What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly

What Technology Wants

Finally I read What Technology Wants, by Kevin Kelly.

My notes.

The technium is a word Kevin Kelly invented to indicate the autonomous self-enforcing system of technologies, machines, tools, ideas.

As such, the technium as a concept reminds me of The Selfish Gene from Richard Dawkins and Harari’s AI concept in Homo Deus.

On the latter: throughout the book I kept wondering why there was no reference at all in Harari’s Home Deus to this book from Kevin Kelly. The technium coincides so much with Harari’s ideas of a developing autonomous AI, that the lack of reference could be called an omission. (What Technology Wants was published in 2010, Homo Deus in 2016.)

A breakthrough evolution in human intelligence was the development of man’s capability of language. This made is possible to improve the food for humans, increasing longevity, which increased learning in the communities of humans, which improved tools et cetera.

Like we domesticated animals, we ourselves became domesticated with technology. Our lives today are symbiotic with technology.

Technology over time developed from substance and energy-focused to organization and control of information.

Technology is the extended body of human for ideas.

The major transitions in the technium (in parallel to the major transitions in biology)

  • Primate communication -> language
  • Oral lore – Writing/mathematical notation
  • Scripts – Printing
  • Book knowledge – Scientific Method
  • Artisan production -> Mass production
  • Industrial culture -> ubiquitous global communication

Which seems a logical development, but it begs the question: what is the next step in such an evolution? Some higher form of intelligent interconnection between societies?

Development of technology has a benefit over biological development in that it can backtrack to developments from the past and reuse those. In biology, paths that have died out can not be integrated in active branches of biological development.

The technium’s information mass is ever-increasing and growing.

The relationship with population growth: population growth drives progress. More people means more minds, these minds can be working on more problems.

Now, the question arise what happens when the earth population declines.

Evolution converges to recurring forms. Some forms have  come out of evolution through independent paths (eyes, for example).

Also for the technium, independent, simultaneous evolution is the rule.

Convergent evolution (of technology and biology) is adaptive: changes to circumstances, contingent: based of luck, inevitable: evolves in a direction.

The inverted pyramid of invention (by Daniel Hillis): everyone can have an idea, executing on it is the most important thing.

It is our fate we have become connected with our technology. Only by embracing it we can steer its direction.

Technology does not answer world issues like war. New problems will arise with tech, always.

Technology seems to eat human dignity. Is that a misanthropic view?

Infamous tech-opponent the Unabomber was right: “Machine made decisions will bring better result than man-made ones.”

But even opposers of tech don’t give it all up. Nobody goes all the way: why?

  • Because tech is addictive?
  • Because tech covers its drawbacks to us?
  • Because in the end we chose to, after balancing pro’s and con’s.

We need to make better decisions about tech. And to be able to do so, we need more tech.

Kelly tells the story of how the Amish can teach us how we could weigh the benefits and evaluate the ways of using technology minimally.

We need to make minimum use of technologies because our time and attention are limited.

But that does not mean we should minimize technology development.

My question on this subject is: could it be that technology becomes so embedded in culture that also the conscious use of technology becomes part of our culture? Are we only in the early phases of adopting technology and is this a maturing process we have to go through. And realize that addicts (of technology) may always be there?

We have to live with technology, convivial.

We don’t see the potential of technology before it becomes mature. And it’s always different than anticipated.

We don’t need to proactively approve technology. We should monitor and adopt policy to technology developments.

We have to make technology convivial, compliant with life. For this, Kevin Kelly defines a number of characteristics technologies should adopt:

  • Promote collaboration.
  • Transparency, on ownership and origins. No asymmetrical knowledge for some users.
  • Decentralized, not monopolized.
  • Flexible, easy to modify, adapt, and easily given up by users.
  • Redundant, having several options, not monopolized.
  • Efficient, impacting ecosystems to the minimum.
  • Complexity of our life will continue to increase and we will continually need to manage this.
  • Diversity.
  • Specialization: technology grows towards the long tail of niches.
  • Ubiquity. Everyone will eventually get his hands on technology. More interesting to worry about is what to do when everyone has a technology, rather than how to give everyone a technology.
  • Freedom. The more complexity, the more freedom.
  • Mutualism, the collaborative nature, dependence creates a crucial social relationship between people and technologies.
  • Beauty. Technology evolves to the beauty that people love so much in the natural world.
  • Sentience. Technology will increase sentience. Not into a super mind, but into a form of distributed specialized minds.

