Okay, so, I have a whole lot of thoughts about this whole situation – mostly personal, some observational of the outside world – but for now, I have one ember of outrage glowing that I want to let...
Okay, so, I have a whole lot of thoughts about this whole situation – mostly personal, some observational of the outside world – but for now, I have one ember of outrage glowing that I want to let out:
There is a small movement to pass a “right to disconnect” bill, which would allow workers to turn their phones off, but for now a worker can be punished for going offline and not being available.
What?! How the fuck?..
When I don't want to be distracted – whether I'm planning to sleep at an irregular time, or I'm working, or I'm talking a walk where I have a lot to think about – I turn off my phone. (Well: the communication function of it. Nobody can reach me, but I can still take notes and listen to music.) It's a simple a rule as there's ever been: "no want device – make device no work".
The fact that people could be punished for turning off their phones is so brazenly against human dignity for me that I'm astonished to hear that it's even a matter of consideration somewhere.
So, okay, I go into the office, and I'm given a stack of paper that I have to do my thing with. No problem. If I have someone in my life that could call me out of the blue – which is, like, not an outrageous assumption – the best thing I can do for productivity is to turn off the device that lets them unintentionally distract me by calling or messaging, is it not? Whether I'm doing work on papers, or washing dishes, or sweeping the floor, or driving, the assumption is that my undistracted work is preferred, and a phone is a known source of unintentional distraction, so... you punish me for trying to do better?
The other case I can see for such an appalling situation is punishing the worker for having their phone off while off-work, but that's even worse. How the fuck is that any of your concern what I do past my working hours? I know it's often required for people to be reached out to in case of an emergency in the workplace – which is a whole another outrage nobody seems to be having – but even then, punishing people for not being reachable past their working hours?
You can tell by the tone of my voice that I never had to deal with this shit. I'm lucky. Many people aren't. I'm not even gonna ask why would people keep up with this shit – I just wanna know how can one, 'cause it sounds ridiculous to be living under such conditions. And I'm not talking about people like firefighters or paramedics, who willingly sign up for their high-stress jobs: I'm talking about regular-joe and regular-jane people whose working conditions should not entail such urgency as one would expect from a SWAT team.
A sensible reason this could be done for is some people need to be on call to respond to time critical issues like a system admin dealing with something going offline. When you are on call you...
A sensible reason this could be done for is some people need to be on call to respond to time critical issues like a system admin dealing with something going offline. When you are on call you usually get paid extra for just being required to be contactable and then paid extra if you ever get called.
Ironically, the example this article uses to demonstrate that poorer people are getting less human interaction is actually run by humans: The words that Sox says are coming from humans, not from...
Ironically, the example this article uses to demonstrate that poorer people are getting less human interaction is actually run by humans:
Mr. Langlois knows that Sox is artifice, that she comes from a start-up called Care.Coach. He knows she is operated by workers around the world who are watching, listening and typing out her responses, which sound slow and robotic.
The words that Sox says are coming from humans, not from an algorithm. Of course, she's presented as a digital avatar, rather than as a live human, but she is still just a puppet operated by humans, rather than a non-human algorithm. There's a human (or humans) behind that screen.
That said, this is a trend I've noticed in real life. The most noticeable examples I've seen recently are:
Chat pop-ups on retailer websites. I know they're driven by algorithms: I tried using one once, and it was unable to answer unexpected questions.
Touchscreen self-serve interfaces at McDonald's. A new McDonald's store opened in my area recently, and it has no provision for people to walk in and be served by a person. If you go through the drive-thru section, you'll be served by a person but, if you walk in to the store, there are no staffed registers. I saw an elderly woman get served by an employee who had to use the same touchscreen self-serve device as customers.
It's just cheaper for companies to use computers than humans. So, yes, human service is becoming a luxury good.
Long story short: I prefer sincere personal (as opposed to professional) human interaction over any mode of communication. That said... I'd rather self-order on the big-ass touchscreen, always....
Touchscreen self-serve interfaces at McDonald's.
Long story short: I prefer sincere personal (as opposed to professional) human interaction over any mode of communication.
That said... I'd rather self-order on the big-ass touchscreen, always. When I come to McD's, I come for comfort food. Which means I'm in the mindframe that craves it, which means I'm in no position to be sociable: I need to eat something like what McD serves to feel better and be more human.
I'd also rather use self-checkout machines at big stores, probably because I feel more in control of the process. (Ironically, whenever the machine hiccups, I feel helpless and have to call the tired woman taking care of the machines to fix it for me. There's no machine to fix the machine – and which machine would fix the machine that's supposed to fix the machines if it breaks?)
