insightful and very important. There are technophiles for whom technology is close to a religious commitment and an entire worldview.
I’m generally for the new technology! What I’m concerned about is my ability as a layman to know enough to make decisions that align with my faith and morality. Often satire and entertainment are obvious because you know the truth, but there is some uses too difficult to verify. How do we embrace the benefits and at the same time be aware of the deception?