The technology dreams. The unnecessary debates. And what we should really be doing!

I recently “bumped into” my son (6) in the hallway in the middle of the night. We both happened to get up at the same time to drink some water. Quirky enough in itself. Then he starts: “Dad, I’ve just had a wonderful dream”. Me: “Great, what did you dream?” He: “That I’d get my own Alexa for my birthday”. So that’s how far we’ve come.

(Reading time: 5 minutes)

Dreams and nightmares of our time

Dealing with technological development is driven by dreams. I experience this time and time again. At a time when technological development is the defining constant of an entire Western community, we have become dreamers of what is technically feasible. Different camps have formed: The “nice dreamers” and the nightmarish dreamers. The camp of non-dreamers, on the other hand, is regrettably relatively small.

Unfortunately, however, this is not exactly conducive to a differentiated exchange about the further development of humanity. Because dreams remain dreams. And firstly, things turn out differently and secondly, differently than you think. A dream is always based on (surreal) analogies and these are a complete hindrance when it comes to predicting future developments, including social developments. Or at least wanting to predict them.

Values/society debate

I’m slowly but surely getting a little tired of the values debate that always arises as a result. I get caught up in one practically every week:

We would have to tell people how to deal with technology. We would have to keep the robots in check, otherwise they would have to put a bridle on us. Silicon Valley wants to impose a way of thinking on the entire (western) world.

What most of the people involved in this discussion have failed to realize is how much work is still needed to bring artificial intelligence into an area where it can really make radical progress. And I say that as someone who is very optimistic about the speed of precisely this development.

Once we have reached that point, the world will be a different place one way or another. And the questions that seem interesting and worth discussing today will no longer be questions. And the use of this technology will feel completely natural.

Even prominent thought leaders are not immune to this

The tricky thing is that even prominent thought leaders such as Ray Kurzweil are not immune to such public thought experiments and gimmicks. A few years ago, for example, in his essay “The law of accelerating returns“, he did a good job of explaining how and why technology progresses exponentially. However, he did not stop there, but went on to explain how this development could continue and what the role of humans is in it.

For the vast majority of people, this cannot be classified as a thought experiment: Either complete nonsense, total enthusiasm or a threat to be taken seriously.

Some intellectuals take up these points and discuss them widely. However, with all due respect, the actual value of these discussions, over and above the basic value of any discussion, is not clear to me. It’s like discussing in 1950 whether there should one day be cell phone-free hotels.

Technologic

The question that is probably most interesting in all the discussions is that of the development of intelligence. Many people in the tech scene see biology as a possible technology for the development of intelligence. However, it is extremely unlikely that this developing intelligence will only remain in biology.

It is more likely that non-biological intelligence will help biological intelligence to improve first. This is a development that began a long time ago. We have long been a human-machine complex. And we are becoming more so every day. We have long since crossed all boundaries.

The fact that intelligence takes on a life of its own is not an ideological construct per se, but a thought taken to its logical conclusion. As far as we can think at the moment. The fact that this independent intelligence is then directed against humans is a fantasy construct from science fiction films. It is simply illogical for this to happen. It is more logical that this intelligence leaves humans behind and moves on. If we remain in the biological realm, the field of action and the dimension of consciousness of this independent intelligence will never be revealed to us. And, by the way, it doesn’t have to. What is much more exciting is that this process may have already taken place with another species without humans being aware of it.

To construct the suspicion from all this that there is a Sillicon Valley-driven plan to transform Western society, as is expressed here and there, I have nothing to say in response. I simply find it absurd. Because the tech community has no real ideological common core, no common sense. Or I simply haven’t noticed it in all these years. Rather, I experience the tech community as a colorful bunch of people who like to see new things work.

If they perhaps have something in common, it is the effort to make decisions that are as logical and objective as possible. As little analogy as possible. As much first principle as possible. This may come across as quite radical in ideologically driven circles.

More active work

My criticism of such disputes is not aimed at the goodwill of the individual participants. Rapid technological progress brings enormous challenges.

What depresses me is that people, especially in politics, prefer to talk about hypothetical futuristic problems instead of addressing the challenges of the next few days.

“Every little thing is going to be alright”

I am not advocating a completely carefree, “every little thing is going to be alright” approach to technological progress.

The challenges are enormous and the stupidest thing politicians can do is to prevent technology. This will go 100% wrong because all technology will be used sooner or later. Instead of prevention, anticipation should be the path of choice.

What we really need is to actively address the challenges of the next 24 months. What will we do with cab drivers, bus drivers, train drivers & truck drivers when autonomous driving becomes established? What will we do when PV and storage technologies become widespread?

How do we generally deal with the systemic economic challenges of replacing labor as a production factor with robots? How should our economy function in the future? Our tax system? Our income structure? The list of big, tricky questions is long.

Meanwhile, a serious debate with concrete proposals for solutions and considerations is not taking place. Neither in politics nor in intellectual circles.

This is disastrous because there is still time to finally anticipate technological developments in society and minimize the social damage that will inevitably result from the upheavals. If something has to happen, then this is it.