Several years ago, I started one of my "In the Future" rants claiming that in the future you won't have to go online to order things from Amazon. They would just figure out what you need and send it to you. This would irritate students as I went on further to say that this is a good thing as they should not make their own decisions. Since they make horrible decisions, they should let algorithms make decisions for them.
Now, I have to admit, in all fairness, that I love annoying students with predictions about the future presented in such a way that is constructed to draw arguments. Then, as the arguments arise, I dismantle them. I do this for pedagogical reasons as one cannot think clearly about the present or the future if they can't get past their own cognitive biases. And there are always biases about future possibilities. But, pedagogy aside, there are some good reasons for these outrageous claims.
First, you have to ask - why would you interfere with a decision that a machine makes if your intervention is likely to produce a lessor, wrong, or even disastrous result. Consider the computer in your automobile that decides to change the gas/air mixture in your fuel injector or buffer the pressure you apply to your anti-lock brakes.Would you rather have a little window pop up on the dashboard saying "I'm going to apply brake pressure more evenly to keep you from going into a skid. Is this OK? Press Yes or No". That wouldn't do at all. Clearly, you want the computer to decide for you because your intervention can do nothing but produce an inferior result.
Second, there is abundant evidence that we don't make very good decisions.You might dismiss the previous example by saying that computer control of your car is very different from computer control of your shopping. To this I would ask - do you make good shopping decisions? Do you have any books you bought and never read? Any clothes you haven't worn, movies you never watched, cans of food you keep pushing to the back of the pantry and so on. Have you ever been to a restaurant that you didn't like, taken a job that didn't work out, or go on a date that turned out to be a nightmare. The truth is that you don't make very good decisions and allowing algorithms to decide for you might very well improve your quality of life.
Third, in this matter, we fall prey to erroneous thinking that has already been introduced in this blog. And that is evaluating a future technology in terms of the present rather that the future that the new technology brings about. We like to make our own decisions because we feel that decisions made for us will not be made correctly. We also think that we need to make out own decisions as we can learn form our mistakes. But, this reasoning is based in the present where decisions made for us might not be the best decisions. We feel that being able to make our own decisions is in our best interests. But is it. I will give two example where delegated decisions have proven superior.
When I was a kid, most people did work on their own cars. While you could always find a gas station that would be willing to change the oil, filter, or spark plugs, fill the tires with air, or set the timing, a lot of people were unwilling to relinquish the control over their car's engine. As engines and their computers became more sophisticated it became increasing more difficult to do your own work and more difficult yet to do it right. Now, you find very few people who do their own work. After all, the experts do it right, and affordably, so why would anyone get their hands dirty or oil spots on their driveway.
If the car example does sell you then I would ask - do you own any mutual funds? Most people who have retirement accounts have the bulk of their money in mutual funds. They don't pick their own stocks. And, in most cases, if they did try to pick their own stocks they would just mess up their portfolios. Once we realize that fund managers can do a better job and do it in an affordable fashion, why would anyone make their own investments in stocks. Granted there are a lot of people who still own stocks and I am one of them. But, we do it because we still think we can do better. But this will change over time. Once my stock portfolio takes a bad enough beating while my mutual funds are cruising along nicely, I will probably give in. And with Index Funds and Funds of Funds this day is approaching rapidly.
The point here is that we want to maintain control as long as we think we can do better. Once we realize we can't we are willing to relinquish control.
Sorry, I have to go. The doorbell rang. I hope Amazon is sending me something.
While I look forward to a future of better decisions, where efficiency and happiness are maximised, I wonder what effect it will have on an individuals mental capabilities and capacity. I'll try to frame this line of reasoning drawing from a simple need all humans have - food. In the not too distant past, people used to hunt & gather their food. The result was not only nourishment for them & their kin, but it required physical activity, strategic planning, and fostered social interactions (think a group hunt). The goal was to obtain food for sustenance, but the tangental activities provided individual and societal benefits. Fast forward to today, we drive in a car, get food that was prepared for us, and drive home -- or you use Peapod and it is sent to you. All tangental benefits are lost in this narrow example -- individuals act in a vacuum for this basic need. Now the reality is, significant physical activity is not required, social interactions are kept to a minimum, forward thinking is nonexistent. What effect does this have on a human being's physical and mental health? Does the decrease in all of these activities over time (a life time/generation) degrade ones overall happiness, or lessen the extent to which a natural being's organic facilities are utilised. What are the long term effects physically? Does it lead to obesity? an inability to survive in absence of these contemporary luxuries. Now that I've taken that example to an extreme, apply it fully to the mental side of things. In a world where individuals make no decisions, no critical thinking is done, what effect does it have over the long term. Is there a tradeoff being made, and if so at what point does the ability to be a complete mental midget actually have negative effects that you can't return from. Is the next step in human being's evolution complete and automatic hedonism? What implications does that have for long term survival of the species? Are humans a step below a next level higher consciousness, wherein humans become analogous to cells in the human body to this new higher order consciousness?
ReplyDelete