I believe in the potential of technology to deliver improvements in our lives. I am driven by the creative opportunities that technology affords. It is not that I do not recognise the risks and shortcomings of technology, I have, after all, devoted a good part of my working life to them, but my instinct is towards solutions to these problems - better technology in essence.
I am distressed therefore, to sense a growing anti-technology sentiment. This is most prominent in reactions to AI, but manifests in views of social media, content technologies, autonomous vehicles, sensed environments, virtual reality, the list goes on. How has this sentiment come about? There are many reasons.
It is, of course, easier to identify risks, particularly those that entail speculation about social and cultural impacts, the bar for evidence is low and the scope for anecdote high. It is certainly easier than engaging with the technology, understanding its capabilities and the potential for mitigations. This necessitates hard work, and possibly even mathematics, statistics and engineering. Ironically, forecasting dire consequences from a technology is itself a low risk occupation. Either you are right, and thus a prophet in your time, or you are wrong, in which case the fact that the risk did not actually manifest is attributable to your foresight in providing an early warning.
This feeds in to a broader societal approach to risk. We rightly set the bar high when it comes to potential harms, and should naturally pay particular attention to vulnerable people, but there are tradeoffs and a widespread good can offset local harms. Furthermore, and here I recognise I must tread on contested territory, individuals have choices, and must bear the consequences of those choices. Our media environment gives voice and reach to interest groups of all kinds, this is good, but does not mean we should give them all equal weight.
I have something of a suspicion that scepticism about technology comes easiest to those whose lives are already economically comfortable, and who do not have to engage with the practical challenges that technology is intended to alleviate. This is not to discount the views of those whose immediate jobs are at risk but rather to observe that these are not the voices heard most loudly.
Quite a bit of the anti-technological sentiment is, most recently, associated with the actions and views of individual technology leaders, and with the shape of the technology ecosystem, specifically its dominance by large, principally US-based, platform providers.
I do not think it makes sense to form an opinion of a technology because you dislike the behaviour of its developers or its commercial proponents. Perhaps, in these cases, closer scrutiny is called for, after all they are getting to shape how that technology is realised and this is not a wholly neutral process. Overall however, the characteristics of the technology stands substantially apart from the reported character of a small coterie of technology executives.
As an aside, it might well be that we need driven, risk-oriented, entrepreneurial, single-minded, commercially focussed individuals to bring technologies to the market. I am not saying this to excuse poor behaviour, and certainly not to justify ethical lapses, but simply that I prefer to look objectively at what the technology has to offer, instead of some founder’s taste in hoodies.
I would rather we had a more diverse, open, technology ecosystem. I suspect it would be better for the progress of the technology, and for consumers, if that were the case. I would very much rather that the UK had a greater stake in this ecosystem, obviously. Despite these fond wishes, I recognise that the ecosystem is shaped as it is substantially because of the value placed by users on an integrated and interoperable platform and a seamless user experience. It is easier to achieve this in a homogeneous setting. Global infrastructure requires access to large scale investment capital which necessarily favours larger organisations with more comprehensive technology portfolios and market access. This is not the place to discuss the evolution of the market in digital services and products, and I am ill-equipped to do so, but I do not think it is reasonable to be critical of a technology simply because Microsoft, Google, Amazon and similar, have the the capacity and determination to commercially exploit it.
Finally we come to business models. I accept that some of the ways in which organisations have sought to monetise technology can have negative effects. Thus, models that are driven by advertising lead, for example in social media, to an algorithmic strategy that seeks to maximise ‘attention’. The adverse consequences of this include ‘filter bubbles’ and related phenomena with serious societal consequences. These models are not however, a necessary feature of the technology, they are about choices consumers as well as businesses make. Streaming services may reward original music poorly, and rely on very large back-catalogues of established artists because that is what the listener opts into. It could be different if we chose differently and it is no part of a market to determine otherwise, and in my judgment is properly beyond the reach of regulation. This is not my primary argument, I would simply wish to assert that the essence of the technology should not be confused with the accident of the business model.
Overall, I think we need a counterweight to anti-technological sentiment and I think I have nailed my colours firmly to the mast. I am a techno-optimist.