How Interfaces Shape Our Relationship to Tech w/ Zachary Kaiser

WEBVTT
00:00:00.239 --> 00:00:34.799
Having a compelling vision of living well with less, having a compelling vision of a different way to be in the world is lacking because advertising is so good at convincing us that the way things are right now is the best that we've got a hello and welcome to TechMon's Save Us, made in partnership with The Nation magazine.
00:00:34.880 --> 00:00:38.960
I'm your host, Paris Marks, and this week I have a pretty interesting conversation for you.
00:00:39.119 --> 00:00:40.799
My guest is Zach Kaiser.
00:00:40.880 --> 00:00:45.920
He is an associate professor of graphic design and experience architecture at Michigan State University.
00:00:46.079 --> 00:00:51.759
He's also the author of Interfaces in Us, User Experience Design and the Making of the Computable Subject.
00:00:51.920 --> 00:01:05.920
Now we've talked on the show before about this proliferation of SMART or supposedly smart gadgets, where everything that we use now seems to have a screen or internet connectivity or voice control or something like that.
00:01:06.079 --> 00:01:14.799
And the commercial pressures by major tech companies and other companies that we wouldn't even generally consider tech companies in order to do that, right?
00:01:14.879 --> 00:01:22.159
In order to add all of these technologies to, in many cases, pretty mundane things that probably don't need them in the first place.
00:01:22.400 --> 00:01:55.760
But in Zach's book, he focuses on a bigger element of this, where the interfaces that we use from these smart devices to the apps to everything else kind of positions us in a particular way and makes us understand ourselves in a particular way because of the way that data is collected on us and then presented back to us as though it's an accurate reflection of the reality and the world that we live in, when that is not necessarily the case, because these things do have to be translated through the particular sensors that pick up this data in the first place.
00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:20.080
But when we build our world in this way, when we have all of this data being collected on us and the expectation is that we shape ourselves in order to better reflect what the data wants us to be, that has very serious impacts on how we think about addressing issues in the world, how we think about addressing issues in our own lives, how we think about changing the world for the better.
00:02:20.240 --> 00:02:25.120
Because if something can't be tracked or recorded with data, then what is the point of doing it?
00:02:25.199 --> 00:02:30.639
Or is it even something that we recognize has to be addressed or can be addressed?
00:02:30.879 --> 00:02:32.560
And then, of course, there's the deeper question.
00:02:32.719 --> 00:02:39.919
If all of these technologies are having these deep impacts on us, should we really be allowing them to proliferate in the first place?
00:02:40.080 --> 00:02:51.120
Should we be challenging this notion that we should be collecting data on so much and using that as the metric that allows us to determine if we are doing well as a people, if society is headed in the right direction?
00:02:51.360 --> 00:02:53.039
There's a deeper challenge that's needed here.
00:02:53.120 --> 00:03:05.199
And so we end this conversation with a talk about this notion of decomputerization and actually challenging this idea that the complete rollout of digital technologies is actually a form of progress and something to be embraced.
00:03:05.360 --> 00:03:07.360
So I quite enjoyed this conversation with Zach.
00:03:07.520 --> 00:03:11.599
If you feel like you learned from it, make sure to leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
00:03:11.680 --> 00:03:15.599
You can also share the show on social media or with any friends or colleagues who you think would learn from it.
00:03:15.680 --> 00:03:31.680
And if you do want to support the work that goes into making the show every week so I can keep having these critical conversations, you can join supporters like Dunry from Ann Arbor, Michigan, Ezra from Seattle, Allison from Montreal, and Matthew from Tennessee by going to patreon.com slash TechWon't Save Us, where you can become a supporter as well.
00:03:31.840 --> 00:03:34.080
Thanks so much and enjoy this week's conversation.
00:03:34.319 --> 00:03:36.400
Zach, welcome to Tech Won't Save Us.
00:03:36.639 --> 00:03:37.039
Thanks.
00:03:37.120 --> 00:03:38.800
I am so honored to be here.
00:03:38.960 --> 00:03:40.960
I just have to say, I love your podcast so much.
00:03:41.039 --> 00:03:42.240
I'm so excited.
00:03:42.800 --> 00:03:43.599
Thank you so much.
00:03:43.680 --> 00:03:45.919
I'll, you know, always accept that compliment.
00:03:46.159 --> 00:03:51.919
I think the listeners will start to be like, is he just forcing everyone to compliment him in exchange for coming on the show?
00:03:52.000 --> 00:03:53.520
But no, man, it's legit.
00:03:53.680 --> 00:03:54.479
It's legit.
00:03:55.280 --> 00:04:00.000
So, you know, you have this book that I read, which I thought was fascinating, called Interfaces in Us.
00:04:00.080 --> 00:04:09.520
And I think that people recognize that the technologies we use are kind of shaped by capitalism, by the socioeconomic reality that we live in.
00:04:09.680 --> 00:04:21.519
Um, but why is it important to look at the interface level of what is going on with these gadgets and apps and things like that rather than just kind of the broader level that we would usually look at, I guess?
00:04:21.920 --> 00:04:22.879
Such a good question.
00:04:23.040 --> 00:04:30.720
So I think for me, an ahistorical answer in terms of my career would reference sort of a Marxist materialism.
00:04:30.879 --> 00:04:34.160
Like if I had known about that when I started this project, which I really didn't.
00:04:34.319 --> 00:04:43.839
Like I think my learning as someone on the left, as someone who came out of industry, I don't have a PhD, I have an MFA.
00:04:44.000 --> 00:04:48.560
So, and not to say that people with MFAs can't like learn about this stuff, but like I just I was in industry.
00:04:48.639 --> 00:04:57.600
I there's so many things I didn't know about when I came to academia that part of this book is really itself a compendium of like stuff I've learned along the way.
00:04:57.759 --> 00:05:20.560
And I think the engagement, the direct engagement with interfaces is to me part and parcel of understanding the relationship between technology, if we can sort of we'll put it in the singular, even though we acknowledge it as multiple, between technology and politics and between political economy and society and also how it impacts us as individuals.
00:05:20.720 --> 00:05:39.680
Um, and I think that not only is it important to have that as opposed to a sort of broader engagement, like you need a case study, you need to be able to say, oh, well, like I can assert, for example, that the interface to my Fitbit or whatever is making me a particular way.
00:05:39.920 --> 00:05:48.480
Or I can assert that even more broadly, quantified self-applications are like making me feel a particular way about myself, or even the aspiration to 10,000 steps.
00:05:48.560 --> 00:05:58.240
But until we like really directly engage with those objects and also including the technologies underlying them, we were just talking about the wonderful work of David Columbia.
00:05:58.399 --> 00:06:08.000
That was one of the things I always appreciated about his work, is like the really specific engagement with actual technologies themselves.
00:06:08.240 --> 00:06:13.680
And to have worked in that space and to be able to understand how those things work.
00:06:13.839 --> 00:06:21.040
You know, like there is sort of an what I might call like an exegesis about all of the technologies and like an first model of a Fitbit in my book.
00:06:21.199 --> 00:06:28.560
And like there's a reason for that, which is it's sort of trying to live out the materialism to which like I subscribe.
00:06:28.720 --> 00:06:31.360
I think that there's like a strong case to be made for that.
00:06:31.600 --> 00:06:38.560
And also, I mean, the the last part of that I'll answer to that question is we only experience we, meaning.
00:06:38.639 --> 00:06:42.480
And again, like I use the term we, and it's feedback I got in the manuscript as well.
00:06:42.560 --> 00:06:51.839
And I think it's really important feedback is like when I use we, I tend to mean those of us in the global north, I tend to mean those of us using these technologies as consumers.
00:06:52.079 --> 00:06:55.839
I might say we as a designer, and I'll try to qualify that statement.
00:06:56.000 --> 00:07:05.600
But I think it's super important to say, like, when I say we, there's a geopolitical and socio-political and political economic dimension to that that is worth acknowledging.
00:07:05.920 --> 00:07:13.040
So when those of us who are users of these technologies use them, we only experience them at the level of the interface.
00:07:13.199 --> 00:07:17.519
We don't open them up, we don't build them unless we're, you know, designing them.
00:07:17.680 --> 00:07:24.800
And even then, designers often don't know how the data about someone's body is captured.
00:07:24.959 --> 00:07:31.680
You know, they're not examining the accelerometers or any other sort of sensor, posture sensors or whatever people are using these days.
00:07:31.920 --> 00:07:38.720
I found it really interesting, like as you describe the importance of those interfaces and that being how we interact with these technologies.
00:07:38.959 --> 00:07:44.639
In the book, you talk about how those interfaces are also kind of a place of idea transmission, right?