The technium organizes the structure of knowledge, connecting different pockets of knowledge.

The technium keeps evolving, making rapid changes possible.

So why is this all better for humans?

It increase choices, including those for the good.

Allows humans to participate in new ideas.

A good device increases choices

Douglas Adams’ Salmon of Doubt on Beatles, Bach, Wodehouse, technology, Apple, atheism and hurling the chairs around.

Douglas Adams died young. Aged 49, in 2001.

But in his short life he wrote The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Enough for a meaningful life.

The Salmon of Doubt bundles the unpublished work he left on his Mac when he died.

When I read about this book first, it promised to be the unfinished sequel to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. But it is not. At best a very very little bit.

The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

The first number of stories are articles Adams wrote for different newspapers and magazines. After 2 thrids into it, the book finally gets to the proposed draft for the 6th sequel of the Hitchhikers Guide. But this part is prefaced with a remark by Adams saying a lot of the material in The Salmon does not work and could be yanked out.
Most of the stories following are unfinished Dirk Gently chapters. Dirk Gently is a bizar detective novel series created by Adams. A different topic than the Hitchhiker’s Guide, very amusing though.

The book starts right off with an introduction by Terry Jones (Monty Python, yes that Terry Jones).

“You are, without doubt, holding in your hands one of the best-introduced books in the English language. We hope you enjoy the Introduction to the New Edition that follows this Introduction to it and continue to read on even into the book itself. “

He is referring to the fact this is the third introduction in sequence to the new edition of the book.

“But with this handsome volume, I hope that Douglas’s work has finally achieved the full complement of Introductions that it deserves. Perhaps future editions might even boast a Foreword and a Foreword to the Foreword, so as to keep Douglas’s wonderful writing to the forefront of properly prefaced literature. Please enjoy this book and, when you have finished it, do not leave it on the train.”

The books has gathered published and unpublished articles and parts of books that are very entertaining but also provide a peak into the mind of the man who created The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, giving the number 42 its special meaning.
He talks about his love for The Beatles.

“It bewildered me that no one else could hear it: impossible harmonies and part playing you had never heard in pop songs before. The Beatles were obviously just putting all this stuff in for some secret fun of their own, and it seemed exciting to me that people could have fun in that way.”

To Adams the English writer P.G. Wodehouse is just as important to English literature as Milton, Shakespeare and Keats.

PG. Wodehouse

“Shakespeare? Milton? Keats? How can I possibly mention the author of Pearls, Girls and Monty Bodkin and Pigs Have Wings in the same breath as these men? He’s just not serious! He doesn’t need to be serious.”

And Bach.

“The familiarity of the Brandenburgs should not blind us to their magnitude. I’m convinced that Bach is the greatest genius who ever walked among us, and the Brandenburgs are what he wrote when he was happy.”

Technology becomes almost an obsession for Adams. He can be real nerdy, is a gadget freak and a life long Apple adept. He writes about the limitations of the technology at that time and the improvements he wants to see. Some are quite predictive. He fulminates about how the different technologies on his Mac do not integrate, and how he wants to see improvements.

“What I want to be able to do is this:

– Turn on the machine.
– Work.
– Have a bit of fun provided I’ve done enough of 2, which is rarely, but that’s another issue.”

(That latter refers to his reputation of being unable to deliver in time and missing deadlines. “I love declines, I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.” But that’s another issue.)

“What I’m talking about is the death of the “application.” I don’t mean just when they “unexpectedly” quit, I mean it’s time we simply got rid of them.”

