Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by heybrendan 1113 days ago
I first learned of Wiener's work from Jaron Lanier's [1] Ted Talk years ago, entitled "How we need to remake the internet" [2]:

> And I suppose I could mention from one of the very earliest computer scientists, whose name was Norbert Wiener, and he wrote a book back in the '50s [...] called "The Human Use of Human Beings."

> And in the book, he described the potential to create a computer system that would be gathering data from people and providing feedback to those people in real time in order to put them kind of partially, statistically, in a Skinner box, in a behaviorist system, and he has this amazing line where he says one could imagine as a thought experiment, and I'm paraphrasing, this isn't a quote, a global computer system where everybody has devices on them all the time, and the devices are giving them feedback based on what they did, and the whole population is subject to a degree of behavior modification.

> Such a society would be insane, could not survive, could not face its problems. And then he says, but this is only a thought experiment, and such a future is "technologically infeasible". And yet, of course, it's what we have created, and it's what we must undo if we are to survive.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ-PUXPVlos

3 comments

OT & FWIW, page 47 of the Principia Discordia was the first time Norbert Weiner's name really strongly resonated with me: enclaves of stability. It wasn't a quote but an idea that chaos can beget enclaves of stability. Structure forming processes can emerge out of chaos & take hold. It was thrilling stuff for my adolescent mind. https://principiadiscordia.com/book/54.php

> The whirlpools that swirl in a direction opposed to the main current are called "enclaves". And one of them is life, especially human life, which in a universe moving inexorably towards chaos moves towards increased order.

> Such a society would be insane, could not survive, could not face its problems

This sounds like the message Yuval Noah Harari currently has about AI, at least in the more short term. And that is democracy is not possible in an environment where unswayable AI agents exist in vast numbers and become a time sink for humans to argue at. This would lead to autocracy as people began to panic because institutions began to fail they and look for strong leaders. Some would say that ML algorithms are already leading us on this path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Noah_Harari

> and the devices are giving them feedback based on what they did, and the whole population is subject to a degree of behavior modification.

That sounds like a slightly less dystopian than the future we arrived at - where the devices are desperate to keep the users attention, and will use all the psychological tricks in the book to keep the user engaged. No intentional behaviour modification, but normalisation of constant stimulus, and in the end total destruction of willful attention.

Social media ML algorithms battled for attention, the new AI algorithms will battle for intimacy.