00:07:44.720 --> 00:08:02.480
These particular ideas that the designers and the companies behind these technologies have for how we should interact with them, the ideas for, you know, I guess even how we should like exist are then kind of transmitted to us through the way that this product or this app or what have you is actually designed.
00:08:02.639 --> 00:08:07.839
And I feel like when we come to these technologies, we are often not thinking about that either, right?
00:08:07.920 --> 00:08:09.759
It's just like, okay, how do I use this?
00:08:09.920 --> 00:08:11.519
How do I get what I need out of it?
00:08:11.680 --> 00:08:13.279
How do I make it work for me?
00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:19.199
But in the process of that kind of interaction, there is also a shaping that is going on.
00:08:19.519 --> 00:08:20.319
Oh, 100%.
00:08:20.720 --> 00:08:38.559
And I would say also for those of us that engage in the critical side of it, because of the culture or because of the relationships that we're steeped in, I think we have some assumptions that allow us to skip over the interaction with the interface to the critique that we engage in.
00:08:38.799 --> 00:08:57.519
But I think for me as a teacher, particularly teaching in a pre-professional undergraduate program where my students are like gonna go and get jobs doing this thing, there's this sort of like instrumentalizing function of design where, you know, we just sort of do the thing and we make it user-friendly, you know, whatever that means.
00:08:57.840 --> 00:09:19.679
But I think taking a minute to stop and like look at the interface and look at its rhetorical dimension and look at its ideological dimension, I think is like an important teaching moment that, and it's part of the reason I wrote the book, or part of the reason I conceived of it in the way I did, is because I saw a lot of literature like engaging with the specific technologies like underlying the interface.
00:09:19.840 --> 00:09:31.919
And then there's a lot of literature talking sort of at a more high level about the um sort of political, economic, and social dimensions of UX or of technology.
00:09:32.159 --> 00:09:42.720
But then like there's that middle ground, which is like literally where people meet this digital version of themselves that a lot of folks were maybe addressing tangentially or just like a little bit.
00:09:42.879 --> 00:09:45.679
And so, you know, that's part of the reason I think I wrote the book too.
00:09:45.919 --> 00:09:48.799
Yeah, but I think it's an important thing to consider, right?
00:09:48.879 --> 00:10:01.840
Because obviously a lot of my work is like thinking bigger about the political economy of these technologies, not so much going down to the actual site where I'm clicking on an app on my phone and seeing like exactly how it works or whatever, right?
00:10:02.080 --> 00:10:10.879
So I think it's an interesting lens through which to consider the way that these technologies then affect us or impact us or have us start thinking about ourselves.
00:10:11.039 --> 00:10:17.519
Like I remember, and maybe this is jumping ahead a bit, but but we can circle back, you know, like last year, you know, it was the new year.
00:10:17.600 --> 00:10:20.559
I was like, I'm probably gonna exercise more, blah, blah, blah.
00:10:20.799 --> 00:10:28.879
And one of the first things that came to mind when I thought about wanting to exercise more was I should probably get an Apple Watch so I can like track it, right?
00:10:29.039 --> 00:10:39.759
And then like immediately, because I think about these things all the time, I was like, why do I consider wanting to exercise more means I need an Apple Watch to like track it or whatever?
00:10:39.919 --> 00:10:43.360
I was like, this just goes completely against everything I talk about all the time.
00:10:43.440 --> 00:10:45.120
I did not end up getting the Apple Watch.
00:10:45.600 --> 00:10:47.360
100, 100%.
00:10:48.320 --> 00:10:54.399
I wrote an essay about dream reading technologies for real life.
00:10:54.799 --> 00:11:00.559
And the intro to that essay is basically me being like, I'm trying to sleep better.
00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:04.159
So I got all these apps to like help me sleep better, right?
00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:07.519
And it's like, you know, or like I have a smartwatch, like help me sleep better.
00:11:07.600 --> 00:11:08.799
And I'm like, wait a second, what?
00:11:08.960 --> 00:11:10.159
What am I doing?
00:11:10.399 --> 00:11:11.519
So yeah, 100%.
00:11:12.080 --> 00:11:15.519
Yeah, and I would say that this is a very common thing, right?
00:11:15.679 --> 00:11:27.440
We're trying to improve something in our lives or trying to address something, and the immediate assumption is like, let's find the technology or the app that is going to help me to achieve this goal that I have.
00:11:27.759 --> 00:11:32.480
Not even kind of taking the step to consider is the technology going to help me do this.
00:11:32.559 --> 00:11:38.799
There's just that kind of like implicit assumption that, of course, everything is technological, everything is like appified.
00:11:39.039 --> 00:11:41.440
This is gonna help me do whatever it is I want to do.
00:11:41.600 --> 00:11:44.799
And also on top of that, even if it helps you do what you want to do.
00:11:44.960 --> 00:11:57.279
And I think this is like one of the things I try to address in the book is there is an important distinction between even if something helps you, like there's the accuracy question, is this accurate?
00:11:57.360 --> 00:12:08.159
And I think that's one of the like things that a lot of criticism, especially in the early days of quantified self-technologies, a lot of the criticism hinged on accuracy and more recently bias.
00:12:08.720 --> 00:12:10.639
And those are really important.
00:12:11.039 --> 00:12:28.559
But I also want to point out that like even if those things are accurate, it is then shaping your behavior in order to enhance the feeling of accuracy, in order to enhance the idea that you are nothing but a computer and that you can be quantified through these technologies that measure your behavior.
00:12:28.720 --> 00:12:32.159
And like part of what I want to ask is like, is that desirable?
00:12:32.399 --> 00:12:38.240
Is that a way that we as a society or as people or as communities want to live?
00:12:38.559 --> 00:12:41.279
And there's not like a binary answer to that.
00:12:41.360 --> 00:12:51.200
It's accurate or it's not accurate, you know, like technology can help us and it can help you be healthier, it can help you work out, it can help you track certain things about your body.
00:12:51.279 --> 00:13:05.039
You know, I have one of my best friends in the whole world is diabetic, and I will tell you for certain, his life has been enhanced so greatly by medical technological advances, and I don't want to discount that.
00:13:05.200 --> 00:13:14.480
You know, when I say sort of flippantly like computers were a mistake, I have to acknowledge that there have been things that have materially changed the lives of folks for the better.
00:13:15.200 --> 00:13:38.960
At the same time, the underlying impetus for those things and the manner in which they're distributed, who has access to them, who doesn't, the sort of political economy of patents, all of this other stuff comes together to create a much different world than the world that that one individual person might occupy and sort of like be benefiting from.
00:13:39.039 --> 00:13:42.879
Um and I think that like there's just there's like a lot there.
00:13:43.039 --> 00:13:56.720
And I think that we have to try to unpack some of those things in addition to the accuracy question, in addition to the bias question, like there's a that like deeper level, which is more complicated if we're honest about it.
00:13:56.960 --> 00:13:57.360
Totally.
00:13:57.440 --> 00:13:58.799
But that nuance is key, right?
00:13:58.960 --> 00:14:10.879
Recognizing that that nuance exists and that it's not just that every like digital technology is terrible and we need to get rid of it, but there are ways that technologies can be used very concretely to enhance people's lives.
00:14:11.120 --> 00:14:19.840
And it's totally fine to embrace that like someone who is diabetic and who really benefits from having this ability to kind of, you know, track blood levels and all this kind of stuff.
00:14:20.080 --> 00:14:33.120
Whereas the idea that every single one of us should have an Apple Watch strapped to our wrists, tracking everything that we do and, you know, all of our kind of bodily functions all the time, that strays more into the arena of wait, do we really uh need that?
00:14:33.360 --> 00:14:43.120
And I think the point that you picked up on there, that like there's this ideological component to it as well, which I think is not so much held by the wider public.
00:14:43.279 --> 00:14:59.679
I don't know, maybe you disagree with that, but is definitely held by the tech industry that the human is computable, can be recorded or can be like quantified with data, and that that data is an accurate representation of the human.
00:14:59.919 --> 00:15:12.240
I think that is an ideological statement that I don't agree with, not something that is rooted in reality, even though the people at the top of the tech industry, the people pushing these ideas, definitely think that that is how the world works.
00:15:12.480 --> 00:15:12.960
Oh, yeah.
00:15:13.039 --> 00:15:21.519
And that's again, you know, to me, that's like one of these things that I'm actually writing a paper with Gabi Shafton.
00:15:21.600 --> 00:15:25.200
Shout out to Erstwhile Tech Won's Save Us listener and web developer.
00:15:25.519 --> 00:15:27.679
Exactly, maker of our website, yeah.
00:15:28.320 --> 00:15:32.480
So we're working on a paper right now called Should We Scare Our Students?
00:15:32.960 --> 00:15:46.799
And the the question that we ask in the paper is the title, but also we then drill down to like the question of whether or not like we are giving ourselves too much credit as educators in saying should we scare our students?