In general, I'd rather self-checkout everything that counts as "supplies": food, sanitary items, medicine, screws...
It makes sense to me that I'd rather retain all the energy I have as an anxious introvert to spend on people I care about. It also makes sense to me that I'd hire professionals when I need something really good or specialized done. Beyond that, I'd rather automate or otherwise set up in the smoothest manner possible.
Another common example of de-humanisation: self-serve checkouts at supermarkets and department stores. This reminds me of another aspect to this issue: every machine we interact with is putting a...
I'd also rather use self-checkout machines at big stores
Another common example of de-humanisation: self-serve checkouts at supermarkets and department stores.
This reminds me of another aspect to this issue: every machine we interact with is putting a human out of work. Every self-serve checkout is doing a human's job and forcing people into unemployment. This is why I recently made the commitment to myself to avoid self-serve checkouts: to keep a human in a job.
It makes sense to me that I'd rather retain all the energy I have as an anxious introvert
Sure, removing humans from the situation is good for people with social anxiety, high introversion, autism, and so on.
But the majority of humans need some form of human interaction.
I'm not denying that. I'd rather talk to people than not – but it has to be a genuine interaction, not synthetic. Talking to a clerk is nowhere near as energizing as spending time with your loved...
But the majority of humans need some form of human interaction.
I'm not denying that. I'd rather talk to people than not – but it has to be a genuine interaction, not synthetic. Talking to a clerk is nowhere near as energizing as spending time with your loved ones, or with your dog, or meeting strangers in a workshop you both enjoy.
Sure, I'd rather talk to people than not. More importantly, I'd rather talk to people I care about than those I have to. Synthetic speech patterns are an Frankenstein's monster of all the human capacity for creative endeavor and ingenuity.
to keep a human in a job
I think your heart is in the right place but your actions are misplaced. The jobs will get automated; I'm not seeing many people taking up the same commitment as you, for a variety of reasons, most of them – parts of our nature. The question is not how many jobs can be saved: it's how long we have until most of the people that beep your produce and take your cash are laid off, and how we can mitigate the massive incoming wave of unemployment.
It's why I'm a big fan of re-education programs. I think there should be more, sooner, just so more people can feel safer about their future in the world that's changing at an incredible pace. They're part of the investment into the future; not all there is to it, but important in their own right.
Is working a checkout really a job worth saving? Having someone move my items from one side of the scanner to the other while they ask me how my day has been when they really don't care is not...
Is working a checkout really a job worth saving? Having someone move my items from one side of the scanner to the other while they ask me how my day has been when they really don't care is not exactly the highlight of my day. I'm sure the people working at the checkout would rather be doing something else.
Rather than trying to stop automation which is totally impossible we should understand that it is happening and work out how to make it smooth and beneficial to everyone. Instead of trying to keep that person behind the checkout we should be making sure they have a path into something else that is still a useful task. At some point we might find ourselves with less useful jobs left than people. At that point we should be making sure that the machines that have automated everything are community owned so we can have all of our needs satisfied while enjoying all the free time to pursue personal goals such as art, sport, social and other things.
I think there is a post automation world where things are much better than they are now but I also see a much worse world where a few people who own all the automation have taken everything for themselves. If we understand this and focus effort on directing things to the good path I think things will be fine.
I agree that the real solution is a systematic change that allows automating things so we don't have to do them anymore to be a good thing rather than a bad one, but my issue and why I go back and...
I agree that the real solution is a systematic change that allows automating things so we don't have to do them anymore to be a good thing rather than a bad one, but my issue and why I go back and forth on this is that no answer to "should I use the automated option" follows from that. Like, the reasoning for not using the automated option is the immediate harm it can do to the lives of people who will be replaced, and what I believe to be the solution to the problem as a whole doesn't resolve that issue.
I usually deal with questions like this that I can't resolve with the option that doesn't hurt others but is shitty for myself (in this case not using the automated options) just so I don't feel shitty about it later, but this is one I have a particularly hard time with, as on some level this is something we will have to go through no matter how much I personally try to delay it. Should we delay it? Or do we do the most mundane variety of accelerationism possible? I don't know, it just goes in circles in my head.
This article seems a little alarmist but touches on some real issues. Social media and a lot of tech has really been pushing all this warped and fake social interactions that I think have become a...
This article seems a little alarmist but touches on some real issues. Social media and a lot of tech has really been pushing all this warped and fake social interactions that I think have become a real negative to society. I don't agree that the rich are much more able to opt out of tracking. The CEOs are mostly still on linked in and facebook. As far as I know facebook offers no paid service to disable all tracking. The ones who have left facebook are just as capable of doing so as the average person. Most of us are not really required to use facebook and for those who really do have to use it usually don't have to use it nearly to the level they do.
