Fending off irrelevance in the Artificial Intelligence Age

@wwaycorrigan

[For an audio/vlog version of this story, click here.]

'I read an article the other day that explained just how bad alcohol can be for one's health. So I've decided not to read any more.'

Hopes of a life largely free of AI and Big Tech may be impossible in the coming years.

Yes, it's an old one. And if it were to be taken seriously, it's a prime example of shooting the messenger — if one with such a fondness for booze could actually aim accurately, that is.

Anyone able to think straight these days knows that drinking to excess is unlikely to lead to a long and healthy life. Ignoring uncomfortable truths does not make them go away.

Ignoring is bliss

Yet, not all uncomfortable truths are of direct personal concern so ignoring them may, somewhat paradoxically, improve one's overall health.

For example, some studies have shown that regularly consuming the news can be damaging to one's well-being. So while terrible things are happening all over the world, it's not always in our best interests to be aware of them, particularly if there's little to nothing we can do to make them better.

The counterargument is that the world is so interconnected these days that even a small positive action on our part could help to resolve a complex issue in some distant place. For example, deciding not to buy products from a particular company that is believed to engage in questionable practices or is ethically reprehensible. Nonetheless, to do such a deed doesn't mean one has to be engrossed in the news all the time.

It is said, too, that to have a more positive outlook on life it's important to surround oneself with positive people and to think positively. Seeing as how the majority of the news fed to us is negative, dining on it daily can't be good for our state of mind.

With total abstinence practically impossible for many of us, moderation is the goal — like it is for imbibing and many other guilty pleasures.

Disillusioned

While I find myself getting angry with the narrative of certain news items — see Living with unsettled and unsettling questions for an idea of some of those — stories about the rise of artificial intelligence often leave me feeling disillusioned.

Yes, AI comes with opportunities as well as challenges, yet I find myself drawn to its negative side. In general, this is to do with the possibility that AI will make billions of us largely irrelevant: irrelevant in our usefulness to society in any case.

In an April 2024 post, More artificial intelligence, less human intelligence, I wrote about some of my concerns in this whole area. In the intervening period, having happened upon a copy of Yuval Noah Harari's book 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, first published in 2018, my fears have only grown.

'Biotechnology will provide our sustenance far more economically, sufficiently, and environmentally friendly than antiquated agriculture. Rewild rurality, hack humanity.'

As I touched on in a February 2024 article, Merging a life vacation with a vocation, I often feel that studying Humanities at university and the subsequent career path I've followed have left me particularly vulnerable to the aforementioned irrelevance.

In less disillusioned moments, however, I do at least think about areas where AI and Big Tech are going to have a harder time dominating human life. Yet, the relief from such ruminating is only temporary.

Biochemical beings

Take sport and physical activity in general, for one. While sports, as it is for most sectors of life, already use a lot of tech, we still fall back on the raw emotions — the blood, sweat, and tears — that are triggered when humans compete. How can technology provide such real, raw thrills and thus satiate both the competitors and the spectators?

Well, if we are in essence nothing but biochemical beings ripe for manipulation by advanced algorithms, then real physical sport could become obsolete, replaced by virtual contests that push all the right emotional buttons, minus the bumps and bruises on the body. Or even just replaced by some pill that gives us those feelings.

But won't we need to at least exercise so we burn off the calories to stay in shape? Again, medical and technological advancements could see staying in shape become a simple process, with one's metabolism kept at an optimum rate to be physically healthy without having to do rigorous workouts. (We already have the fat-fighting drug semaglutide — sold under the brand names Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy — that is apparently working wonders for some heavier individuals.)

In that scenario, those of us who dream of returning to a simpler, self-sufficient life living off the land, may find that such a practice is deemed damaging to society as a whole. Biotechnology will provide our sustenance far more economically, sufficiently, and environmentally friendly than antiquated agriculture. Rewild rurality, hack humanity.

For the Luddites/Luddite lites amongst us, the need for some human toil in construction does look set to continue for a while longer. (Although, being based in Colombia and seeing manual labourers still doing a lot of heavy lifting, my thinking may be a bit skewed on this. In high-income nations, machines are doing more and more of these construction chores.)

Of course, it's impossible to predict to just what extent AI and technology will further take over our lives. The inexorable rise of the machines doesn't inevitably mean the downfall of most humans.

There is also the power issue at play: the machines don't run on fresh air alone. Not yet, anyway. So as long as they rely on human-controlled sources of energy — and data — to function, we shall still have a significant role to play (some of us, at least).

Whatever lies ahead, we should focus on fixing and improving things in our present lives, as much as we can, that is.

