@TerryBTwo Thanks Terry! I see what you mean. I'll see what I can do about that… I think I'm stuck seeing so many options or paths I found it hard to be as strict. But yes, perhaps better to be more strict in the criteria, which would require strongly motivated reasoning to deviate.
Tagged: Akkoma
I recently came across writer Wendell Berry’s checklist in his 1987 essay Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer[a] referenced by Jason Kottke[b] and Ted Gioia[c]. Berry outlined criteria describing what it would take for him to use new technology in his work. I’ve personally bought and used computers since 1982, but the list still resonated with me. I’ve taken the liberty of rewriting and adding to his insights, making a list for the 2020s that makes sense to me.
[This is a draft for a blog post.]
As should be expected, many of these questions do not have a strict yes-or-no answer. They do, however, encourage reflection and consideration around each topic area – which is what moral reasoning is all about.
Desirable characteristics of new technology:
1. Considering all manners of cost, new tech should be less costly than the task or phenomenon it replaces.
2. The output and work of new tech should be clearly and demonstrably better than what it replaces.
3. New tech should use less energy than what it replaces, or clearly boost impaired physical or mental capacity in service of wellbeing.
4. Information about the waste produced and natural resources consumed by new technology must be made available explicitly and in an accessible format. This includes the complete value chain of production.
5. New tech should be repairable by most people with access to tools, or repairable at a reasonable distance from home–by a tradesperson–at an affordable price.
6. New tech should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, which includes family and community relationships.
7. New tech should never explicitly replace human beings – its purpose is to support human beings in accomplishing humanity-desirable goals.
8. New tech should not require surveillance-like or privacy-invasive features to work. Any such features should be off by default and clearly apparent and understood by anyone using–or being subjected to–the technology.
9. People must be provided a clear and accessible path to objecting to new technology and not have it forced upon them–whether it’s as users, as subjects of use or as involuntary contributors.
10. All new technology must be accompanied with clear instructions on its intended use and how to achieve defined outcomes.
11. It must be possible for makers of new technology to be held accountable when use of the technology according to accompanying instructions causes measurable harm to humans, other sentient beings or the environment.
12. The making, maintenance and operations of technology should never require or amplify suffering.
It's hard to make an exhaustive list and I always feel like I must have missed something critical. But let's start here, and I'm always open to input. I can definitely see myself using these criteria in teaching, and as a framework for running workshops.
---
[a] Wendell Berry's original essay as a scanned PDF: Why I am not going to buy a computer – containing responses and Berry's reply to the responses. https://classes.matthewjbrown.net/teaching-files/philtech/berry-computer.pdf
[b] Kottke's post Nine Rules for Evaluating New Technology, found via @tante. https://kottke.org/25/05/nine-rules-for-evaluating-new-technology
[c] Gioia’s walkthrough of the nine rules. https://www.honest-broker.com/p/9-rules-for-new-technology
I identified with that famed XKCD cartoon for too long. Drawing a new panel myself made it easier to manifest another way of being.
Make a 'mistake' in your post. Have people comment to correct it. Immediate boost in engagement. This is one way people game algorithms.
@TomasHelleberg Yes, I believe so, but I also appreciate the significance of passing with higher numbers on all counts. It’s not entirely unlikely that there are votes in there that may be discounted, or put into question by those objecting to a ban.
Today (May 17) is the last day to support this initiative, proposed by European Union citizens, to ban conversion practices in the European Union.
These countries still haven’t reached the threshold but are getting close:
Croatia is at 93%
Denmark is at 88%
Austria is at 81%
https://eci.ec.europa.eu/043/public/#/screen/home
Conversion practices (or so called “conversion therapies”) are acts which deliberately try to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
They are based on the belief that it is better to heterosexual and/or cisgender, and that other sexual orientations and gender identities are somehow flawed, wrong or “broken”.
@mralancooper Close but not quite I'd say. Perhaps each instance is a cooperative. But the bigger the instance the less of a voice you have in influencing its direction, relationships with other instances (like blocks), internal moderation and financing.
Mastodon isn't really a cooperative either as very few people are controlling what features are built and which are ignored. Participants have very little say.
I've chosen other software not because it gives me more influence over development but I like that it's smaller and it works better for my way of participating in the Fediverse. A 1-person instance does give me influence over the instance culture though, haha.😛
"Trained on" is doing a lot of work in many services.
Foundation models are "trained" on a huge amount of data. To imitate a person a service is then not "trained on" someone's text messages for example. The text messages are not enough to create a passable output from a computer.
The text messages are an input to an already trained model, where the original training material is just not disclosed.
I feel like "trained on" is often dangerously misleading when it refers to a tool built on top of a foundation model. It doesn't really acknowledge that any such service that will "imitate" a person also has thousands if not millions of other human voices as part of the computations it draws from.
And actually "trained on" is misleading in many other ways but I'm out of breath 😅
Anyway, I was listening to @404mediaco's episode on the "AI" avatar of a killed man that "testified" in court. Worth a listen.
https://pca.st/episode/8bc12731-f6db-47a9-a800-14916f1cce3d
Speaking of efficiency, imagine how much time could be shifted from tech grifts to actual caring and love.
@PavelASamsonov Truly makes it hard to find motivation for a lot of work.
@perb Tack, får så många bra tips här. Och jävlar vilken fantastisk recension… https://www.techradar.com/audio/portable-media-players/astell-and-kern-aandnorma-sr35-review
@JMMaok I remember trying a bone conduction headset many years ago. It kinda freaked me out. 😂
@renedario Nice. And they appear to have models with buetooth.
@JoWa galet snygg!!
I’m considering a music player so I can play music without being attached to my phone. Ideally something like the iPod nano. Are there any decent music players on the market today or is my best bet to actually try and find an old iPod nano?
I’m really nostalgic for the original Sony Walkman… Apparently there is a Sony Walkman player on the market today for almost 4,000 dollars. 🤪
It’s mindblowing to me how many support bots are being implemented to save time for support staff on “simpler issues”, instead of improving the interface and interactions in ways that remove the need to ask those simpler questions.
Perpetual bot investments versus fix the issues 🤷
@Thelie There are quite a few papers these days that look suspiciously like blog posts.