00:15:46.879 --> 00:15:48.720
And also, are we giving our students enough credit?
00:15:48.879 --> 00:16:03.840
And by that I mean like just like what you were saying, like this is an ideological thing that the belief that we are fundamentally computer like computable and computing in some ways, that's an ideological belief.
00:16:04.080 --> 00:16:25.039
But just like Stuart Hall knew back in the 80s, when Stuart Hall writes The Great Moving Right Show and he talks about why Thatcherism takes hold in Britain, he smartly says, like, there is a kernel of truth that maps onto the material experience of people's lives in Thatcher's ideas.
00:16:25.200 --> 00:16:29.679
And so it's not the uh sort of angles like false consciousness, right?
00:16:29.759 --> 00:16:41.440
Like Stuart Hall, and he criticizes his colleagues who say, you know, he says, like, you know, how is it that everyone I'm surrounded by can see through this screen of ideology, right?
00:16:41.600 --> 00:16:44.960
Whereas all these other people in the world are just like living in false consciousness.
00:16:45.039 --> 00:16:48.879
You know, that's a really self-important way to sort of like live in the world.
00:16:49.039 --> 00:16:53.039
And Stuart Hall's right that that's like not how things work.
00:16:53.200 --> 00:17:02.480
Ideologies proliferate in part because they're mapping onto at least someone's like material circumstances.
00:17:02.720 --> 00:17:20.000
And so if we take a look at, you know, how your Apple Watch may help you work out or how certain other innovations produce certain personal goods or social goods, it would be disingenuous to say that, like, I don't know, we're all like operating in in false consciousness, you know.
00:17:20.160 --> 00:17:39.920
I think that we have to acknowledge that there's a material validity that we experience when we engage with the products of Silicon Valley, even though, and also I think the other component of that is like, I'm curious the degree to which those in Silicon Valley, I think you've got like the PMC, right?
00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:42.240
The professional managerial class, right?
00:17:42.400 --> 00:17:49.519
Like they've probably adopted this ideology so much more thoroughly than the people that actually own the means of production, right?
00:17:49.680 --> 00:17:54.160
Like Musk and Zuckerberg, those guys don't care whether we're computers or not.
00:17:54.319 --> 00:17:55.440
They're making a bunch of money.
00:17:55.519 --> 00:17:56.880
It doesn't matter, right?
00:17:57.039 --> 00:18:03.279
That's different than somebody who's getting paid$500,000, but is a but is still a wage laborer, right?
00:18:03.440 --> 00:18:13.920
They might be getting paid a bunch of money, but they're getting paid to internalize and maximize the value of that ideology from them on down.
00:18:14.079 --> 00:18:16.319
So I think there's some like interesting things there.
00:18:16.400 --> 00:18:26.240
And also like my UX students, you know, like when my students go out into the world, in some ways they have to internalize that ideology in order to make like the products and services they design usable.
00:18:26.400 --> 00:18:29.200
So there's like, again, like that nuance is really important.
00:18:29.279 --> 00:18:35.359
And I think that's where, you know, an intervention like Illich's work and like Beninov's work, I think becomes really important.
00:18:35.519 --> 00:18:36.240
We can talk about that later.
00:18:36.319 --> 00:18:38.720
I figured that's maybe on the docket for later.
00:18:39.039 --> 00:18:40.480
Yeah, it's absolutely coming up.
00:18:40.640 --> 00:18:50.240
I do think it's interesting you talk about the distinctions there because I think I would say that some of the people at the top also very fervently believe it because they believe themselves to be computer-like in a sense.
00:18:50.559 --> 00:18:51.759
Also very true, right?
00:18:51.920 --> 00:19:01.519
Like the sort of maximizing optimization is very much in line with the effective altruism crowd, right?
00:19:01.680 --> 00:19:03.839
Like that's exactly what those folks are doing.
00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:07.599
And of course, it's garbage, just like to be fully clear here.
00:19:07.920 --> 00:19:08.799
Yeah, absolutely.
00:19:08.960 --> 00:19:15.599
You know, like I see the statements that Elon Musk makes where he's talking about his brain as though it's a computer all the time, right?
00:19:15.759 --> 00:19:18.960
And so so there's clearly something going on there.
00:19:19.359 --> 00:19:24.160
And that's why everybody needs to read David Columbia's Cultural Logic of Computation.
00:19:24.240 --> 00:19:34.559
If there's a book that like demonstrates how like the ideological dimension of believing that your brain is a computer, I don't think there's a better book that does it than that book.
00:19:34.880 --> 00:19:36.160
That's a great recommendation.
00:19:36.319 --> 00:19:41.519
And I also think that's a good opportunity to pivot to talk about some of the bigger ideas that you present in the book.
00:19:41.680 --> 00:19:45.039
Obviously, you've mentioned the term quantified self a few times.
00:19:45.200 --> 00:19:51.279
I think that one's probably pretty obvious to people, you know, this idea that we are going to collect all this data on ourselves.
00:19:51.359 --> 00:19:53.759
We're going to quantify these aspects of ourselves.
00:19:53.920 --> 00:19:57.519
But you also talk about something called the computable subjectivity.
00:19:57.680 --> 00:20:00.640
Now, you know, that's probably a bit of uh an academic term.
00:20:00.799 --> 00:20:07.440
Can you break that down for us and talk to us what it actually means, what this computable subjectivity actually means and what it means for us?
00:20:07.680 --> 00:20:08.240
Yeah, sure.
00:20:08.319 --> 00:20:13.839
Like all good academics, I felt like I had to invent something in order to uh continue to advance my career.
00:20:14.559 --> 00:20:15.440
No, I'm just kidding.
00:20:15.599 --> 00:20:17.839
I mean, there is a certain, there's a grain of truth to that, right?
00:20:17.920 --> 00:20:20.400
And we can talk about academia at some point if we need to.
00:20:20.640 --> 00:20:29.119
But, you know, to me, this idea that like John Cheney Lippold, who also had a huge influence on this book, there's a shout out to him in the acknowledgments.
00:20:29.359 --> 00:20:42.720
Another like touchstone for what the genesis of this book was was uh John's article, A New Algorithmic Identity, Soft Biopolitics and the Modulation of Control, came out in, I want to say, 2011.
00:20:42.880 --> 00:20:46.000
It's old and it is an awesome, awesome article.
00:20:46.079 --> 00:20:48.319
And he expands on it in his book, We Are Data.
00:20:48.480 --> 00:21:18.240
And one of the things that I was thinking about is sort of like the linkage between the ways that we're construed as data, and then something like what Galumbia is talking about, which is the ways in which we've come to be understood as functioning like a computer and how those link up to produce a subject, a political subject specifically, that operates computationally and that also is made up of nothing but information that can be read by a computer.
00:21:18.480 --> 00:21:38.079
And so, like, I think I might distinguish that from just like being made up of data in the sense that like data can be understood maybe to be, you know, everything that's computationally legible, but I would suggest that there's like metadata and all sorts of other stuff that are like properties of information that we feed into computers that then they respond.
00:21:38.240 --> 00:21:54.720
And I think that we, as a sort of global north, sort of western hegemony society have come to understand ourselves through the products and services that we use, which tend to be computational and tend to have interfaces to them.
00:21:54.880 --> 00:21:59.839
We've come to understand ourselves as both computing and legible to computers.
00:22:00.160 --> 00:22:20.559
Computation, in other words, computable, we do so not purely out of ideological commitment, but precisely because of the convenience and ease and the way that these things allow us to work more or to be more efficient or productive, right?
00:22:20.720 --> 00:22:25.039
There's a material benefit that we derive from using these things in a particular way.
00:22:25.119 --> 00:22:28.400
And it only serves to reinforce that as an ideological proposition.
00:22:28.720 --> 00:22:53.680
As part of that, you also talk about how there's this assumption, I guess, as part of this, that the data that we collect is an accurate representation of the world around us and that there's no kind of barrier there, that, you know, there it's not that there are some things that can be collected and some things that cannot, but whatever can be collected, whatever can be made legible by these computers is also the world, basically.
00:22:53.839 --> 00:23:05.200
Can you talk about kind of the problems with that understanding of, you know, how we see the world around us or how these technologies position how we should see the world around us, I guess?
00:23:05.440 --> 00:23:05.839
Yeah.
00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:10.640
I mean, there's like a depth to that idea that I think is really important.
00:23:10.720 --> 00:23:42.000
So, like the idea that there's a one-to-one correspondence between data and world is one that we often see sort of just like manifest in our daily lives, whether it's counting how many steps we've taken, or whether it's assessing the data about our neurological state, or whether it's quantifying data about pain, all of those technologies are built on this sort of particular assumption of the one-to-one correspondence between data and world.