Tech addiction is rarely forced on us. All that time spent mindlessly browsing youtube or instagram is not required but the government or for jobs. Usually you only have to do the bare minimum like sometimes browse job ad listing websites or pay bills online which takes very little time. The blame is not entirely on the individual, big corps have engineered these products to be incredibly addictive but having more money doesn't make you immune to addiction.
I agree that being 100% tech free might be some kind of status symbol that most of us can not archive but being 100% tech free is pretty overhyped. If we really just used tech for the time actually required by jobs we would be left with a lot of time left for real human interaction.
In my opinion the real killer of face to face human interaction has been cars. We all live so far apart that meeting up with others and going to events is a real effort. Our tech comes in here a bit because its easier to meet up online but the core issue is it takes so much time and effort to go outside that you consider alternatives.
Okay, so, I have a whole lot of thoughts about this whole situation – mostly personal, some observational of the outside world – but for now, I have one ember of outrage glowing that I want to let out:
What?! How the fuck?..
When I don't want to be distracted – whether I'm planning to sleep at an irregular time, or I'm working, or I'm talking a walk where I have a lot to think about – I turn off my phone. (Well: the communication function of it. Nobody can reach me, but I can still take notes and listen to music.) It's a simple a rule as there's ever been: "no want device – make device no work".
The fact that people could be punished for turning off their phones is so brazenly against human dignity for me that I'm astonished to hear that it's even a matter of consideration somewhere.
So, okay, I go into the office, and I'm given a stack of paper that I have to do my thing with. No problem. If I have someone in my life that could call me out of the blue – which is, like, not an outrageous assumption – the best thing I can do for productivity is to turn off the device that lets them unintentionally distract me by calling or messaging, is it not? Whether I'm doing work on papers, or washing dishes, or sweeping the floor, or driving, the assumption is that my undistracted work is preferred, and a phone is a known source of unintentional distraction, so... you punish me for trying to do better?
The other case I can see for such an appalling situation is punishing the worker for having their phone off while off-work, but that's even worse. How the fuck is that any of your concern what I do past my working hours? I know it's often required for people to be reached out to in case of an emergency in the workplace – which is a whole another outrage nobody seems to be having – but even then, punishing people for not being reachable past their working hours?
You can tell by the tone of my voice that I never had to deal with this shit. I'm lucky. Many people aren't. I'm not even gonna ask why would people keep up with this shit – I just wanna know how can one, 'cause it sounds ridiculous to be living under such conditions. And I'm not talking about people like firefighters or paramedics, who willingly sign up for their high-stress jobs: I'm talking about regular-joe and regular-jane people whose working conditions should not entail such urgency as one would expect from a SWAT team.
A sensible reason this could be done for is some people need to be on call to respond to time critical issues like a system admin dealing with something going offline. When you are on call you usually get paid extra for just being required to be contactable and then paid extra if you ever get called.
Ironically, the example this article uses to demonstrate that poorer people are getting less human interaction is actually run by humans:
The words that Sox says are coming from humans, not from an algorithm. Of course, she's presented as a digital avatar, rather than as a live human, but she is still just a puppet operated by humans, rather than a non-human algorithm. There's a human (or humans) behind that screen.
That said, this is a trend I've noticed in real life. The most noticeable examples I've seen recently are:
Chat pop-ups on retailer websites. I know they're driven by algorithms: I tried using one once, and it was unable to answer unexpected questions.
Touchscreen self-serve interfaces at McDonald's. A new McDonald's store opened in my area recently, and it has no provision for people to walk in and be served by a person. If you go through the drive-thru section, you'll be served by a person but, if you walk in to the store, there are no staffed registers. I saw an elderly woman get served by an employee who had to use the same touchscreen self-serve device as customers.
It's just cheaper for companies to use computers than humans. So, yes, human service is becoming a luxury good.
Long story short: I prefer sincere personal (as opposed to professional) human interaction over any mode of communication.
That said... I'd rather self-order on the big-ass touchscreen, always. When I come to McD's, I come for comfort food. Which means I'm in the mindframe that craves it, which means I'm in no position to be sociable: I need to eat something like what McD serves to feel better and be more human.
I'd also rather use self-checkout machines at big stores, probably because I feel more in control of the process. (Ironically, whenever the machine hiccups, I feel helpless and have to call the tired woman taking care of the machines to fix it for me. There's no machine to fix the machine – and which machine would fix the machine that's supposed to fix the machines if it breaks?)
