A fascinating piece, Tom. The interaction between humans and their tools goes way back. My daughter's archaeology masters thesis, 'In the mind of the maker', was able to demonstrate that early humans' brains were shaped by the tools that they used and vice versa. This contributed to the development of our enormous frontal lobes. We now know that early repeated trauma affects the hippocampus and prefrontal and frontal cortex of the brain and this is reversible with psychological treatment. We also know that the memory areas of the brains of London taxi cab drivers are more developed than non cab drivers because before satnav, they had to learn every possible route off by heart. Who knows what the next round of new technology will do to our brains? We hold the seeds of our own advancement - or destruction.
Excellent comment. My Dad worked a job that involved lots of driving. He built a mental map of our area that was equivalent to ‘the knowledge’ that a London cabbie has. It’s remarkable how plastic our brains can be. And also potentially frightening in its implications, as you say. Tech can be a great opportunity if we approach it philosophically and with due caution. Or it could be a disaster.
What a great article! Yes, the foundation needs to be kept strong. Hard and unpopular work, but important. And I'm probably wrong, but I believe and hope no AI can ever write a song that touches our souls like "Blowin' in the Wind" or "Both Sides, Now."
AI is all dependent on the inputs as I noted. I suspect artists will soon start explicitly stating that they do not consent for their work to be used as data for machine learning. And with that the likelihood of the machines creating a new ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ becomes even more remote.
This will ideally need to be added as a field in the metadata artists can provide to distributors; the upload process for a song involves filling out a long form with many fields and checkboxes like, "Does this song have lyrics? Yes/No", record label name, producer name, start time for 30-second sample, etc. etc.
Dec 3, 2022·edited Dec 4, 2022Liked by Thomas J Bevan
I can't recall where that discussion happened—perhaps in one of the cosy STSC chats—but someone mentioned how cars changed the world physically, in particular cities, reshaping the landscape so it has become built for them, around them, around the idea of having a car (in some countries it's more vivid), and how now the internet and smartphones reshape the world so it's now revolves around them. A tool intended to solve a problem, well... solved it, improved our lives technologically, yes, but also created a vast field of other problems, which have become tasks for us to solve, the aim of which is to create the environment for that tool. Thus grows our dependency on it. Pardon me, I'm almost repeating what you said but that was my thought process—I'm just channeling it. What I wanted to say is, it's fascinating how a tool—be it a car or a phone—can make us change the world for its needs, either on macro (e.g. cars and cities) to micro (e.g. writing apps and writing) levels.
Thanks for this, mate, glad you enjoyed it. Hopefully you enjoyed it as much as I'm currently enjoying reading my advanced copy of your story collection.
Anyway, I have considered writing about the car but I can see it would be a pretty huge undertaking to add enough nuance and caveats not to hugely offend at least someone. Hence, the appeal of fiction writing I guess.
That comes from Ivan Illich and his book Tools for Conviviality, he called the process of the car changing the city for its needs and thereby excluding anyone without a car from participation in the city a radical monopoly. He also said that industrial medicine similarly excludes any folk and herbal medicines, and that state education excludes any learning outside of an institution as it claims it as lesser. But as you point out all tools to a certain extent have the potential for us to change the world for their needs even if they don't exclude other ways of being/operating.
Illich was great, still underrated and under-discussed as an important thinker of the 20th century in my opinion. I’ve read two (maybe three) of his works. At some point I need to really do a deep dive but I fear it will prove influential enough that Ij just become an Illich parroter in future essays.
Your piece brought to mind the new artificial intelligence writing tools like jasper.ai and copymatic.ai. Bloggers and copywriters are already leveraging these apps to combat writer’s block, or to do most of the heavy lifting in their writing. Which makes me shudder. What separates us from machines is our humanity and souls. And the best writing channels our humanity and souls. I’m not opposed to technology to improve our lives and efficiency, but once we abdicate our humanity and souls, we trudge down a path towards mediocrity and irrelevancy.
