The Impact of Technology on Work
Penny U conversation,
November 2014
We need to not let technology
control us... We need technologies to aid our personal control of technologies,
to defend us, to be technology wranglers.
In terms of our evolution with
computers, we’re in our “awkward adolescence.” We’re glad for the benefits but
are ignoring the risks.
In an optimistic, sci-fi world, post-scarcity
and post-drudgery, would we dedicate ourselves to higher pursuits?
About 20 people of many ages
and lines of work discussed the impact of technology on work at Penny U on
November 5 in Town Hall’s downstairs cafe.
We started the conversation
in pairs by identifying a technology, not counting computers, that both of us relied
on in our work, A few of the technologies that people had in common are maps, the
telephone, transportation (specifically cars), remote working/meeting software
(like Go2Meeting), central heating, and a very small trowel-like tool that no
one in the room except the two talking about it knew even existed.
We learned about individual
visions of how technology will affect our futures by arranging ourselves in a
line representing a continuum with lost jobs and social breakdown on one end
and with new jobs and new ways to make a living on the other. Altogether, we
stretched along the whole continuum, positioning ourselves all along the
line. Asked why he placed himself on the
“pessimistic” end of the line, one person said, “Technologies tend to create
more problems than they solve.” And a reason given on the other end was, “The
environment, especially overpopulation and climate change, will require radical
technological solutions, and we'll figure something out.” From the middle of
the line came, “The future could go either way depending on the actions we take.”
Questions
Then, small groups each took
up this set of questions:
How is
technology changing your work?
Could you
be replaced by technology?
What can
you do that couldn’t be replaced by technology?
And then, the
continuum question that participants tended to restate as: Are you pessimistic
or optimistic about technology’s future impact?
No moderators were assigned;
each group, with 4-7 people each, just used the questions as a loose guide. The
energy in the room suggested lively conversations all around me. Since I
couldn’t be at more than one table at once, I can’t report on the
texture and direction of the individual discussions, but, because one person at
each table agreed to be a scribe, I have notes that give me a glimpse of what
happened. It was quite a treat to read through them all. As I mined them for
information to share, I’m sure I filled in blanks in ways that are only half
right. Perhaps someone actually in the conversations will correct me.
• Fast & free – Technology affects people in general, not just at
work. The tech “world” sets up expectations that then cause our expectations in
general to change, expectations that we must adapt to. Everything is fast
paced. There’s less interest in “slow” activity and slow products, like art,
for instance. We want things “fast & free.”
• Balance – We live with the perception that there’s “too much information,”
everything’s “too available,” full of distractions, driven. Even though the
information has an upside too (like the ability to email photos), people can’t
control their own pace. How do we find the balance between all that and
personal autonomy?
• Inspirational vs. inhibiting – The availability of information allows broader
opportunities to contribute to creative activities. It allows for collaboration
worldwide, new ideas, and perspective. We’re able to check to see whether
something is really new. It’s difficult to balance information that’s
inspirational with information that’s inhibiting.
• From union to independent – “I started out in a union job of print workers who
were pretty bound to a specific technology – letterpress and other physical
presses. Now I’m a designer for magazines and news and have clients all over
the world.”
• Evolving tools – A geographer in an
environmental consulting firm who works on superfund sites to plan remediation
reported that the technology in his field is changing a lot. ArcGIS, for
instance, an interactive mapping system (its website refers to it as
“intelligent mapping”) has been the dominant software in cartography/geography
for quite some time, but it has also evolved to be much more than that.
• Lots and lots of change – An ad manager
on broadcast TV reported that there’s lots and lots of technological change in
her field, and in ad delivery overall.
• Disruption – Is the question about the
impact of new technology? Does
humanity change to fit new technology, or the other way around? We’re always
adapting to new things, and there’s always disruption around the “new.” By
itself it’s not good or bad. New ideas often solve real human problems; these
get built on, then monetized, and then there’s a switch, a flip from the first
to a later iteration. Disruption can circumvent norms, like Uber and
homesharing.
• What would we do instead? If we remove
humans from tasks we don’t want to do, what would we do instead? Would it free
us up to do more artistic stuff, more philosophy, more leisure? But a world
that’s all artists, philosophers, etc. would be a very narrow world. An
interesting psychological topic is whether we have to experience the pain to
appreciate the joy.
• Drudgery. Even if we got rid of drudgery, we wouldn’t
do away with our need for work. A person needs to learn a skill to attain
mastery. Technology’s job could be to take away tasks that get in the way.
• The human element. One table wondered
how technology changes the way we value life. We’re not as hands-on, we’re
disconnected from life, removed from the object. Are we automating the
management of “you”? That idea “freaks me out!” There always has to be a human
element. And at another table a discussion revolved around the comment, “People
are meaning-seeking creatures; computers are not.”
• “Corporatocracy.” The people who control the laws that regulate
computers will use that power to manipulate the economic system. At the same
time, people in the power seats don’t necessarily understand how computers work. Is
censorship by corporations different from political censorship? What’s the
difference between government control and corporate control? Is one better than
the other?
What can
and can’t be turned over to a computer?
• Life
coaching can’t be automated. We in that field can use a computerized forms, like Meyer Briggs, but the
data has to be humanly interpreted. Testing can be turned over to automation,
but we find that humans are needed after all.
• Digital
software for art and design doesn’t have the radical freedom of analog; it’s
more restrictive. And design implies the work flow.
• The
limitations of software development are constantly being challenged. Some
tasks benefit from automation – for instance, if simulating 10,000 people is required. But a computer can’t tell if a picture or an artwork is any good.
• Figuring
out what’s wrong, identifying value-based needs, is a human competency. The
“highest end” is the most human end. But another table made a note about self-healing
computers and wondered if those will take away even more jobs from people.
• Technology
can’t maintain a value framework around things like ecology, love, and the
environment.
• “Much of
my bartending job could be handled by machines, through switches and buttons.”
But others at the table quickly argued that much more happens at a bar than
just pouring drinks.
• “ Medical
diagnostics could be taken over by tech.”
• “Computers
and I grew up together, but at the same time, the magazine writing I did
was killed by computers.”
• A
translator who has worked in many countries including in deep west Africa, said
that translation depends a lot on the cultural context and could not always be
replaced by computers.
• TaskRabbit
helps people find others in their neighborhood willing to do small tasks they
can’t or don’t want to do to, replacing the work of the “middle man.”
• Human
beings are good at creating problems and chaos.
• Grant writing
can’t be automated; there are so many subjective things to take into account.
• “You can’t
hike with a segway.”
Intriguing
one-liners
• Unlike
machines, people want choice. For instance, we each need and want to choose
different amounts of freedom and structure.
• Complex
experience is a good thing.
• Does
technology take us to a place of depleting our resources? The “green-ness” of
computer technology is an overstatement.
• Data is
data, and people are people.
• Is our
data a right?
• The world outside the internet (of humans and all) is sometimes referred to as the “meat”
world, or the “what” world.
• There are
many ways to lose our jobs to technology.
• One person in a small group reported working directly with technology, as a programmer. No one else at his table works without
technology.
After coming back together
and sharing with each other some of what was discussed in the small groups, we
closed with a question from Andy Stern, former SEIU president who spoke at Town
Hall in early 2014. Referring to all the jobs likely to be lost through
“technological unemployment,” he asked:
What future economic activity or industry can we
expect to offer large scale job creation? In other words, what are the future
jobs that will require hundreds of thousands of people to accomplish?
No comments:
Post a Comment