00:23:42.319 --> 00:24:04.640
However, I think the people that build those technologies probably have a more sophisticated understanding of that relationship because they understand like the sensors and the actual like translations that are required to take a phenomena that is qualitative or human or environmental and to translate that into something that is like machine readable data.
00:24:05.279 --> 00:24:12.640
And one of the things that interfaces do is they collapse all of that, especially interfaces to consumer products.
00:24:12.799 --> 00:24:25.519
So I'm not talking necessarily here about like scientific instruments, but perhaps more about the sort of like basic everyday UX kind of things that you know you and I as consumers experience.
00:24:25.759 --> 00:24:32.799
All of those technologies, because of the impetus for ease of use, because if users don't adopt them, they won't be profitable.
00:24:32.960 --> 00:24:39.039
Although, as you've addressed on your podcast a number of times, like Uber's profitability is questionable, right?
00:24:39.200 --> 00:24:46.640
So like maybe it's just about garnering as many users as humanly possible in order to sort of artificially inflate the value of your company.
00:24:46.799 --> 00:24:48.319
Great, that's what they're doing, right?
00:24:48.400 --> 00:24:57.119
But either way, it's not to the benefit of the company to reveal any of the translations that are required to get from world to data and back.
00:24:57.680 --> 00:25:04.079
And what that does is it reinforces an idea that our world is made up of nothing but data.
00:25:04.240 --> 00:25:06.480
And you see this assumption like all the time.
00:25:06.720 --> 00:25:11.920
One of the reasons I was sort of like disillusioned with actor network theory, we were talking about ANT earlier.
00:25:12.079 --> 00:25:20.640
One of the reasons I was disillusioned with is I saw a presentation where someone talked about like data trails or something like that.
00:25:20.799 --> 00:25:27.279
And they were saying, like, they asserted that data pre-exists humanity, that data has always existed.
00:25:27.519 --> 00:25:38.160
And like, there is no better example of that ideology seeping in so deeply to someone's like core beliefs about how the world works than that.
00:25:38.720 --> 00:25:45.920
It's wild to think that even before there was the ability to like collect the data, that we're like, you know, the world is just data.
00:25:46.079 --> 00:25:52.880
It's like, I think the world is like biological and stuff like that, actually, which is actually quite distinct from what you're talking about.
00:25:53.119 --> 00:26:12.640
What comes to mind though, based on what you were saying, is really how these interfaces, these technologies are designed so that we look at them and we assume that what it is showing us is kind of a one-to-one relationship and that the marketing promises being made by these companies are accurate reflections of the capabilities of the devices, right?
00:26:12.720 --> 00:26:18.480
And and the kind of ideology that we're talking about is embedded in that and helps convince us that those things are accurate.
00:26:18.640 --> 00:26:26.400
But then you get these kind of marketing narratives that the Apple Watch can kind of help you with your fitness and make you more healthy and all this kind of stuff.
00:26:26.480 --> 00:26:48.960
But then we get reports that that studies actually find that when you have an Apple Watch, you might not actually be as physically active as if you didn't have an Apple Watch, or that there are problems with kind of false positive readings of health signals and things like that, which which go against this idea or this narrative that the companies want you to believe about what these devices actually do.
00:26:49.279 --> 00:26:49.519
Yeah.
00:26:49.680 --> 00:27:07.279
The thing that I always think about that is I find this when I'm talking with my students too, because the ideological water in which we swim suggests that although there are currently issues with the accuracy of this technology, don't worry, it'll get better.
00:27:07.440 --> 00:27:07.680
Right.
00:27:07.839 --> 00:27:11.200
Just like with facial recognition, like same shit, right?
00:27:11.279 --> 00:27:16.400
Where it's just like, oh yeah, don't worry, we'll fix the bias, we'll iron all this out, right?
00:27:16.559 --> 00:27:17.599
It's like Elon Musk.
00:27:17.680 --> 00:27:22.000
He killed like how many, how many monkeys or whatever, you know, with the neural link testing.
00:27:22.079 --> 00:27:23.839
He's like, Don't worry, don't worry, I got this.
00:27:24.160 --> 00:27:29.599
This is such a common assumption that technology just progresses.
00:27:29.759 --> 00:27:34.400
There's, you know, this like teleology, it's just always moving forward.
00:27:34.799 --> 00:27:54.319
And I think that's one of the most dangerous parts of even reporting, like even popular journalism about the failures of technology, they tend to ascribe a kind of progress to the technology, present company excluded, of course, right?
00:27:54.559 --> 00:27:55.440
Of course, of course.
00:27:55.599 --> 00:27:56.640
I mean, we see it all the time.
00:27:56.720 --> 00:27:58.799
I mean, oh my god, I've been reading like so.
00:27:58.880 --> 00:28:00.640
Do you remember the newsletter Protocol?
00:28:00.799 --> 00:28:01.599
Yeah, absolutely.
00:28:02.000 --> 00:28:11.759
Protocol was dope, and they went under towards the beginning of the pandemic, they I think they folded, and Politico took over their newsletter list.
00:28:12.079 --> 00:28:15.920
And Politico has this newsletter called Digital Future Daily.
00:28:16.319 --> 00:28:25.200
And let me tell you, the number of times I've seen like this is bad, but blank, right, right, is like pretty incredible.
00:28:25.359 --> 00:28:41.359
And I think that's characteristic of a lot of reporting on the failures of especially things like the accuracy of certain features of the Apple Watch or the accuracy of certain features of like facial recognition or facial expression recognition technology.
00:28:41.599 --> 00:28:54.960
And so to me, the buffer against that is like even when it gets better and even when it gets more accurate, who is materially benefiting the most from that enhancement in accuracy.
00:28:55.200 --> 00:29:11.920
I can certainly tell you that the app that tracks your poop getting more accurate is not benefiting you nearly as much as the functionality of that benefiting whoever the capitalist is that owns the platform on which your poop tracking app is built, right?
00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:13.920
It's not the developer of your poop tracking app.
00:29:14.000 --> 00:29:18.559
It's actually the capitalist class that owns the material infrastructure on which that's built.
00:29:18.640 --> 00:29:31.519
And I think that has to be part and parcel of the conversation around the accuracy and bias of data collection and extrapolation is like the asymmetries that are baked into the system regardless of the accuracy.
00:29:31.759 --> 00:29:33.359
I think that's like super important to think about.
00:29:33.440 --> 00:29:36.799
And to me, that's like a very much a political economy question.
00:29:37.119 --> 00:29:38.480
That's an interesting point, right?
00:29:38.640 --> 00:29:49.599
Because on the one hand, you can think about how the interfaces are designed and how things are put together to make us think about these products or think about these technologies in a particular way.
00:29:49.759 --> 00:30:00.960
But then that can't be divorced from the kind of larger commercial pressures that are being undertaken where people's fridges have computers in them now and you know, they're microwaves.
00:30:01.039 --> 00:30:05.440
And I've seen, I think it's Kohler advertising a toilet that's a smart toilet now.
00:30:05.680 --> 00:30:09.200
Oh my God, the ad about the the where the toilet is in Marfa.
00:30:10.079 --> 00:30:18.400
It's like in the middle of the highway in Marfa, you know, and like Marfa's become this sort of like weird place where like Louis Vuitton does stuff or like whatever, right?
00:30:18.480 --> 00:30:22.079
And Kohler's like, yeah, we're putting a toilet in the middle of the highway in Marfa.
00:30:22.480 --> 00:30:24.640
It's like, what is going on?
00:30:25.119 --> 00:30:26.319
Like, it's a toilet.
00:30:26.480 --> 00:30:28.000
I need it to flush.
00:30:28.400 --> 00:30:29.440
It's crazy.
00:30:29.519 --> 00:30:31.279
It's so crazy to me.
00:30:31.759 --> 00:30:34.960
Yeah, I think that's like we my my students I talk about this stuff all the time.
00:30:35.039 --> 00:30:50.960
Like, it brings up a bunch of fascinating points here about like again, just going back to this like who is materially benefiting from these innovations and how, and what happens when we assume like our bar for like what makes our lives better is so low.
00:30:51.119 --> 00:30:52.480
It's like crazy.
00:30:52.720 --> 00:30:53.279
It's crazy.
00:30:53.359 --> 00:30:56.079
It's like, oh, my fridge has a computer in it.
00:30:56.319 --> 00:31:01.039
But like a lot of people in the United States of America can't buy food.
00:31:01.200 --> 00:31:06.960
That's crazy to me that like we're that that a fridge with a computer in it constitutes innovation.
00:31:07.039 --> 00:31:10.960
When like what would be really innovative is if we could feed everybody, you know, like that.
