悲伤的钻石:高科技贪婪、权力和虚伪的故事

D. Loi
{"title":"悲伤的钻石:高科技贪婪、权力和虚伪的故事","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

每一个角色都被过度而毫不妥协地描绘出来。他们的目标是积累更多,这样的目的证明了任何手段都是合理的。有人可能会说,高科技社区也已经“根据资本主义造成的不平等、野蛮的逻辑”[1]而我认为,它的内容(结果)、方式(方法)和为什么(价值观)往往相当可疑。几年前,在观看了一项新技术的演示后,我问发明者是否能想象出他的设计可能有害的方式。他带着困惑的表情回答说:“绝对不是。”在我列出了一些对他的创作非常有问题和可能被滥用的地方后,他的回答是,他不能对其他人可能对他的技术做什么负责。从技术上讲,他没有错。还有一次,我问一位同事,他是否愿意把他新设计的监控系统放在自己家里。他带着怀疑的表情回答说:“当然不是。”当我问他为什么认为其他人应该把它放在家里时,他说他相信营销会创造正确的价值主张,将如此高效的系统货币化。遗憾的是,他是对的。在我职业生涯的早期,我有机会通过专注于以利用行为操纵来提高产品销量为中心的研究议程,快速晋升。当我由于提议范围的隐蔽性而拒绝抓住这个机会时,我的经理不仅嘲笑她觉得纯粹的愚蠢,而且许多同事也毫不犹豫地抓住了这个机会。在过去的二十年里,我收集了许多像上面这样的例子。正在与同事和学员进行的讨论证实,我并不是唯一一个经历这种令人困惑的动态的人。就像电影中的角色一样,我们——高科技行业——兴高采烈地戴上金色的眼罩,朝着一个方向前进,朝着满足我们对财富和权力的私欲前进。我们似乎已经不再质疑是否应该设计一些东西了。我们似乎忘记了创造什么和如何创造之间的微妙关系。我们似乎相信,当我们打卡时,我们在私生活中珍视的价值观并不适用。我们的内容、方式和原因经常被扭曲,就像奥斯特伦德笔下的一个角色所说的那样,我们似乎在“云端”过得很幸福,远离日常现实。这听起来可能很刺耳,但让我们面对现实吧,我们比我们敢于承认的要肤浅。类似于《悲伤三角》中的东欧角色,他分享了自己是如何成为百万富翁的(“我卖屎,”他笑着说),高科技行业似乎更频繁地专注于无休止的粪肥生产——因为事实证明,如果周围的设备让粪肥看起来和感觉都像必备的黄金,有些人会购买他们不需要的粪肥。毫无疑问,这种持续不断的不负责任的行为将作为人类最大的失败之一载入史册。——格蕾塔·桑伯格
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diamonds of Sadness: A Story of High-Tech Greed, Power, and Hypocrisy
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Jie Li Memory Bites: From Earth to Space and Back Money as an Interface Out in the Cold: Recalcitrant Robots Building Dreams Beyond Labor: Worker Autonomy in the Age of AI
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1