Future issues are unlikely to trouble us if we can't get a handle on today's problems. We can ignore the unsettling news all we want but this doesn't make it disappear. Merely wishing it away is sure to accelerate our own demise.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to The Corrigan Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The digital dystopia

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

For some people, the move to a totally digital, online world is a delightful development. 

Procedures that once required us to physically go somewhere can now be done via the swipe of a screen or the touch of a button with next to no exertion needed.

Opting out of the digital world is next to impossible.

Such advancements are presented to us as timesavers that allow for greater efficiency with what were heretofore tedious tasks.

A con-venience

In the world of banking and bill-paying, this is certainly the case. Many transactions can now be done via a computer or smartphone, so no more hours are lost waiting in a queue. And I'm all on for reducing the number of queues I have to stand in.

The same goes for shopping, although I do prefer to go out and make in-person purchases, especially for clothing and groceries.

There are, though, downsides to such digital delights.

For starters, there's troubleshooting. When there's a problem, getting to communicate with an actual human being can be quite the task.

Indeed, with some businesses and institutions, it's almost as if they don't want you to be able to make contact with a living person. This is — surprise, surprise — particularly so when it comes to making a complaint: A policy of, 'frustrate the complainant to the point where he/she will just give up'.

The social media giants are masters at this. Perhaps this is because many employees in Silicon Valley — and its offshoots — aren't really social beings and thus are unable to properly engage with people.

'A person can be logged out of the system just as easily as he/she logged in. From social credit to socially discredited.'

In any case, we're not usually talking about life-or-death concerns when it comes to social media. In other areas, such as healthcare and security, the ability to talk to a living person in real time is usually more critical when problems arise.

Controlled

There's also the rather important matter of simply being able to function in today's society. Those who fully embrace the digital drive often portray it as a way 'to be in greater control of our lives'. This might be so for the likes of Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg — the elite who have access to the controls — but for us mere plebs, not quite.

So while smartphone apps and electronic payments may have made regular banking a breeze and resulted in fewer fees, there are other prices to pay. 

Just how in control can one be of one's finances when somebody else is virtually holding the purse strings?

There have been a number of alarming instances in the not-very-free free world where citizens have had access to their accounts frozen for the crime of dissenting against the government of the day (see, for example, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-protest-finances.html, as well as the case of English journalist Graham Phillips, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-62308528 & https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11065067/PETER-HITCHENS-Freedom-means-freedom-nasty-people.html). 

How wonderfully democratic and liberal, eh?

Fair enough, denying people access to their bank accounts predates today's digital age. 

However, in the past, payment in cash for pretty much anything was still an option. In contrast, in most high-income nations today, it has become extremely difficult to pay with notes and coins (this isn't quite the case yet in Colombia, thankfully).

In such an environment, a person can be logged out of the system just as easily as he/she logged in. From social credit to socially discredited.

There are those who see little wrong with this. The argument is that law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about. The "democratic" West's checks and balances are a bulwark against injustices.

That's great in theory. Yet, as mentioned above regarding the freezing of bank accounts of people who have not been convicted of a crime and as seen with the actions taken against those who refused, with solid arguments, to take covid-19 vaccines, the empirical evidence is far from reassuring.

Yes, there are few things in this world over which we have complete control. However, the digitalisation of many aspects of our daily lives is moving us to a position where we'll have no real control over hardly anything.

With each new technological convenience managed by largely invisible, unaccountable actors, we have a further dissolution of what's left of an individual's independence. 

Welcome to the digital dystopia.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The WhatsApp voice messages of wrath

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'Oh for feck sake, not another WhatsApp voice message.'

Through gritted teeth, that's generally how I respond upon receiving a WhatsApp voice message.

One does try, in vain, to let others know one's feelings.

The joy of text

The intensity of this indignation is directly proportional to the length of these "verbal vectors". I'm terming them thus as there's a good chance they are causing me mental harm owing to the ill feeling they generate in me.

If they are no more than thirty seconds in length and don't turn into a verbal volley, then I can deal with them without getting too worked up. (I must also confess here, lest I be called a hypocrite, I have been known to send the odd one in certain circumstances. This, though, is very much the exception. For the most part, I text.)

The thing is, for a not-insignificant number of WhatsApp users the voice message is the default option. In terms of my contacts, it seems that Colombians in particular are big fans of them.

'I find the idea of voice messages quite selfish. More effort is generally required from the recipient rather than the sender.'

Of course, this could simply be a reflection of those I engage with the most on WhatsApp; my bad luck. I can't say with any certainty that most Colombians prefer voice messages to texts. Nor can I say that they are used more frequently here compared to other countries.

