Still a Technoskeptic
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune
Back in 2024, when the world didn’t seem quite so insane, I wrote about my views as a Technoskeptic.
I’ll restate my views here. I consider that new technologies should be considered and examined, not just unquestioningly adopted at full speed. I consider that the maxim “move fast and break things” is very unwise, once you sit and consider things. Technologies should serve humanity and empower the individual, not pander to the interests of a narrow clique of people; this is the reason I prefer Free Software (like Gnu/Linux) wherever possible.
I consider that innovation and invention are subject to the law of diminishing returns. Let me expand on this with an example. The invention of the smartphone was a watershed moment, the jump in capability from an old style mobile phones to even early smartphones was well worth the price. By that, I mean the cost of development to the phone maker, and the cost to the end customer (I will not say consumer). But each subsequent version is an incremental improvement on the previous one, and the returns on the money and time spent eventually start to decline. Eventually, the customer has a smartphone that does everything they need and they can’t justify the upgrade cost; plus the phone makers R&D time and money is being spent on things that are of lower value, the low hanging fruit is picked, the big product improvements are all in the bag. But the expectation of a new shiny and increased investor returns is still there, the wheel turns and they cannot get off.
Today, watching what’s going on in the world, I’m feeling a definite sense of having been justified in my views. The continuing push of so-called AI into every area of our lives continues, whether we want it or not. The more I read into the subject, the more convinced I am that not only is nobody stopping to question their operating biases, I saw an interview recently with the founder of an AI company and clearly the idea “maybe we shouldn’t be doing this” isn’t on the table. I look at my own feelings and can’t help but wonder if this is how it felt to be an observer at the start of the nuclear arms race? Of course, they can’t change course at this point; investors expect returns, and the focus is on metrics and being on the cutting edge to attract ambitious software developers. To repeat myself: “the wheel turns and they cannot get off”.
My experiences using the AI offerings as research assistants, has been mixed. I’ve had one hallucinate details of a haunting at a historic woodland, when pressed it couldn’t provide any sources. I’ve had one get an answer completely wrong when I asked to be reminded of a command line tools name. I’ve been patronised in a sycophantic way when asking about philosophy or the esoteric, and had one completely hallucinate sources. For more stories, and in far more serious settings than mine, I commend you to your own research. In my view, if I have to double check everything it says, the AI has much less value for me.
I worry about the consequences of the quote above, but I also fear a world where nobody has the skills or knowledge left to question the AIs; a world where they’re unchallenged and unchecked.