He wants his problem of having different devices and still share everything he does on any device. Today IT nerds will start yelling CLOUD immediately before he could have finished his sentence.

“All I want to do is print from my portable. (Poor baby.) That isn’t all I want, in fact. I want to be able regularly to transfer my address book and diary stacks backward and forward between my portable and my IIx. And all my current half-finished chapters. And anything else I’m tinkering with, which is the reason why my half-finished chapters are half-finished. In other words, I want my portable to appear on the desktop of my IIx.”

He wants to get rid of “technology”. His definition of technology is interesting.

“We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. How do you recognize something that is still technology? A good clue is if it comes with a manual.”

The world changes rapidly and Adams describes the need for a vision on what the world will look like in the no so far future, as well as our inability to do so. His reasoning precedes the scientific works of Daniel GilbertStumbling On Happiness – who writes about his scientific findings in similar terms.

“Trying to predict the future is a mug’s game. But increasingly it’s a game we all have to play because the world is changing so fast and we need to have some sort of idea of what the future’s actually going to be like because we are going to have to live there, probably next week.”

“We were wrong about trains, we were wrong about planes, we were wrong about radio, we were wrong about phones, we were wrong about . . . well, for a voluminous list of the things we have been wrong about”

Relating the inability to predict the future to the application of technology, we all have heard some of the horrible technology predictions, for example Worst Tech Predictions).

The one Douglas Adams mentions I had not heard yet, but is equally amusing. Followed by a fabulous prediction from himself.

“One such that I spotted recently was a statement made in February by a Mr. Wayne Leuck, vice-president of engineering at USWest, the American phone company. Arguing against the deployment of high-speed wireless data connections, he said, “Granted, you could use it in your car going sixty miles an hour, but I don’t think too many people are going to be doing that.” Just watch. That’s a statement that will come back to haunt him. Satellite navigation. Wireless Internet. As soon as we start mapping physical location back into shared information space, we will trigger yet another explosive growth in Internet applications. At least—that’s what I predict. I could, of course, be wildly wrong.”

Adams defines himself as an radical Atheist. And he is very serious about this.

“So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.”

He has given this a lot of thought and the chapter on the topic in this book is a logical flow of reasoning that brings Adams to the conclusion that there is no real god, but there is an artificial god.
Adams argues (deduces) that god is what defines life.

“So, in the end, in the absence of an intentional creator, you cannot say what life is, because it simply depends on what set of definitions you include in your overall definition. Without a god, life is only a matter of opinion.”

He links his view on god to his insight in technology and computers. He argues that the complexity of life is not something specific to life itself, but that this can be seen in other forms as well, such as computer programs.

“The computer forms a third age of perspective, because suddenly it enables us to see how life works. Now, that is an extraordinarily important point because it becomes self-evident that life, that all forms of complexity, do not flow downward, they flow upward, and there’s a whole grammar that anybody who is used to using computers is now familiar with, which means that evolution is no longer a particular thing, because anybody who’s ever looked at the way a computer program works, knows that very, very simple iterative pieces of code, each line of which is tremendously straightforward, give rise to enormously complex phenomena in a computer—and by enormously complex phenomena”

Adams of course does not give references to his information source, but Mandelbrot and others have shown (read James Gleick’s Chaos: Making a New Science) that from very simple mathematics, extremely complex phenomena emerge.

It is also unclear of Adams may have been aware of the work of Stephen Wolfram, who published his bible A New Kind of Science on this topic, in 2002, one year after Adams’ death. (Just noticed that, interestingly, both Gleick and Wolfram books refer to the field they  describe in their books as a new science. I am not sure either of them is right in that respect.)

And since there is no longer a God needed to explain the origin of the complexity of life, God in Adams’ definition becomes the explanation of the complexity itself.

“I suspect that as we move farther and farther into the field of digital or artificial life, we will find more and more unexpected properties begin
to emerge out of what we see happening and that this is a precise parallel to the entities we create around ourselves to inform and shape our lives and enable us to work and live together. Therefore, I would argue that though there isn’t an actual God, there is an artificial God, and we should probably bear that in mind.”