Whatever the case, despite my WhatsApp profile About blurb beseeching contacts not to send voice messages — I guess nobody reads what's written in that section — they're something I'm regularly "forced" to tackle.

So why do they rankle with me so much?

For starters, I find the idea of them quite selfish. More effort is generally required from the recipient rather than the sender. Basically, the latter expects the former to listen to a monologue that on occasions can be akin to a mini-podcast in terms of length.

(Just to be clear — lest the hypocrisy charge be levelled at me again — when I send a blog story or podcast or whatever, I'm not demanding that the recipient engages with the content. That's, obviously enough, up to the individual. It's quite different with voice messages.)

At least with a written message it can usually be glanced over to see if it requires "urgent" attention without even entering the application. This can't be done with a voice message. One either has to stop everything one is doing to listen to what was sent or ignore the audio for a time. I usually do the latter.

Vanquishing the voice message

You see, tied in with this is the fact that I use my phone for other audio purposes i.e. listening to podcasts/radio and watching YouTube. I also use it to read books. Voice messages are a greater distraction for all these activities than written messages. Hence the wrath.

In mild mitigation, as a society, we're still trying to settle on a widely accepted etiquette for social media interaction and the like. What one person views as a great innovation is an utter annoyance to another — see, as a further example on a related theme, my previous piece railing against an ever-encroaching Big Tech.

In terms of social media specifically, however, most mental health experts would agree that the best strategy is to use them very sparingly, if at all (see Facebook, Instagram: Killing us softly).

Nonetheless, WhatsApp has now become the chief means of communication for many people. In my line of work, I'd be putting myself at a significant financial disadvantage by not having the app.

As I've said before, such things are merely tools that we must control. We shouldn't let them control us. Yet, it's beyond my control if somebody sends me a WhatsApp voice message.

So surely the brains behind WhatsApp could introduce a version without the voice-message facility or at least have an option inhibiting the ability to receive them, with this clearly displayed for any would-be voice-message sender?

Come on Mr Zuckerberg, you've done far worse to the world. Just when you do roll this out, I want my cut.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The vaccine vexers

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia ... Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection ... Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify.'

Thus dreamt Raskolnikov in Fyodor Dostoevsky's classic novel, Crime and Punishment. Published in 1866 and a dream in a work of fiction it may be, yet the passage could be used with some accuracy to describe human behaviour during this covid-19 pandemic.

Lifesaver. Or is it?

Pandemonium

Since the novel coronavirus arrived on the world stage, I've touched on pretty much all of the contentious issues. 

Namely, the collateral damage of wholesale lockdowns together with the certainty of those endorsing them that they actually work and are worth it, and the coercive mass vaccination drive that with each passing day leaves more questions than answers.

As the pandemic becomes endemic, it's that vaccine question that vexes the most. 

When I wrote The case against vaccine passports it was thought likely that getting a jab would mean one would carry less of a viral load if infected, thus helping to reduce contagion, while also becoming less ill. The latter appears to hold true for the elderly and vulnerable yet data are emerging showing that the former is not the case.

So, the vaccine pushers' argument that young, healthy individuals would be 'doing their bit for society' by being jabbed loses its weight. Basically, the vaccine may help to provide protection against severe covid-19 infection, particularly in the elderly, yet one is not protecting others by getting it.

However, judging by social media, many still seem to believe that in getting a jab they've helped save humanity. 

It's become common practice to publicly declare it, normally via updated profile pictures with colourful I-got-the-vaccine graphics. You'd swear they'd just discovered the cure for cancer.

These pietistic pronouncements are nauseating considering there is much we still don't know. They only serve to distance those with genuine questions that have yet to be satisfactorily answered. 

'One must be willing to change tack when new information dictates but even allowing for that our decision-makers have been suspiciously contradictory, within the myopic mindset that covid is practically the only mortal threat we face.'

Even worse is the palpable anger from some of those vaccinated directed at those who are not. It's baffling. You're protected, guys, so why the annoyance?

In fact, maybe all of us 'stupid folk' not pharmaceutically protected will die from covid soon, pruning humanity of much of its current asininity. You should be happy.

I must add, I'd rather see vaccines administered to those who would truly benefit from them, no matter where they are in the world, ahead of some young Sam or Samantha in a high-income country, with the finest medical care at their disposal.

The unaccountables

Just to be clear, I'm not anti-vax as a rule, despite being labelled thus by some people. I've had numerous inoculations throughout my life. It's simply that when it comes to the covid jab, I'm far from convinced of its benefits for somebody like me at this remove.