Very tempted to comment that those tools are in essence "grunt work" killers (or even "BS work" killers in the Graeberian sense). Real writers will never fear this, as they are the farmers that feed the content-making machine, not the other way around.
This leads me to ask: why are "corporate content creators" even needed? Are the audience sometimes too dull to read instructions/documentation/theory? (see Wikipedia and dictionary TTS videos) Aren't organizational knowledge management (someone handling education and materials e.g. company wiki) already a "thing" albeit a niche one?
But at the same time, for casual content, the word "parasocial agency" seems to hit close: most consumer-audience want something that they can enjoy being a pseudo-company with, rather than just discover fellow men of interest OR doing the act contained within the message itself. Is this just laziness or loneliness, or would something else be at play? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03DgKSpRtT0
I couldn’t not agree more, I have the exact same feelings and reaction. What consoles me though is that anyone who would really lean on such technology is invariably a hack anyway and is probably not capable of doing things ‘the old fashioned way’.
I think humanity and soul in art will become a more prized commodity and artists who have that should not panic. ‘Content creators’ should start getting nervous though…
"The desire to create for its own sake is what it means to be human."
Indeed Tom, the desire to create for its own sake is what it means to be human. Except of course this idea and conception is ever under attack by a mechanistic worldview that sees fewer and fewer reasons to do things for its own sake.
May I say I love reading your essays. They encourage me in the contemplative life. And fortunately for me I just concluded a series of essays where I touched on the intercourse between man and his tools. Something I am sure you will find interesting.
After having had a quick look, I can see that your trilogy of tech essays is good stuff. Looking forward to digging in once I have the time. Keep at it, mate.
A fascinating piece, Tom. The interaction between humans and their tools goes way back. My daughter's archaeology masters thesis, 'In the mind of the maker', was able to demonstrate that early humans' brains were shaped by the tools that they used and vice versa. This contributed to the development of our enormous frontal lobes. We now know that early repeated trauma affects the hippocampus and prefrontal and frontal cortex of the brain and this is reversible with psychological treatment. We also know that the memory areas of the brains of London taxi cab drivers are more developed than non cab drivers because before satnav, they had to learn every possible route off by heart. Who knows what the next round of new technology will do to our brains? We hold the seeds of our own advancement - or destruction.
Excellent comment. My Dad worked a job that involved lots of driving. He built a mental map of our area that was equivalent to ‘the knowledge’ that a London cabbie has. It’s remarkable how plastic our brains can be. And also potentially frightening in its implications, as you say. Tech can be a great opportunity if we approach it philosophically and with due caution. Or it could be a disaster.
All your essays are good, but I particularly enjoyed this one.
Thanks, mate, that means a lot. I got fairly bogged down in the middle when I was first drafting it but I think it turned out well in the end.
What a great article! Yes, the foundation needs to be kept strong. Hard and unpopular work, but important. And I'm probably wrong, but I believe and hope no AI can ever write a song that touches our souls like "Blowin' in the Wind" or "Both Sides, Now."
AI is all dependent on the inputs as I noted. I suspect artists will soon start explicitly stating that they do not consent for their work to be used as data for machine learning. And with that the likelihood of the machines creating a new ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ becomes even more remote.
This will ideally need to be added as a field in the metadata artists can provide to distributors; the upload process for a song involves filling out a long form with many fields and checkboxes like, "Does this song have lyrics? Yes/No", record label name, producer name, start time for 30-second sample, etc. etc.
That’s an easy to implement and sensible solution. Which makes me question the likelihood of it happening. Haha.
I can't recall where that discussion happened—perhaps in one of the cosy STSC chats—but someone mentioned how cars changed the world physically, in particular cities, reshaping the landscape so it has become built for them, around them, around the idea of having a car (in some countries it's more vivid), and how now the internet and smartphones reshape the world so it's now revolves around them. A tool intended to solve a problem, well... solved it, improved our lives technologically, yes, but also created a vast field of other problems, which have become tasks for us to solve, the aim of which is to create the environment for that tool. Thus grows our dependency on it. Pardon me, I'm almost repeating what you said but that was my thought process—I'm just channeling it. What I wanted to say is, it's fascinating how a tool—be it a car or a phone—can make us change the world for its needs, either on macro (e.g. cars and cities) to micro (e.g. writing apps and writing) levels.