In general, I'd rather self-checkout everything that counts as "supplies": food, sanitary items, medicine, screws...
It makes sense to me that I'd rather retain all the energy I have as an anxious introvert to spend on people I care about. It also makes sense to me that I'd hire professionals when I need something really good or specialized done. Beyond that, I'd rather automate or otherwise set up in the smoothest manner possible.
Another common example of de-humanisation: self-serve checkouts at supermarkets and department stores.
This reminds me of another aspect to this issue: every machine we interact with is putting a human out of work. Every self-serve checkout is doing a human's job and forcing people into unemployment. This is why I recently made the commitment to myself to avoid self-serve checkouts: to keep a human in a job.
Sure, removing humans from the situation is good for people with social anxiety, high introversion, autism, and so on.
But the majority of humans need some form of human interaction.
I'm not denying that. I'd rather talk to people than not – but it has to be a genuine interaction, not synthetic. Talking to a clerk is nowhere near as energizing as spending time with your loved ones, or with your dog, or meeting strangers in a workshop you both enjoy.
Sure, I'd rather talk to people than not. More importantly, I'd rather talk to people I care about than those I have to. Synthetic speech patterns are an Frankenstein's monster of all the human capacity for creative endeavor and ingenuity.
I think your heart is in the right place but your actions are misplaced. The jobs will get automated; I'm not seeing many people taking up the same commitment as you, for a variety of reasons, most of them – parts of our nature. The question is not how many jobs can be saved: it's how long we have until most of the people that beep your produce and take your cash are laid off, and how we can mitigate the massive incoming wave of unemployment.
It's why I'm a big fan of re-education programs. I think there should be more, sooner, just so more people can feel safer about their future in the world that's changing at an incredible pace. They're part of the investment into the future; not all there is to it, but important in their own right.
Is working a checkout really a job worth saving? Having someone move my items from one side of the scanner to the other while they ask me how my day has been when they really don't care is not exactly the highlight of my day. I'm sure the people working at the checkout would rather be doing something else.
Rather than trying to stop automation which is totally impossible we should understand that it is happening and work out how to make it smooth and beneficial to everyone. Instead of trying to keep that person behind the checkout we should be making sure they have a path into something else that is still a useful task. At some point we might find ourselves with less useful jobs left than people. At that point we should be making sure that the machines that have automated everything are community owned so we can have all of our needs satisfied while enjoying all the free time to pursue personal goals such as art, sport, social and other things.
I think there is a post automation world where things are much better than they are now but I also see a much worse world where a few people who own all the automation have taken everything for themselves. If we understand this and focus effort on directing things to the good path I think things will be fine.
I agree that the real solution is a systematic change that allows automating things so we don't have to do them anymore to be a good thing rather than a bad one, but my issue and why I go back and forth on this is that no answer to "should I use the automated option" follows from that. Like, the reasoning for not using the automated option is the immediate harm it can do to the lives of people who will be replaced, and what I believe to be the solution to the problem as a whole doesn't resolve that issue.
I usually deal with questions like this that I can't resolve with the option that doesn't hurt others but is shitty for myself (in this case not using the automated options) just so I don't feel shitty about it later, but this is one I have a particularly hard time with, as on some level this is something we will have to go through no matter how much I personally try to delay it. Should we delay it? Or do we do the most mundane variety of accelerationism possible? I don't know, it just goes in circles in my head.
This article seems a little alarmist but touches on some real issues. Social media and a lot of tech has really been pushing all this warped and fake social interactions that I think have become a real negative to society. I don't agree that the rich are much more able to opt out of tracking. The CEOs are mostly still on linked in and facebook. As far as I know facebook offers no paid service to disable all tracking. The ones who have left facebook are just as capable of doing so as the average person. Most of us are not really required to use facebook and for those who really do have to use it usually don't have to use it nearly to the level they do.
Tech addiction is rarely forced on us. All that time spent mindlessly browsing youtube or instagram is not required but the government or for jobs. Usually you only have to do the bare minimum like sometimes browse job ad listing websites or pay bills online which takes very little time. The blame is not entirely on the individual, big corps have engineered these products to be incredibly addictive but having more money doesn't make you immune to addiction.
I agree that being 100% tech free might be some kind of status symbol that most of us can not archive but being 100% tech free is pretty overhyped. If we really just used tech for the time actually required by jobs we would be left with a lot of time left for real human interaction.
In my opinion the real killer of face to face human interaction has been cars. We all live so far apart that meeting up with others and going to events is a real effort. Our tech comes in here a bit because its easier to meet up online but the core issue is it takes so much time and effort to go outside that you consider alternatives.