1. Robb’s thesis is impressive, but how does it account for the people who are engaged with the network at different levels? A fully plugged-in, remotely-working, screen-addicted member of the professional class is different from grandma on Facebook, though both are affected.
1. Robb’s thesis is impressive, but how does it account for the people who are engaged with the network at different levels? A fully plugged-in, remotely-working, screen-addicted member of the professional class is different from grandma on Facebook, though both are affected.
2. Where does the “real world” get a role? I think those who bump into the real (not network mediated) world more often at work or in life - who live less online - are often more skeptical of the network. This may be why, for example, truckers are protesting in multiple countries.
3. There was one throwaway line about people who perceive the world differently, e.g., those on the autism spectrum. I have wondered how people on the spectrum are going to save the world. This may be it: perceiving network patterns that most people miss.
Awesome. By the way, the variety of perspectives you're bringing to bear on events in Ukraine is unmatched. Nobody else is providing such an opportunity for broad engagement with the issues in one place. Thanks for helping your audience to get smarter on the complexities of the situation.
Happy to hear it! Since listening to the episode, I've been wondering about how network engagement is related to social and economic class as well as to political affiliation. I have heard a lot about a new working class movement in politics, but could you sub out "lower network engagement" for "working class" and get the same realignment?
How would "'lower' network engagement" be differentiated from "'higher' network engagement"? Would it be based on "amount of time" spent on the network? The WAY you engage in your network engagement? (do you go to argue about politics, or just to look at photos of family and friends?) Right now, I think working class can be determined based on one's income, or job type (manual labor), more or less. So I'm wondering if you'd have to sub out something more specific about the manner in which people use their social network engagement to get a better realignment with "working class." But that's just the first thing that popped into my head
Maybe the question of engagement has to do with the roles that the network plays in your life. Is it a part of your job and your social circles? Does it mediate how you see the world or how you do things and create meaning? Just as Robb noted that AI exists in the spaces between, where the data live, it is the amount of mediation that the network performs which gives it the power to shape our ideas and actions. Maybe that would be a productive direction to go?
The more you mention this divide in social media engagement, the more I begin to think that that will eventually become a way to differentiate classes, indirectly. I have worked a lot in Asia and South America, and the desire to whiten one's skin is really high because if you have lighter skin color, it shows you are not a laborer, doing "working class" jobs in the sun (and also you can afford luxuries such as skin lightening cream). I wonder if in the future people will use social media engagement in a similar fashion... perhaps the more engagement you display the more likely people will think you are full of spare time and are thus in a higher class (though maybe in the future the inverse could happen where people consider you lazy if you are engaging too much). It's interesting to think about🤔
I think that you are touching at the most fundamental problems of a digital society. There is a disconnection between words and swords. Basically before the digital era information and armed forces moved at the same speed. It is no longer true. Information can be instantaneously broadcasted over the entire globe. Moreover it is essentially free. How this tension is going to be resolved is not clear.
I cite the example of G. Beck and his role in extracting people during the Afghan rout as an idea of how swarms may instantiate themselves in real life. You need a common ground, it used to be the state, it looks like it is now at the level of religion (maybe Huntington was right?) or civilisation.
I don’t know who said this recently, but they pointed out that we could have major evolutionary pressures (and cultural) exerted on humanity. People who actually want to have children would explode in population. If AI is forces the human population down there would be major natural pressures to push back on it.
I’m there with you on the social approval and gullibility (and on the spectrum too, diagnosed as an adult, which was quite an experience). But if a person on the spectrum is able to get some distance from the emotional manipulation of the swarm, this might provide an opportunity to look ahead to the likely ends to which an idea adopted by the swarm will lead, while most are just following cues and going along for the ride. You might end up feeling like Chicken Little, though.
From another angle, being relatively impervious to those subtle social cues - which is not helpful in development, as you point out - may leave an autistic person standing outside the swarm wondering what all the fuss is about. I have heard more than a few contrarian takes on issues and though to myself, “spectrum.”
On a related note, does it seem like people on the spectrum are well-represented in libertarian circles? It does to me!
Just brainstorming here. Would be interested in other takes.
Great stuff, if scary.