Anyway, fantastic essay as always, great read.
Thanks for this, mate, glad you enjoyed it. Hopefully you enjoyed it as much as I'm currently enjoying reading my advanced copy of your story collection.
Anyway, I have considered writing about the car but I can see it would be a pretty huge undertaking to add enough nuance and caveats not to hugely offend at least someone. Hence, the appeal of fiction writing I guess.
Cheers.
Yeah, I totally understand. Fiction on this topic would be great some time in the future 😉
Honestly, I find tackling stuff via narrative far more interesting. 1 more essay to go before the fiction focus begins…
That comes from Ivan Illich and his book Tools for Conviviality, he called the process of the car changing the city for its needs and thereby excluding anyone without a car from participation in the city a radical monopoly. He also said that industrial medicine similarly excludes any folk and herbal medicines, and that state education excludes any learning outside of an institution as it claims it as lesser. But as you point out all tools to a certain extent have the potential for us to change the world for their needs even if they don't exclude other ways of being/operating.
Illich was great, still underrated and under-discussed as an important thinker of the 20th century in my opinion. I’ve read two (maybe three) of his works. At some point I need to really do a deep dive but I fear it will prove influential enough that Ij just become an Illich parroter in future essays.
Wonderful! Your commentary is exceptional. I just "upgraded to paid."
Thanks!
Fantastic news! Pleasure to have you on board. I look forward to seeing you over at the STSC community.
Your piece brought to mind the new artificial intelligence writing tools like jasper.ai and copymatic.ai. Bloggers and copywriters are already leveraging these apps to combat writer’s block, or to do most of the heavy lifting in their writing. Which makes me shudder. What separates us from machines is our humanity and souls. And the best writing channels our humanity and souls. I’m not opposed to technology to improve our lives and efficiency, but once we abdicate our humanity and souls, we trudge down a path towards mediocrity and irrelevancy.
Very tempted to comment that those tools are in essence "grunt work" killers (or even "BS work" killers in the Graeberian sense). Real writers will never fear this, as they are the farmers that feed the content-making machine, not the other way around.
This leads me to ask: why are "corporate content creators" even needed? Are the audience sometimes too dull to read instructions/documentation/theory? (see Wikipedia and dictionary TTS videos) Aren't organizational knowledge management (someone handling education and materials e.g. company wiki) already a "thing" albeit a niche one?
But at the same time, for casual content, the word "parasocial agency" seems to hit close: most consumer-audience want something that they can enjoy being a pseudo-company with, rather than just discover fellow men of interest OR doing the act contained within the message itself. Is this just laziness or loneliness, or would something else be at play? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03DgKSpRtT0
I couldn’t not agree more, I have the exact same feelings and reaction. What consoles me though is that anyone who would really lean on such technology is invariably a hack anyway and is probably not capable of doing things ‘the old fashioned way’.
I think humanity and soul in art will become a more prized commodity and artists who have that should not panic. ‘Content creators’ should start getting nervous though…
"The desire to create for its own sake is what it means to be human."
Indeed Tom, the desire to create for its own sake is what it means to be human. Except of course this idea and conception is ever under attack by a mechanistic worldview that sees fewer and fewer reasons to do things for its own sake.
May I say I love reading your essays. They encourage me in the contemplative life. And fortunately for me I just concluded a series of essays where I touched on the intercourse between man and his tools. Something I am sure you will find interesting.
https://open.substack.com/pub/busyminds/p/the-end-of-an-era?utm_source=direct&r=89l9f&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
This link above has the links to the essays. I would be delighted if you would take a look at them.
Until next time Tom, as you encourage us to live well, I do the same to you too.
Live well.
After having had a quick look, I can see that your trilogy of tech essays is good stuff. Looking forward to digging in once I have the time. Keep at it, mate.