00:31:11.039 --> 00:31:12.079
I just it's it's insane.
00:31:12.160 --> 00:31:13.440
So my students, I talk about this all the time.
00:31:13.519 --> 00:31:17.599
I had a student the other day, she was like, This is in my interaction design class.
00:31:17.680 --> 00:31:22.799
So this is very pre-professional, not a whole lot of like critical theory stuff going on.
00:31:23.119 --> 00:31:27.839
She was like, My sister's car has a screen, you know, like this huge screen in it.
00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:35.839
And whenever I drive it, I can't tell if I'm turning up the heat or not because I have to like look at the screen, but I don't want to take my eyes off the road.
00:31:36.079 --> 00:31:48.559
And I was like, Yeah, that's bad interaction design in your 1990s Volvo or whatever, like you knew you could be watching the road and you knew by feel, you know, what dial you were like grabbing.
00:31:48.640 --> 00:31:51.359
And there's feedback, there's like physical feedback that you're getting.
00:31:51.519 --> 00:31:52.640
There's nothing of that now.
00:31:52.799 --> 00:31:55.039
So, you know, these like flat glass screens.
00:31:55.119 --> 00:32:17.200
It's like, dude, but I think that, you know, to me, when when something like that constitutes innovation, there's a whole history of ideas that like are required to make us believe that that is innovative in the first place and to make us believe that we should then consume and purchase the thing with the giant screen as opposed to, you know, the thing with the buttons and the dials that worked perfectly fine.
00:32:17.519 --> 00:32:17.759
Yeah.
00:32:18.000 --> 00:32:33.279
And I guess the the point I was getting to was kind of like obviously the interface is is an important aspect of this, but then there are these other pressures that kind of force these interfaces into these products in a way that people probably aren't really asking for.
00:32:33.440 --> 00:32:40.799
Like, who is really asking for Alexa in their microwave so they can say, you know, Alexa, pop my popcorn or whatever, right?
00:32:41.039 --> 00:32:46.480
Like these are things that I don't totally understand in the sense that I don't understand the desire.
00:32:46.799 --> 00:33:06.400
I understand the commercial pressures that are pushing us in this direction, the issues where this is being framed as progress because now the internet and now a screen is in virtually everything, yet someone's fridge doesn't last as long because it can fail more quickly because it has been redesigned in this way.
00:33:06.559 --> 00:33:08.559
It just seems so broken and backwards.
00:33:08.799 --> 00:33:08.960
Yeah.
00:33:09.119 --> 00:33:18.079
And that desire, I mean, that desire has been manufactured, and that is the fault of what design has become under capitalism.
00:33:18.319 --> 00:33:25.440
You know, again, like I think I'd be remiss if I didn't suggest that like part of what I do is problematic in that way.
00:33:25.519 --> 00:33:39.039
You know, I'm like some of my students will go and like work in advertising agencies, and that's not to say that those students don't need to make a living and they don't need to like buy groceries and pay rent and pay back their massive student loans, which is horrifying because public education should be free.
00:33:39.359 --> 00:33:52.480
But at the same time, part of why we adopt those desires, part of why someone says to themselves, like, oh, isn't it amazing that Alexa can pop my popcorn for me?
00:33:52.640 --> 00:33:53.440
I love that.
00:33:53.599 --> 00:33:56.240
You know, I can walk into the house and be like, Alexa, turn the lights on.
00:33:56.319 --> 00:33:57.680
Alexa, pop my popcorn.
00:33:57.839 --> 00:34:10.000
Like, part of that is the way that like that extreme level of quote unquote convenience, or even the way it's been construed as convenient, in a lot of ways it's not.
00:34:10.400 --> 00:34:13.679
That has, and I try to allude to this a little bit in the book.
00:34:13.840 --> 00:34:15.760
That idea has such a long history, you know.
00:34:15.840 --> 00:34:20.000
And there's a really good book that like I heard about from Cameron Tonkinwise.
00:34:20.320 --> 00:34:22.079
Shout out Cameron Tonkinwise.
00:34:22.559 --> 00:34:28.159
He posted a photograph once, this was ages ago on Twitter, of like a couple of books he was reading.
00:34:28.239 --> 00:34:29.360
And one of them caught my eye.
00:34:29.440 --> 00:34:32.800
It was called The Value of Convenience, a genealogy of technical culture.
00:34:32.880 --> 00:34:34.320
It's by this guy, Thomas Tierney.
00:34:34.480 --> 00:34:36.960
It came out in 1993, I think.
00:34:37.280 --> 00:34:39.039
And it's a wild book.
00:34:39.199 --> 00:34:40.400
It's really good.
00:34:40.719 --> 00:35:01.679
And that, you know, like talks about the story of how we come to see convenience as something to be valued, and then at the same time, how capitalism twists the pursuit of one's calling to become about your role in the economy as opposed to your role in like religious practice.
00:35:01.920 --> 00:35:05.519
And these things sort of come together in very strange ways.
00:35:05.599 --> 00:35:07.119
It's a it's a really cool book.
00:35:07.440 --> 00:35:21.840
I love like finding books like that from the 90s and even before that feel so relevant to today because it shows you how this notion that we have from Silicon Valley that we're in this like new era, that everything has changed, is like not true at all.
00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:25.920
And actually, people have been criticizing these very same things for like a long time.
00:35:26.079 --> 00:35:48.000
But picking up on what you were saying there, you know, one of the things that you write about in the book is that these technologies and the way that these interfaces are set up kind of push us to think of ourselves more as individuals who are acting for our self-optimization, and that there's a very big difference between individualism under neoliberalism and simply individuality.
00:35:48.239 --> 00:35:57.440
Can you kind of parse that out for us and the consequences of having these incredibly individualist approaches that are encouraged by these technologies?
00:35:57.760 --> 00:36:13.280
Yeah, there's a great term, which I think I read in one of Zygmunt Baumann's liquid books, Liquid Modernity, I think he references it in, but I think it's a term that came from the sociologist Ulrich Beck, and it is biographical solutions to systemic contradictions.
00:36:13.760 --> 00:36:43.760
And I like love that term because it captures the way that through the kind of confluence of political, economic, and technological forces over the history of the last, I don't know, we'll call it like 70 years, like you know, beginning in the Cold War, we have come to see problems as being solvable exclusively through means of individual action as opposed to collective action.
00:36:44.000 --> 00:36:59.199
Rarely do we see instances of collective action doing the kinds of things that probably would benefit a lot of us a lot more and a lot faster than an app designed to like help you track your electricity consumption.
00:36:59.280 --> 00:37:08.079
Like it's not bad to track one's electricity consumption, but like ending a reliance on fossil fuels would probably be a lot easier through mass action, right?
00:37:08.159 --> 00:37:10.639
As opposed to like, you know, some of these individual solutions.
00:37:10.719 --> 00:37:11.280
But it's interesting.
00:37:11.360 --> 00:37:12.960
I mean, we see this everywhere.
00:37:13.280 --> 00:37:32.239
And it's not just fossil fuels, it's not just consumerism, it's not like there's so many things where it's like, oh, my institution has a partnership with Apple's like developer academy, and one of their first projects, this is a very complicated situation.
00:37:32.400 --> 00:37:35.119
I don't want to oversimplify it, but I think it's an important example.
00:37:35.199 --> 00:37:40.639
So I'll say it here, but I think it's important to acknowledge that it's like nuanced and complex and there's a lot there.
00:37:40.960 --> 00:37:44.880
Sexual assault on college campuses is a really, really big issue.
00:37:45.039 --> 00:37:55.119
And so one of the things that students did in like one of their first projects with, I don't know if it was the Developer Academy or if it was iOS Lab or something, but we've been partnering with Apple on a bunch of stuff.
00:37:55.280 --> 00:37:59.519
And the students developed like a safer campus app, which is really cool.
00:37:59.599 --> 00:38:02.320
And it like has like these alert buttons and all this kind of stuff.
00:38:02.559 --> 00:38:12.079
But one of the things that I talk about in class around this project is that app on its own is not gonna stop rape culture.
00:38:12.239 --> 00:38:14.559
It's not gonna end patriarchy, right?
00:38:14.719 --> 00:38:26.320
It's not gonna change the fundamental structure of oppression that leads to young men believing that women are objects, right?
00:38:26.480 --> 00:38:28.079
That's not gonna change.
00:38:28.400 --> 00:38:44.559
And so to me, even if a technological intervention at an individualist level is useful, it cannot be on its own a solution to what is a systemic uh issue that is like baked into the fabric of society.
00:38:44.800 --> 00:38:46.239
It's so much easier though, right?
00:38:46.320 --> 00:38:50.079
It's so much easier to say, oh, we can fix this with technology.
00:38:50.320 --> 00:38:53.760
You were talking to Theorio Francos, right?