Three things stood out:
1. Robb’s thesis is impressive, but how does it account for the people who are engaged with the network at different levels? A fully plugged-in, remotely-working, screen-addicted member of the professional class is different from grandma on Facebook, though both are affected.
2. Where does the “real world” get a role? I think those who bump into the real (not network mediated) world more often at work or in life - who live less online - are often more skeptical of the network. This may be why, for example, truckers are protesting in multiple countries.
3. There was one throwaway line about people who perceive the world differently, e.g., those on the autism spectrum. I have wondered how people on the spectrum are going to save the world. This may be it: perceiving network patterns that most people miss.
Good question, will ask when we chat again
Awesome. By the way, the variety of perspectives you're bringing to bear on events in Ukraine is unmatched. Nobody else is providing such an opportunity for broad engagement with the issues in one place. Thanks for helping your audience to get smarter on the complexities of the situation.
Your second point really helped me get a better idea why people could be so vehemently against the truckers. Thanks!
Happy to hear it! Since listening to the episode, I've been wondering about how network engagement is related to social and economic class as well as to political affiliation. I have heard a lot about a new working class movement in politics, but could you sub out "lower network engagement" for "working class" and get the same realignment?
How would "'lower' network engagement" be differentiated from "'higher' network engagement"? Would it be based on "amount of time" spent on the network? The WAY you engage in your network engagement? (do you go to argue about politics, or just to look at photos of family and friends?) Right now, I think working class can be determined based on one's income, or job type (manual labor), more or less. So I'm wondering if you'd have to sub out something more specific about the manner in which people use their social network engagement to get a better realignment with "working class." But that's just the first thing that popped into my head
Maybe the question of engagement has to do with the roles that the network plays in your life. Is it a part of your job and your social circles? Does it mediate how you see the world or how you do things and create meaning? Just as Robb noted that AI exists in the spaces between, where the data live, it is the amount of mediation that the network performs which gives it the power to shape our ideas and actions. Maybe that would be a productive direction to go?
The more you mention this divide in social media engagement, the more I begin to think that that will eventually become a way to differentiate classes, indirectly. I have worked a lot in Asia and South America, and the desire to whiten one's skin is really high because if you have lighter skin color, it shows you are not a laborer, doing "working class" jobs in the sun (and also you can afford luxuries such as skin lightening cream). I wonder if in the future people will use social media engagement in a similar fashion... perhaps the more engagement you display the more likely people will think you are full of spare time and are thus in a higher class (though maybe in the future the inverse could happen where people consider you lazy if you are engaging too much). It's interesting to think about🤔
I think that you are touching at the most fundamental problems of a digital society. There is a disconnection between words and swords. Basically before the digital era information and armed forces moved at the same speed. It is no longer true. Information can be instantaneously broadcasted over the entire globe. Moreover it is essentially free. How this tension is going to be resolved is not clear.
I have touched on the subject here : https://spearoflugh.substack.com/p/the-disablers
I cite the example of G. Beck and his role in extracting people during the Afghan rout as an idea of how swarms may instantiate themselves in real life. You need a common ground, it used to be the state, it looks like it is now at the level of religion (maybe Huntington was right?) or civilisation.
I don’t know who said this recently, but they pointed out that we could have major evolutionary pressures (and cultural) exerted on humanity. People who actually want to have children would explode in population. If AI is forces the human population down there would be major natural pressures to push back on it.
I’m there with you on the social approval and gullibility (and on the spectrum too, diagnosed as an adult, which was quite an experience). But if a person on the spectrum is able to get some distance from the emotional manipulation of the swarm, this might provide an opportunity to look ahead to the likely ends to which an idea adopted by the swarm will lead, while most are just following cues and going along for the ride. You might end up feeling like Chicken Little, though.
From another angle, being relatively impervious to those subtle social cues - which is not helpful in development, as you point out - may leave an autistic person standing outside the swarm wondering what all the fuss is about. I have heard more than a few contrarian takes on issues and though to myself, “spectrum.”
On a related note, does it seem like people on the spectrum are well-represented in libertarian circles? It does to me!
Just brainstorming here. Would be interested in other takes.