If you’ve read me for a while you know that – when it comes to tech reporting/talking about tech – I have been around the block a few times. Talked about some hypes, cut some supposedly magic technologies down to size. Sometimes even defending or advocating for certain tech.
After a while the patterns seem to repeat (which is what lead to my talk on Empty Innovation). Narrative structures keep coming up again and again just with certain keywords replaced or updated. And sometimes not even that. But I also keep repeating myself, trying to hopefully bring some clarity to certain technologies as a springboard towards a deeper, more contextualized understanding that does not try to strip all politics and history and social meaning from tech. It doesn’t always work but I have my moments.
But today – in another conversation on “AI” and what it can or will or might or might not do in the future – a radical idea came to me. Something truly shocking. Here’s the thing:
Things that do not exist (yet) do not exist.
Mind. Blown. I know.
And of course my brain having soaked in way to much philosophical reading wants to pull it apart (What even does “to exist” mean? Don’t you believe that dreams or goals exist and have an impact on the world? etc. etc.) but bear with me for a second. And let’s just use a very simple understanding of existing. Like the things you can see or touch or actually explore in a defined shape that others experience similarly to you exist. This laptop. This blog. Others do not. Like the chocolate bar I’d love to have right now but does not exist.
Sure. Great job stating trivialities, sugar addict. Why should I care?
Well. It’s been a long time since we talked about technologies, innovations etc. as things that exist. And it’s hurting us and the discourse.
Let’s just stick to AI, the hype du jour: You can of course talk about these systems and what they do. About some marginal improvement on some benchmark that a new model has bought with a billion dollars in energy spending or something. But that’s barely ever the discourse.
A few days ago I commented on Meta’s open letter to the EU asking to be allowed to use all the data without paying or obeying the law. For innovation and because it might raise GDP. And while Meta’s letter is a blatant example of propaganda and lobbying the way it argues isn’t limited to the shady area of the digital city.
We are constantly asked to keep talking about things as potential. To judge things based on promises of what they might do that go way beyond the actual realities of the thing. Like OpenAI and others can’t make any money with their machine learning models. But their text and image generators might bring a 10% GDP increase as Meta’s open letter claims? You sure about that? Sounds like that requires a lot of magic thinking between 1) “OpenAI builds stochastic parrots” and 3) “GDP goes up by 10%”. How exactly is 2) shaped in this chain of reasoning and does it actually exist?
Sure I can argue that if you all give me 100 bucks right now you will all be millionaires in 10 years. But what exactly is the rational connective tissue between those statements? Or might they be the ramblings of a person either not very smart or very much a con artist?
In the tech discourse we need to stop thinking and talking about things that do not exist.
When someone tries to sell their tech (step 1 in the chain of reasoning) with massively large claims (step 3 in the chain) look at whether step 2 actually exists in reality. Because if it doesn’t that’d not “disruptive innovation” or “a breakthrough” or “a unicorn”. That is bullshit. It’s not just a waste of your time, it’s a way to infantilize you.
If you allow any jump (giving tante 100 bucks now makes you a millionaire in a year) no argument matters anymore. Sure massively wasteful “AI” systems could somehow solve the climate crisis but they probably most definitely absolutely won’t. But it’s possible under the “any promise about the future is allowed” rule. Because that rule makes all analysis, all prediction, all hopes and goals irrelevant. Anything is possible and you can just pick whose random string of word salad you follow. Maybe ask the rich dude who claims to be a stochastic parrot himself and who runs OpenAI? Take a bigger swing and go to the “our machine god will save/kill us all” folks. You already accepted that nothing means anything anyways.
I’m tired of arguing with word salat. I’m taking a radical stand. I just want to talk about what is real when it comes to tech. Fuck your visions, come back when you have some proof.
https://tante.cc/2024/09/23/a-radical-idea/