00:38:54.000 --> 00:38:54.800
Huge fan.
00:38:55.039 --> 00:38:58.880
She talks about like carbon capture technology and electrifying vehicles.
00:38:59.199 --> 00:39:10.079
And the American solution to carbon emissions is like electrify everybody's car, even though individual transportation is actually the issue, right?
00:39:10.239 --> 00:39:18.079
And so I think like her work is also like a great touchstone for thinking about the relationship between biographical solutions and systemic problems.
00:39:18.400 --> 00:39:19.360
I completely agree.
00:39:19.519 --> 00:39:21.519
Uh, obviously a big fan of Thea's work.
00:39:21.679 --> 00:39:24.239
Can't wait for her next book so I can have her back on the show.
00:39:24.480 --> 00:39:33.199
One of the things that kind of stood out to me as I was reading the book is I'm sure that most of this was written kind of before the AI hype that you know we've been in for the past year.
00:39:33.440 --> 00:39:46.400
I feel like there are a lot of connections between what you're talking about in the book and what we've been seeing, where on the one hand, there is this view that human intelligence can be replicated in these machines, that the human brain is basically a computer.
00:39:46.480 --> 00:39:54.079
And so we just need to build a similar computer in these data centers that can then have conversations with us or whatever.
00:39:54.320 --> 00:40:09.920
And then there's the other piece of this where these companies are developing very specific kind of interfaces through which we interact with these tools that are designed to, again, kind of make us believe that it has these capabilities that it doesn't necessarily have.
00:40:10.079 --> 00:40:18.400
And so I wonder how you reflect on how these things that you've been writing about apply to what we've been seeing with this generative AI over the past year or so.
00:40:18.719 --> 00:40:19.760
It's such a good question.
00:40:19.840 --> 00:40:28.719
Um, I've been thinking about it a lot, uh, partly because I just finished working on an installation in a museum that's about AI, loosely speaking.
00:40:28.960 --> 00:40:33.199
You know, speaking of things that go way back, people predicting and kind of thinking about this kind of stuff.
00:40:33.280 --> 00:40:35.599
The installation is called Blessed is the machine.
00:40:35.679 --> 00:40:45.679
And the reason it's called that is because that's the mantra of the citizens of the global sort of subterranean world society in uh E.M.
00:40:45.840 --> 00:40:48.800
Forster's short story, The Machine Stops.
00:40:49.280 --> 00:40:49.760
I don't know.
00:40:49.840 --> 00:40:51.280
It was published in 1909.
00:40:51.519 --> 00:40:57.360
It is an incredible story, and encourage folks to go check it out.
00:40:57.599 --> 00:41:15.360
But I think, in a lot of ways, like the hype around AI, particularly as it relates to the interfaces to those products and services, those interfaces, again, like we're talking about, sort of collapse all of the things that are required to make that thing appear sentient, right?
00:41:15.519 --> 00:41:20.320
Or to make it appear as though it knows whatever it is that you're asking it.
00:41:20.559 --> 00:41:30.400
And I think that that's an important piece of the puzzle is that like the interfaces to those products intentionally lie.
00:41:30.639 --> 00:41:41.920
They intentionally conceal certain things about whether it's the resource needs of those technologies, whether it's the notion, even that they are sentient in the first place.
00:41:42.000 --> 00:41:54.079
That there's a great term stochastic parrot, just you know, like basically like these are sort of predictive things, you know, it's predictive algorithms that are like producing some of these inferences that then get spat out.
00:41:54.320 --> 00:42:03.760
I mean, the AI thing is just it's hard for me to talk about it without getting like super angry because for the vast majority of it, we don't need it.
00:42:03.920 --> 00:42:05.840
We don't need it in any way.
00:42:06.079 --> 00:42:11.519
We're making images that are artworks, quote unquote, that are like super derivative and like who cares, right?
00:42:11.840 --> 00:42:16.400
We're doing things like writing poems that are whatever.
00:42:16.559 --> 00:42:18.079
We're doing literature reviews.
00:42:18.239 --> 00:42:20.159
And a literature review is really important.
00:42:20.400 --> 00:42:20.960
Great.
00:42:21.280 --> 00:42:24.800
But why do you need the AI to do the literature review in the first place?
00:42:24.960 --> 00:42:31.199
Because you're under a whole ton of pressure to publish a bunch of journal articles so that you can go and get tenure, right?
00:42:31.280 --> 00:42:36.559
Or so that you can, you know, get that next job or you can get that next research job or whatever, right?
00:42:36.639 --> 00:42:55.679
Like there's a political economic issue at play, which makes these things appear necessary when actually in a world where we would somehow democratically determine what we would want our technologies to do, I guarantee you that none of that shit would be on the list.
00:42:56.159 --> 00:42:58.960
Like food, food for people would be really cool.
00:42:59.119 --> 00:43:05.599
It's a lot of things that would be great, you know, that would be much higher on my list than like uh AI that can make a bad painting.
00:43:06.800 --> 00:43:07.199
What?
00:43:07.280 --> 00:43:10.639
We we don't want uh digital paintings, digital artists.
00:43:10.800 --> 00:43:15.280
Um I just think it's such a complete joke.
00:43:15.440 --> 00:43:23.920
And listeners of the show, and and you will know how frustrated I am at the past year and all of this generative AI that we've been subjected to.
00:43:24.079 --> 00:43:36.000
But I think that what you were talking there gets to another important point in the book where you know you told us about this computable subjectivity, the way that the design of these things, you know, makes us think about the world and ourselves in this particular way.
00:43:36.239 --> 00:43:40.079
But in the book, you talk about how certainly this is a capitalist problem.
00:43:40.159 --> 00:43:46.960
We've been talking about how this is rooted in capitalist political economy, but it's not solely a capitalist problem.
00:43:47.039 --> 00:43:54.719
Like if there was this optimization and this degree of you know the quantified self within a socialist society, this would also be a problem.
00:43:54.880 --> 00:43:56.239
Can you expand on that?
00:43:56.639 --> 00:43:59.760
Yeah, so I think there's there's a couple dimensions.
00:44:00.079 --> 00:44:02.239
Dimensions of the computable subjectivity.
00:44:02.320 --> 00:44:17.840
And I think for me, part of the danger in adopting this idea of oneself is a danger of falling into the trap of sort of like social optimization in general and what that optimization looks like.
00:44:18.000 --> 00:44:20.400
What does it include and what does it leave out?
00:44:20.559 --> 00:44:23.679
And so, you know, I offer the example of Cyberson in the book.
00:44:23.760 --> 00:44:38.400
And part of the reason I offer that is not to critique the project of Cyberson or to critique, you know, what Ayande was doing, which was, I mean, can I just can't imagine what the world would be like now if you know the coup hadn't happened.
00:44:38.639 --> 00:44:56.000
But I think there's a very insightful critique of that project, which is that in some ways, any technology that seeks to optimize something is going to leave something else out that it's not optimizing for.
00:44:56.320 --> 00:45:02.880
So instead, I had a little post-it note on my computer for many years that just said the value of the suboptimal.
00:45:03.039 --> 00:45:15.679
And I think that to me, there's something to be said for the things that fall outside of the optimization project or the necessity, the apparent necessity to optimize certain things.
00:45:15.920 --> 00:45:19.840
I also think that there is a flattening or a sort of like totalizing.
00:45:19.920 --> 00:45:23.119
And this is maybe a more like recent thought for me, to be honest.
00:45:23.199 --> 00:45:26.079
You know, like most of this book was finished in 2021.
00:45:26.320 --> 00:45:28.159
So things change, right?
00:45:28.320 --> 00:45:34.480
And so, like, for me, I've also been thinking a lot about communal autonomy and self-determination.
00:45:34.639 --> 00:45:40.800
And again, this just comes from if you're lucky enough to be an academic, you should be a lifelong learner.
00:45:40.960 --> 00:45:43.360
And I think that like our ideas change over time.
00:45:43.440 --> 00:45:50.000
And so one of the things I've learned a lot about recently, to the credit of folks, scholars, particularly from the global south.
00:45:50.079 --> 00:46:25.920
And so I'm not saying anything new here, like folks like Arturo Escobar and folks who have written about the Zapatista communities for a really long time, my friend Marissa Brandt, who's a science and technology studies scholar at Michigan State, learning about communal autonomy and self-governance and democratic self-determination, I think to me, because that looks different in different places across the globe, to me, that means that like a computable subjectivity, which is inherently sort of a flattening of human experience because the data that is required has to be standardized in particular ways.
00:46:26.079 --> 00:46:33.280
I mean, like, imagine how different computing would look if computing was sort of like autonomously self-determined by communities across the globe.
00:46:33.440 --> 00:46:34.400
Like, who knows?