It also doesn't help that the leaders and public health officials now imploring, nay threatening us to get vaccinated have been anything but consistent throughout the pandemic.

OK, one must be willing to change tack when new information dictates but even allowing for that our decision-makers have been suspiciously contradictory, within the myopic mindset that covid is practically the only mortal threat we face.

That many have now lost any remaining trust they had had in them is not at all surprising.

This returns us nicely to that prescient passage in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov's dream concluded:

'The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew ... Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other ... The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.'

For our 21st-Century, real-life pandemic, there were early hopes that we would come out of it cleaner and greener, renewed and purified, with more shared responsibility.

Alas, it looks like we'll only become more centrally controlled, less independent and with greater inequality.

In the same way that people both believe(d) and fear(ed) a god that we cannot see, Big Tech and its affiliates are now filling this  godless void.

Largely invisible, unaccountable masters, moulding the masses to fit into their utopia. Worryingly, most are marching merrily to the madness.
_______________________________________________________________

Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".  

Swimming against the Big Tech tide

@wwaycorrigan
[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
I recently wrote about how Big Nanny State has facilitated a tendency amongst some in society to forego growing up and taking responsibility. 'Leave everything up to me, little ones. Simply submit, follow the rules, however arbitrary many may seem, and off with you to enjoy your highly regulated lives.'

The QR-code revolution: Wrong Way is not a fan.

Virtual reality

Cosily tucked up with Big Nanny State in her warm global bed is Big Tech, monitoring everything from our sleeping patterns and what we eat for breakfast to our favourite pastimes and guilty pleasures. While this might appear a rather clandestine undertaking, the reality is, it isn't.

The virtual world that practically all in higher-income countries plus the middle classes elsewhere have signed up to with countless usernames and passwords means we have voluntarily — or at least it was voluntarily initially — invited Big Tech and its associates into our lives. And while some folk seem fairly blasé about this, there does appear to be pushback fomenting in other quarters.

The question is, shy of a system overthrow or a complete retreat from society, how does one go about living in the 21st Century whilst endorsing minimalist technological use?

Unless you're already a "made" man, woman or whatever you wish to call yourself these days, not having the likes of WhatsApp and/or an email account together with being connected to the internet 24/7, leaves you at a distinct disadvantage. And even if you are comfortably settled on Easy Street, this doesn't mean you can effortlessly free yourself from Big Tech's dominance.

Many services, from the world of finance to dining and everything else in between, now expect the user to be equipped with a smartphone — a device that tends to sap any modicum of intelligence from said user.

'In the pandemic pandemonium where each fellow human being is seen as a Grim Reaper, QR-code menus take away one potential area of contagion.'

All of this is supposedly being done in the name of convenience. Fair enough, if you can do everything from the comfort of your own home or wherever, there's something to be said for that. However, when it's done to the detriment of being able to actually sit down and talk to somebody face to face should the need arise, while I'm all against it.

A mine of information

Just one manifestation of this — something that, thankfully, rarely affects me in my modest existence in Colombia — is the switch to QR-code menus and suchlike in restaurants. Some people think this is a wonderful development.

For one, in the pandemic pandemonium where each fellow human being is seen as a Grim Reaper, it takes away one potential area of contagion: the handling of reused menus. It also cuts down on paper by reducing the need for said menus, therefore, so it goes, it's good for the environment.

Both of those "plus points" are true, but one's smartphone doesn't exactly run on fresh air, does it? Plus, outside of its component parts — including those lithium batteries, mined in ethically questionable ways, to say the least — it has to be recharged regularly.

Speaking of mining, in places where you actually order electronically, how much personal information is hammered out of us in the process? Another aspect to Big Tech's perpetual profiling.

In the realm of finance, so far my bank in Colombia, Banco Caja Social, hasn't forced me to go fully mobile. Indeed, in some regards, this particular institution is too archaic and overly bureaucratic. Nonetheless, when it comes to money, you can't be too careful all the same.

In contrast, the only bank I currently do business with in Ireland, Bank of Ireland UK in Belfast, more or less forced me recently to download its app in order to continue having access to my account. Come on guys, there are only so many apps a bog-standard smartphone can hold!

The net result of this 'move to mobile' is that it leaves us at the mercy of a faceless Big Tech. Technology is the master. To borrow, in a way, from Winston Churchill, 'Never has so much power been in the hands of so few, controlling so many.'

Call me, if you will, a contrarian conservative fearful of what amounts to nothing more than innocent and innovative change.

However, in a world where we are ceding more and more of whatever independence we had to faceless forces, I will do what I can to resist, at least for a little while longer. It will, most likely, be a futile exercise.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".