Smartphones, robots and computers make our life easier, but maybe we are losing something in the process? A reporter from one of the publications spoke with the American writer Nicholas Carr about the dangers and even threats of over-automation.
It is widely believed that automation of everything and everyone improves the quality of our life. Computers help us achieve peak performance. Software applications make tasks faster and easier. Robots take on the tedious and hard work. The constant stream of innovation from Silicon Valley only reinforces people's belief that new technologies are making life better.
However, there is another opinion. The writer Nicholas Carr subjects the postulates of the modern digital world to an impartial analysis. His essay "Does Google Make Us Stupid?", Published in Atlantic in 2008, is still controversial, as is his 2010 bestselling book, The Shallows.
Carr is seen by the adherents of the theory that technology will save our world as one of their most powerful opponents. And those who are wary of the consequences of technological progress for mankind respect him for a balanced reasoning.
Now Carr is interested in a new question: should we be afraid that gradually there will be no difficult tasks for us in the world? Will our lives become too efficient thanks to new technologies?
A short time ago, the journalist (T. C.) met with the writer to talk about his new book, The Glass Cage: Automation and Us, and what made him write it.
1. Debunking the main myth about new technologies
Promotional video:
"We used to think that efficiency and comfort are good by default. This approach is pretty naive."
Tom Chatfield: If I understand correctly, in The Glass Cage you are trying to debunk the myth that the simplification of our lives thanks to technological progress is necessarily a positive phenomenon.
Nicholas Carr: Both on a personal and institutional level, we are used to thinking that efficiency and comfort are good by default, and maximizing them is certainly a worthy goal. It seems to me that this approach to technology in all its forms, especially in the form of computer automation, is rather naive. This also applies to our own desires and real life in the modern world.
Will computers ever replace humans?
T. Ch.: And yet, most adherents of technological progress adhere to the utilitarian point of view, according to which the biggest mistakes we make are due to neglect of efficiency and logic, and in fact we ourselves do not know what is good for us. Therefore, from their point of view, the task of technological progress is to identify the shortcomings of human thinking, and then create systems that would compensate for these shortcomings. Is this opinion wrong?
N. K.: On the one hand, many innovations in the development of computer technology and the development of automated systems have nothing to do with the sweeping assertion that people are very imperfect compared to computers. Yes, a computer can be programmed to perform certain operations indefinitely with consistent quality. And it is true that a person is not capable of this.
But some go even further and argue that people are too imperfect, that their role should be limited as much as possible, and computers should be responsible for all basic tasks. This is not just about trying to compensate for human shortcomings - the idea is to remove the human factor altogether, as a result of which, it is argued, our life will become much better.
TC: It seems that this is not the best idea. Is there an optimal level of automation?
N. K.: In my opinion, the question is not whether we need to automate this or that complex task. The question is how do we use automation, how exactly we use computers to supplement human knowledge and skills, compensate for flaws in human thinking and behavior, and also to stimulate people to make the most of their own experience to reach new heights.
Over-reliance on software can turn us into computer monitor watchers and process flow operators. Computers can play a very important role because we are only human - we can fall prey to prejudice or miss out on important information. But the danger is that it's too easy to outsource all of our functions to computers, which in my opinion would be the wrong decision.
2. Do you need to bring real life closer to the scenario of a video game?
"We like computer games precisely because they are not easy to play."
TC: I noted with pleasure that in your book you cite video games as an example of interaction in the "man-machine" system, in which the point is to overcome difficulties, not to avoid them. The most popular games are a kind of work that gives the player a sense of satisfaction. We can only complain that the work that many of us have to do every day requires much less skill and brings us much less pleasure.
N. K.: Video games are very interesting because their concept goes against the generally accepted principles of software development. The purpose of computer games is not at all to relieve the user of the inconvenience. On the contrary, they stimulate the player to exert extra effort and maximize the use of the brain. We enjoy video games precisely because they challenge us with ever-increasing challenges. We constantly find ourselves in difficult situations - but not in situations that cause despair. Overcoming each new level only hones our skills.
This process is very similar to how a person gains life experience in real life. As we know, for the development of abilities, a person needs to face serious obstacles again and again and overcome them time after time, using all his knowledge and skills. Gradually, a person reaches a new level, after which the difficulty of obstacles increases.
I think that people love video games for the same reason that they get satisfaction from gaining new experiences and overcoming obstacles. The solution of a difficult task, in the process of which new knowledge is acquired, necessary to overcome new, even more complex difficulties, gives a person great pleasure.
One of the main concerns that I express in the book is that our attitude to progress is associated with the desire to avoid solving difficult problems as much as possible. It seems to me that this point of view contradicts the very concept of life satisfaction and self-realization.
3. Will computers eliminate the need for people?
"People just can't keep up with computers when trading financial instruments"
TC: Unlike video games, in the real world, hard work isn't necessarily rewarded. The real world is unfair and unbalanced. Perhaps the most troubling trend here is that the interests of the individual (psychologically, personally, and even in terms of survival) increasingly cease to coincide with corporate and government notions of expediency. Are you afraid that computers will finally replace humans?