Adams realizes his vulnerable position as an atheist and as a person discussing the existence or even necessity of god. His friend Richard Dawkins was heavily criticized at the time about his opinions on religion (this was years before The God Delusion). And he finds this incomprehensible.

“So we are used to not challenging religious ideas, but it’s very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally, there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.”

Hence he ends his reasoning on this typic in typical Douglas Adams style.

“That is my debating point, and you are now free to start hurling the chairs around!”

Richard Dawkins and the Expert’s Pitfall: A Critique of The Selfish Gene Footnote

the selfish gene - richard dawkins book cover

The Vile, Yet Correct Critique of Hoyle

In the 30th anniversary edition of ‘The Selfish Gene’ (2006), Richard Dawkins writes a vile but correct comment on Fred Hoyle’s misrepresentation of Darwinism in an endnote (pp. 277-278). He ends his note:

Publishers should correct the misapprehension that a scholar’s distinction in one field implies authority in another. And as long as that misapprehension exists, distinguished scholars should resist the temptation to abuse it.

This is a very accurate observation. But on the same page, in the note referenced in the main text (page 59 of the 30th Anniversary edition), Dawkins almost falls into the trap himself.

richard dawkins portait photo
Richard Dawkins

The Stain on the White Robe: Dawkins’ Error

The note’s text to the main text is so incredibly incorrect that it is pretty funny, given that he does this on the same page as his scolding of Hoyle.

In the note, Dawkins wants to explain Daniel Dennett’s theory of consciousness. Although Dennett has tried to explain his ideas in several books, Dawkins wants to summarize Dennett’s work in this two-page note for unclear reasons.

daniet dennett portrait photo
Daniel Dennett

Incorrect Analogies from Computer Science

Dawkins takes two technical ideas from the world of computers to illustrate his ideas: the concept of a virtual machine and ’the distinction between serial and parallel processors’.

The Virtual Machine

Dawkins starts by explaining what a virtual machine is incorrectly. He mentions the Macintosh User Interface as an example of a virtual machine. The Mac is a great machine, but the Macintosh User Interface bears little resemblance to a virtual machine, and the connection with consciousness remains very unclear. Dawkins could have relied on the Wikipedia article for a correct description of virtual machines.

A virtual machine (VM) is a software-based “computer within your computer.” It lets you run a separate operating system (like Windows or Linux) in an isolated window, using your existing hardware. It’s like having a sandboxed PC inside your real one.

Serial and Parallel Processors

The story derails entirely when Dawkins turns to his description of ‘serial and parallel processors’. The piece is so incorrect that highlighting the individual errors here makes no sense. Since Dawkins fails to see the distinction between processors and processes. He starts wrong and worsens things in every sentence. And it’s not like this was rocket science at the time of writing. Parallel processing has been known and applied in computing since our own Edsger Dijkstra and others invented concepts like the semaphore and the indivisible instruction.

More linkages to Dennett’s work and that of his friend Douglas Hofstadter on page 59, where Dawkins discusses self-awareness and rejects ideas of self-awareness because

douglas r. hofstadter portrait photo
Douglas R. Hofstadter
godel escher bach by hofstadter book cover

it involves an infinite regress if there is a model of the model, why not a model of the model of the model …?

The Mind’s I‘ and also ‘Gödel, Escher, Bach – An Eternal Golden Braid‘ deal exactly with these issues.

The Salvation: A Self-Aware Disclaimer

So, can we conclude that Dawkins has fallen into the trap of asserting that a scholar’s distinction in one field implies authority in another?

As I said, almost. On page 280 Dawkins saves himself, on the edge, with this little remark:

the minds I by hofstadter book cover

‘The reader is advised to consult Dennett’s own account when it is published, rather than rely on my doubtless imperfect and impressionistic – maybe even embellished – one.’

How true.

I have never had such fun with academic footnotes.

linning the books of dennett, dawkins and hofstadter