{"title":"Diamonds of Sadness: A Story of High-Tech Greed, Power, and Hypocrisy","authors":"D. Loi","doi":"10.1145/3587941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"of each character is excessively and uncompromisingly depicted. Their goal is to accumulate more, and such an end justifies any means. One could argue that the hightech community, too, has become structured “according to the unequal, savage logic wrought by capitalism” [1] and I’d argue that its what (outcome), how (method), and why (values) are frequently rather questionable. Several years ago, after viewing a demo of a new technology, I asked the inventor if he could imagine ways in which his design might be harmful. With a puzzled look, he replied, “Absolutely not.” After I listed a handful of very problematic and likely misuses of his creation, his response was that he could not be held accountable for what other people might do with his technology. Technically, he was not incorrect. Another time, I asked a colleague if he would put his newly designed surveillance system in his own home. With an incredulous look, he replied, “Of course not.” When I asked him why he thought others should put it in their homes, he said he was confident that marketing would create the right value propositions to monetize such a highly efficient system. Sadly, he was right. Earlier in my career, I was offered the opportunity to be on a fast-promotion track by focusing on a research agenda centered on leveraging behavioral manipulation to increase product sales. When I refused to jump on the opportunity due to the insidiousness of the proposed scope, not only did my manager laugh at what she felt was pure stupidity but also a number of colleagues took the opportunity without hesitation. They were indeed promoted, several years ahead of me. Over the past two decades, I have collected many examples like the ones above. Ongoing discussions with colleagues and mentees confirm that I am not the only one experiencing such puzzling dynamics. Like characters in a movie, we—the high-tech sector— gleefully put on golden blinders and keep moving in one direction, toward satisfying our selfish desires for wealth and power. We seem to have stopped questioning whether something should be designed. We seem to have forgotten the delicate relationship between what is created and how to create. We seem to believe that the values we cherish in private life do not apply when we clock in. Our what, how, and why are too frequently distorted and, like one of Östlund’s characters would say, we seem blissfully comfortable “in den wolken” (in the clouds), far from everyday reality. This may sound harsh, yet, let’s face it, we are shallower than we dare to admit. Similar to the Eastern European character in Triangle of Sadness who shares how he became a millionaire (“I sell shit,” he says, laughing), the hightech industry more frequently than not seems to be self-absorbed in endless manure production—because, it turns out, some will buy manure that they do not need if the surrounding apparatus makes the manure look and feel like must-have gold. This ongoing irresponsible behavior will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind. — Greta Thunberg","PeriodicalId":73404,"journal":{"name":"Interactions (New York, N.Y.)","volume":"30 1","pages":"26 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactions (New York, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3587941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
of each character is excessively and uncompromisingly depicted. Their goal is to accumulate more, and such an end justifies any means. One could argue that the hightech community, too, has become structured “according to the unequal, savage logic wrought by capitalism” [1] and I’d argue that its what (outcome), how (method), and why (values) are frequently rather questionable. Several years ago, after viewing a demo of a new technology, I asked the inventor if he could imagine ways in which his design might be harmful. With a puzzled look, he replied, “Absolutely not.” After I listed a handful of very problematic and likely misuses of his creation, his response was that he could not be held accountable for what other people might do with his technology. Technically, he was not incorrect. Another time, I asked a colleague if he would put his newly designed surveillance system in his own home. With an incredulous look, he replied, “Of course not.” When I asked him why he thought others should put it in their homes, he said he was confident that marketing would create the right value propositions to monetize such a highly efficient system. Sadly, he was right. Earlier in my career, I was offered the opportunity to be on a fast-promotion track by focusing on a research agenda centered on leveraging behavioral manipulation to increase product sales. When I refused to jump on the opportunity due to the insidiousness of the proposed scope, not only did my manager laugh at what she felt was pure stupidity but also a number of colleagues took the opportunity without hesitation. They were indeed promoted, several years ahead of me. Over the past two decades, I have collected many examples like the ones above. Ongoing discussions with colleagues and mentees confirm that I am not the only one experiencing such puzzling dynamics. Like characters in a movie, we—the high-tech sector— gleefully put on golden blinders and keep moving in one direction, toward satisfying our selfish desires for wealth and power. We seem to have stopped questioning whether something should be designed. We seem to have forgotten the delicate relationship between what is created and how to create. We seem to believe that the values we cherish in private life do not apply when we clock in. Our what, how, and why are too frequently distorted and, like one of Östlund’s characters would say, we seem blissfully comfortable “in den wolken” (in the clouds), far from everyday reality. This may sound harsh, yet, let’s face it, we are shallower than we dare to admit. Similar to the Eastern European character in Triangle of Sadness who shares how he became a millionaire (“I sell shit,” he says, laughing), the hightech industry more frequently than not seems to be self-absorbed in endless manure production—because, it turns out, some will buy manure that they do not need if the surrounding apparatus makes the manure look and feel like must-have gold. This ongoing irresponsible behavior will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind. — Greta Thunberg