[nzach]

> As philosopher Peter Hershock observes, we don’t merely use technologies; we participate in them. With tools, we retain agency—we can choose when and how to use them. With technologies, the choice is subtler: they remake the conditions of choice itself. A pen extends communication without redefining it; social media transformed what we mean by privacy, friendship, even truth.

That doesn't feel right. I thought that several groups were against the popularization of writing through the times. Wasn't Socrates against writing because it would degrade your memory? Wasn't the church against the printing press because it allowed people to read in silence?

Sorry for the off-topic.

[giraffe_lady]

I'm not that well read on Hershock but I don't think this is a very good application of his tool-vs-tech framework. His view is that tools are localized and specific to a purpose, where technologies are social & institutional. So writing down a shopping list for yourself, the pen is a tool; using it to write a letter to a friend, the pen is one part of the letter-writing technology along with the infrastructure to deliver the letter, the cultural expectation that this is a thing you can even do, widespread literacy, etc.

Again I think this is a pretty narrow theory that Hershock gets some good mileage out of for what he's looking at but isn't a great fit for understanding this issue. The extremely naive "tools are technologies we have already accepted the changes from" has about as much explanatory power here. But also again I'm not a philosopher or a big Hershock proponent so maybe I've misread him.

[calvinmorrison]

It's essentially Dr Ted's theory of small scale vs large scale technology

[AndrewKemendo]

That is perfectly on topic and you are identifying correctly flaw in the argument

Technology is neutral it’s always been neutral it will be neutral I quote Bertrand Russell on this almost every day:

“As long as war exists all new technology will be utilized for war”

You can abstract this away from “war” into anything that’s undesirable in society.

What people are dealing with now is the newest transformational technology that they can watch how utilizing it inside the current structural and economic regime of the world accelerates the already embedded destructive nature of structure and economic system we built.

I’m simply waiting for people to finally realize that, instead of blaming it on “AI” just like they’ve always blamed it on social media, TV, radio, electricity etc…

it’s like literally the oldest trope with respect to technology and humanity some people will always blame the technology when in fact it’s not…it’s the society that’s a problem

Society needs to look inward at how it victimizes itself through structural corrosion, not look for some outside person who is victimizing them

[MattGrommes]

> Technology is neutral it’s always been neutral it will be neutral

I agree with a lot of what you say here but not this. People choose what to make easy and what to make more difficult with technology all the time. This does not make something neutral. Obviously something as simple as a hammer is more neutral but this doesn't extend to software systems.

[AndrewKemendo]

> People choose what to make easy and what to make more difficult with technology all the time.

Right. People choose.

More specifically people with power direct what technologies get funded. How society chooses who is in power is the primary problem.

[Der_Einzige]

BTW that line you are quoting is probably itself AI generated :^)

[red-iron-pine]

are you saying it's a fake quote, or an AI created article that uses real quotes?

cuz Peter Hershock is a real guy and talks about AI all the time. I don't know if he ever said those exact words, but it's reasonable to think he did.

https://romeoffice.georgetown.edu/people/peter-d-hershock