00:46:34.480 --> 00:46:35.440
It'd be super crazy.
00:46:35.519 --> 00:46:36.880
I have no idea what it would look like.
00:46:36.960 --> 00:46:40.000
You know, maybe we would be quantifying different things, or who knows?
00:46:40.159 --> 00:46:41.280
Like, literally have no idea, right?
00:46:41.360 --> 00:46:42.559
It's hard to even imagine.
00:46:42.719 --> 00:47:11.360
But I think the hegemony of the projects that have all kind of come together, the patriarchal, capitalist, western, neocolonialist kind of projects, have created a situation where, like, not only do many of us sort of believe ourselves to be computable, but we believe that in a very specific way that has optimization for our economic roles under capitalism at the fore.
00:47:11.519 --> 00:47:13.599
And even if we don't behave rationally, right?
00:47:13.679 --> 00:47:16.639
So, like game theory, you know, I talk a little bit about game theory.
00:47:16.719 --> 00:47:19.039
I had like my Adam Curtis moment in this book.
00:47:19.199 --> 00:47:27.519
I love Adam Curtis's films, but I think they're like, there is something to be said for like the different ways that those can be a little conspiracy theory-ish.
00:47:28.000 --> 00:47:48.639
And so I don't know, I think that there's like just so much to kind of think about when we adopt this idea of ourselves and the way that it emerges through like, you know, the Cold War and sort of like the way that people become able to be modeled as nation states in nuclear war, you know, implacable enemies.
00:47:48.719 --> 00:47:50.320
And we all come to be seen as that.
00:47:50.400 --> 00:47:55.199
And it results in this sort of bizarre individualism, but like we don't behave rationally, but that almost doesn't matter.
00:47:55.360 --> 00:48:06.880
That's the other thing that I think a lot about with this book is that I had to navigate very carefully the counterclaims, for example, that like if you are a computer, you will behave rationally, right?
00:48:07.280 --> 00:48:11.679
So why do people do certain things or why do they behave in certain ways, right?
00:48:11.840 --> 00:48:17.920
And I think the computable subjectivity manifests itself in like material everyday existence in different ways.
00:48:18.079 --> 00:48:31.440
So you can't necessarily say that there's like a one-to-one correspondence between like how a computational model of someone maps onto how that person behaves, even if they believe they are fundamentally the same as that computational model.
00:48:31.679 --> 00:48:47.599
And so I think like as a kind of intellectual thing, that's a very tricky space to navigate because you know, I'm on the one hand, I'm criticizing sort of the game theoretic notion of people, but at the same time, I'm not necessarily suggesting that they behave rationally.
00:48:48.000 --> 00:48:49.280
No, that that's all good.
00:48:49.440 --> 00:48:54.559
Um what you were saying about like the totalizing nature of these technologies, right?
00:48:54.719 --> 00:49:04.800
How there's this one kind of particular idea of how computing should work and how digital technology should work and the internet and all this kind of stuff, and has been pushed out globally, is kind of fascinating, right?
00:49:04.880 --> 00:49:32.719
Because you see these discussions occasionally where maybe people push back against the kind of ideas of nudity held by Apple or Facebook and how they kind of then push that onto the rest of the world coming from the United States, or how these technologies arrive in certain parts of the world and their languages, that their kind of letter systems and things like that simply don't work with the way that these technologies have been designed and set up, right?
00:49:32.800 --> 00:49:48.639
And so there's this kind of clash between this technology that's created in a particular space by particular types of people within the world and then expected to, you know, become applicable to everybody because Silicon Valley has to have this kind of globalized nature, right?
00:49:48.719 --> 00:49:49.920
They have to take over everything.
00:49:50.079 --> 00:49:57.679
They can't just be for Americans, they have to be for everybody because that is what works for the market value of these companies and all this sort of stuff.
00:49:57.920 --> 00:50:13.679
And there's such an incredible history of, again, going back to like the history of scholarship around these ideas, you know, like critical development studies, which like Arturo Escobar is like, you know, one of the kind of like key figures in the history of that field as well.
00:50:13.840 --> 00:50:18.719
You know, Arturo Escobar, James Ferguson, who wrote this book, The Anti-Politics Machine.
00:50:18.800 --> 00:50:24.239
I went to Malawi with a colleague of mine who's very kind to put me on a grant that she got.
00:50:24.400 --> 00:50:25.039
I don't know why.
00:50:25.280 --> 00:50:27.360
She was just like, was like, Zach, you can do stuff.
00:50:27.440 --> 00:50:31.039
Um, Stephanie White, amazing scholar of food systems.
00:50:31.280 --> 00:50:36.159
Um, and we went to Malawi, and I was reading James Ferguson's Anti-Politics Machine on the Plane.
00:50:36.239 --> 00:50:44.719
And one of the things that he talks about is like the way that the symbolic dimension of particular material aspirations.
00:50:44.880 --> 00:50:55.679
So he talks about homes in Lesotho and the way that like the construction of a house reflects your geographic and environmental sort of situatedness.
00:50:56.079 --> 00:51:08.880
But what happens is that the aspiration to Western wealth translates into the construction of houses that are totally inappropriate for the environment and to the space.
00:51:09.519 --> 00:51:42.639
And I think that you could say something similar about computation and about UX and about technology writ large, in that there's an aspiration across the globe because we have made it aspirational to be a certain way with technology and to live with technology in a certain way and to use it in a particular way that then, like, you know, reinforces all sorts of ideas that would never happen if we if if we were to be able to engage in communally autonomous decision making about our lives and about the way we interact with technology.
00:51:42.960 --> 00:51:54.639
Yeah, and I think it's uh interesting to see Aaron Badanov's work come up in your book as well, kind of touching on some of these ideas and the democratic nature of deciding how society should be organized, how technology has a role in that, and these kinds of questions.
00:51:54.880 --> 00:51:59.119
To end off our conversation, I wanted to talk about something that you get into at the end of the book.
00:51:59.280 --> 00:52:06.880
Obviously, you talk about what the potential responses to this are in the lens of design education, because that is kind of your focus.
00:52:06.960 --> 00:52:11.440
But I think that those same ideas can be broadened out far beyond that, right?
00:52:11.599 --> 00:52:26.480
And one of them you talk about is of course a reform scenario that focuses more on making sure that these kind of critical understandings of how these interfaces and how these technologies are used, you know, among designers, but we could say, you know, among people much more generally than that.
00:52:26.639 --> 00:52:31.840
But then there's also a scenario that you position more as kind of revolutionary, right?
00:52:32.079 --> 00:52:34.559
More as a Luddite approach, we might say.
00:52:34.719 --> 00:52:38.880
And that is to consider the role of actual decomputerization, right?
00:52:38.960 --> 00:52:47.679
Of pushing back on these ideas that we need to be constantly expanding digital technologies into every aspect of our lives and we need to be collecting data on virtually everything.
00:52:47.840 --> 00:53:03.280
So, can you talk to us a bit about that kind of reframing of this and how we begin to think about the role of technology and about computers and about the internet in our lives in a very different way than what this tech industry is trying to get us to believe?
00:53:03.599 --> 00:53:04.880
It's a really important question.
00:53:04.960 --> 00:53:08.239
And, you know, I have to say, like, it's funny.
00:53:08.320 --> 00:53:12.880
I feel like the term, you know, when you're in the midst of writing something, you're excited about it.
00:53:12.960 --> 00:53:22.400
And I even think the term revolutionary, like I would hesitate to even use that now, in part because I think maybe things are even more dire than they were a couple years ago.
00:53:22.719 --> 00:53:32.480
So, you know, to me, like Luddism is a hallmark of what we need to do in order to figure out what our relationship to technology is going to be going forward.
00:53:32.719 --> 00:53:49.599
And to me, that means understanding the ways that technologies become exploitative of the working class and try to figure out how to eliminate technologies that are exploitative of the working class and embrace a democratic approach to the development of technology.
00:53:49.920 --> 00:53:56.719
Doing that in the classroom space is very difficult in a pre-professional design program.
00:53:57.199 --> 00:54:04.960
However, I do think that there are opportunities that require like broad solidarity.
00:54:05.119 --> 00:54:10.239
So I think like there are one-on-one moments, and I'll just offer a couple of examples here.
00:54:10.320 --> 00:54:16.239
I taught um a special topics class this past summer called Design for Degrowth.
00:54:16.719 --> 00:54:19.840
It really changed how I think about teaching design.
00:54:20.000 --> 00:54:23.599
And the students in there were incredible to go there with me.
00:54:23.840 --> 00:54:36.079
Basically, what we did was we sat for a few weeks and talked about, okay, like what would the shape of our community, let's call it like East Lansing, Michigan, you know, like this little town, college town in Michigan.