N. K.: When I was collecting material for the book, I was very scared by an article (quotes from which I cite in the text), written by a specialist in military strategy. According to him, given the growing scale of the use of computer technologies on the battlefield, very soon there may simply not be room for a person in military affairs. The speed of decision making has increased so much that people simply cannot keep up with computers. We are inevitably moving towards fully automated warfare: drones will decide for themselves when to fire missiles at targets, and robot soldiers on the ground will decide when to fire.
In my opinion, this situation is observed not only in military affairs, but also in many other areas - for example, in the world of finance. People simply do not keep up with computers when trading financial instruments, for example.
What awaits us? We may not only lose the ability that distinguishes us from computers for critical assessment of our own actions - perhaps we will implement such systems thoughtlessly, believing that the main thing is the speed of decision-making. And then, if we are convinced that we were wrong, we will find that there is no turning back. Very often it turns out to be impossible to integrate a person into a system originally built on computer technology.
TC: I was also horrified when I read a passage in your book about automated warfare. I got the feeling that the process that will lead us to fully autonomous combat systems cannot be stopped. Part of my horror comes from the memories of the 2008 financial crisis, which virtually wiped out trillions of dollars. At least now people are more responsible about their finances. But if this happens in the military sphere, not dollars will be destroyed, but human lives.
In addition, it seems to me that there is a thought that refers to your previous book "Empty": today's people in the biological sense are not very different from our ancestors who lived hundreds of years ago, but we live in a completely new world. the consequences of certain actions have long exceeded the speed to which we are accustomed. The same applies to new inventions - they themselves, in the form of information and algorithms, as well as their consequences, are spreading at a staggering pace.
A future without people?
N. K.: The point is not only that new technologies, especially technologies in the field of software, today can be replicated and distributed very quickly. The point is that all these processes take place in a competitive environment. Whether we are talking about an arms race or business competition, as soon as one of the rivals gains a short-term advantage at the expense of a particular technology, they immediately begin to introduce this technology wherever possible - because no one wants to remain at a disadvantage.
I think in this situation it is too easy to lose sight of the fact that we are essentially animals. People have gone through an evolutionary path for millennia for the sake of being able to live and survive. The role of humanity, as well as our feelings of satisfaction and self-realization, are closely related to our experience of living in a world that sets our usual pace.
Therefore, when we oppose a person, with all his physical advantages and disadvantages, to a fast and accurate computer, there is a desire to give up our whole life to computers. However, we forget that total submission to the computer will lead us to a life in which there will be little room for self-realization.
4. How do we automate the world?
“You can innovate smartly, but you can do it lightly”
TC: I think we need to be critical of new technologies, but I'm worried about people turning unnecessary difficulties and anti-technological "authenticity" into a fetish. There is such a modern school of thought that praises hard physical labor and asserts that everything we do must be artisanal and authentic. In my opinion, such a position smacks of snobbery and does not take into account the huge number of positive achievements that the democratization of technological progress has brought with it.
N. K.: I completely agree with you. In an interview, I was asked how my cautious attitude towards progress will help, for example, people working in difficult conditions at meat processing plants. I replied that, of course, there will always be a place for automation of production where the working conditions of people need to be improved. It is just that you can innovate smartly, or you can do it thoughtlessly; we can find a way to take into account the value of human experience and the importance of self-realization, or we can simply extol the capabilities of computers. Making the right choice is not easy. If we perceive this task exclusively in black and white - either we blindly stand up for hard, exhausting physical labor in any situations, or, conversely, see the meaning of life in sybarism - this will not help the cause.
People are constantly creating and using tools. From time immemorial, we have to make decisions related to the division of labor, with the division of the amount of work between a person and the tools at his disposal. And it seems to me that the amazing efficiency of computers in performing a wide range of tasks only complicates the process of making such decisions.
5. What awaits us?
“We need to strive to ensure that computers enrich our life experience, and do not turn us into passive observers of monitor screens”
T. Ch.: So where is humanity heading?
NK: Natural history historian Thomas Hughes, who passed away last year, proposed the concept of a technological momentum. He believed that technologies embedded in social structures and processes begin to develop on their own, dragging society along with them. It is quite possible that our trajectory has already been set and that we will continue on our present path, without asking questions about whether we are moving in the right direction. I don't really know what will happen. The most I can do is try to reason about these really tough questions to the best of my ability.
I hope that we, as individuals and as members of society, will be able to maintain a certain level of understanding of what is happening to us, as well as a certain level of curiosity, and we will make decisions based on our long-term interests, and not on the usual concepts of convenience, speed, accuracy and efficiency.
It seems to me that we need to strive to ensure that computers enrich our life experience and open up new possibilities for us, and not turn us into passive observers of monitor screens. I still think that if we achieve more from new technologies, they will be able to do what technologies and tools have done throughout the history of mankind - to create a more interesting world around us and help us, to become better. Ultimately, everything depends on ourselves.
Tom Chatfield