00:54:36.239 --> 00:54:45.360
What would the shape of that town be like if we democratically determined what constitutes socially necessary labor?
00:54:45.920 --> 00:54:55.840
And we divvied up that labor according to aptitudes and proclivities, and then took the rest of the time we would have, which would probably be a lot of free time.
00:54:56.800 --> 00:55:15.440
How would free time look different if we were to commit to living well with less, complete decarbonization, and uh sort of understanding that any consumptive behavior really, like acknowledging the basic law of physics of entropy, right?
00:55:15.519 --> 00:55:18.079
That like there is no such thing as like renewable energy, right?
00:55:18.159 --> 00:55:23.840
Anything you make to capture energy requires uh an expenditure of energy.
00:55:23.920 --> 00:55:26.800
And so there, like, you can't sort of nothing's renewable in that way.
00:55:26.960 --> 00:55:30.639
And if we acknowledge all that stuff, what would the shape of your free time look like?
00:55:30.719 --> 00:55:34.000
How would you freely associate with people in different ways?
00:55:34.320 --> 00:55:39.840
And the responses and the conversation were really something.
00:55:40.079 --> 00:55:46.639
I had a student make a video about like what the local news would be like, and it was really funny.
00:55:46.800 --> 00:56:14.400
It was about like someone's chicken, and like another student, totally different, designed a bunch of interfaces and basically like built out the UX for the sort of fundamental social infrastructure that we would use to do that sort of democratic determination of socially necessary labor or to allocate people's time and like how they would decide, you know, like how would they express interests, things they wanted to apprentice with versus things that they're already good at?
00:56:14.639 --> 00:56:20.239
So we took up examples of like child care and elder care, and we talked about like the shape of the university system.
00:56:20.320 --> 00:56:31.039
Like, okay, what would we really do in a design class where like the vast majority of what I teach them is explicitly to augment the surplus value for cap for the capitalist class, like full stop.
00:56:31.119 --> 00:56:32.960
I mean, that's like most of what I teach my students, right?
00:56:33.039 --> 00:56:34.320
So, what would design school look like?
00:56:34.480 --> 00:56:37.920
So exploring the shape of that, and then I had a student who was like really into golf.
00:56:38.079 --> 00:56:39.840
This was an amazing experience.
00:56:40.000 --> 00:56:43.760
I had a student who was really into golf who said, Oh my God, well, how would I golf?
00:56:43.840 --> 00:56:45.360
And I was like, Well, you like golf?
00:56:45.440 --> 00:56:46.559
Golf is that's fine.
00:56:46.639 --> 00:56:49.039
I'm not opposed to golf, you know, like, okay, fine.
00:56:49.119 --> 00:56:52.159
Yes, it's like really unsustainable if we think about it.
00:56:52.239 --> 00:56:54.400
Like, and I was very candid with her about that.
00:56:54.559 --> 00:56:55.920
And she was like, Yeah, you're right.
00:56:56.079 --> 00:57:18.079
And she basically came up with like a plan for how different autonomous communities who had golf interest subgroups could then connect with each other and democratically invest in the building of like a communal golf course that would adhere to certain requirements, that would not, you know, use fossil fuel infrastructure.
00:57:18.159 --> 00:57:20.159
And it was like a really interesting exploration.
00:57:20.320 --> 00:57:24.480
Again, like the design outcomes varied widely across the group.
00:57:24.639 --> 00:57:37.679
They had different majors, they were interested in different things, and I think we spent so much time like kind of unpacking what this world would look like because it's just so hard to wrap your head around that I think we didn't do enough of the design work, and that's on me.
00:57:37.920 --> 00:57:39.039
Happy to take the blame for that.
00:57:39.119 --> 00:57:41.920
But these students were incredible, and I'm really looking forward.
00:57:42.079 --> 00:57:47.440
Like, I'm hoping to be able to present about this with them to just like get this idea out there more.
00:57:47.679 --> 00:57:49.519
So to me, like that's a vision.
00:57:49.760 --> 00:58:11.199
And I think part of what I didn't address so much in the book, maybe, but I think it's important is that having a compelling vision of living well with less, having a compelling vision of a different way to be in the world is lacking because advertising is so good at convincing us that the way things are right now is the best that we've got.
00:58:11.519 --> 00:58:13.280
I think it's a really interesting example.
00:58:13.360 --> 00:58:30.000
And when you talk about, you know, being able to do different things kind of throughout the day, have more power to choose different things, it certainly brings to mind, you know, potentially uh hunting in the morning, fishing in the afternoon, rearing cattle in the evening, criticizing after dinner, you know, pulling from the old Karl Marx quote, of course.
00:58:30.480 --> 00:58:31.519
Totally, totally.
00:58:31.920 --> 00:58:32.239
Yeah.
00:58:32.400 --> 00:58:36.079
And I think, you know, Beninov is like right in that kind of canon, I think.
00:58:36.239 --> 00:58:37.360
He's spot on with that stuff.
00:58:37.440 --> 00:58:38.639
Shout out Aaron Beninov.
00:58:38.960 --> 00:58:39.360
Absolutely.
00:58:39.440 --> 00:58:56.320
But I think what you're talking about there is obviously having this democratic input to decide what production should look like, what society should look like, how technology should be used, rather than an assumption that everything should be ingested into the machine, kind of given over to the machine.
00:58:56.480 --> 00:59:03.440
You know, its algorithms kind of sort everything out, and we supposedly live in this kind of utopia where we don't have to work.
00:59:03.519 --> 00:59:17.119
And I think that the democratic approach is not only more realistic, but also one that much better fits with the politics that many of the people advocating these things tend to ascribe to or at least claim to ascribe to, right?
00:59:17.360 --> 00:59:17.760
So true.
00:59:17.920 --> 00:59:36.400
I think the last thing I'll say about that too is that the reason I position this in a design setting, that class about degrowth, the reason that it's so important to me that that comes from the space of design is because the visual, like Jacques Rancier, I might be reading it wrong.
00:59:36.559 --> 00:59:38.400
I'm not a philosopher, whatever.
00:59:38.559 --> 00:59:47.280
But Rancier talks about this idea of the distribution of the sensible, meaning like the world that we experience basically reveals certain things and conceals certain things.
00:59:47.440 --> 00:59:54.480
And that revelation or concealing has some determining impact on our participation as political subjects.
00:59:54.880 --> 01:00:05.760
And I think to me, it's really important to like reveal something else, to use like the visual media of design, which is like the lingua franca of everyday life now, right?
01:00:05.840 --> 01:00:08.480
This is very much Henri Lefebvre kind of as well.
01:00:08.719 --> 01:00:15.119
And to use that visual language to put forth a totally different idea of what things could be like.
01:00:15.280 --> 01:00:21.199
And this is, I think, different too than like critical design or speculative design, which has sort of a dystopian flavor to it.
01:00:21.360 --> 01:00:28.639
Oftentimes they're speculating on like, you know, things that have happened a lot of other places in the world, but just not to like white Europeans.
01:00:28.880 --> 01:00:43.280
And so I think like doing something like this in a design setting where we're talking about degrowth, we're talking about sort of the democratic determination of all of these things, you know, as Illich says, the democratic determination design criteria for all tools.
01:00:43.519 --> 01:00:56.320
I think putting forth a vision of that, and particularly in the visual space, can be useful because it maybe suggests an alternative that, like, without that visual dimension, like we might be lacking.
01:00:56.400 --> 01:00:59.360
And again, maybe that's my just sort of like predisposition as a designer.
01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:00.800
I think it makes sense.
01:01:00.960 --> 01:01:06.559
It brings to mind Elon Musk saying when they were planning out the cyber truck that the future needs to look like the future.
01:01:06.719 --> 01:01:14.159
And so for him, the future is this kind of dystopian vehicle that's huge and dangerous and you know doesn't even work particularly well.
01:01:14.320 --> 01:01:20.960
But I think that we can also think about the future looking very different ways if we make very different decisions about what that should be.
01:01:21.199 --> 01:01:22.639
Zach, really great to speak with you.
01:01:22.800 --> 01:01:23.679
Great to dig into this.
01:01:23.840 --> 01:01:25.199
Thanks so much for uh taking the time.
01:01:25.519 --> 01:01:27.119
Thank you so much for having me, Paris.
01:01:27.199 --> 01:01:28.320
This was awesome.
01:01:28.800 --> 01:01:37.199
Zach Kaiser is an associate professor at Michigan State University and the author of Interfaces in Us, User Experience Design and the Making of the Computable Subject.
01:01:37.360 --> 01:01:41.679
Tech Won's Save Us is made in partnership with the Nation magazine and is hosted by me, Paris Marks.
01:01:41.840 --> 01:01:44.880
Production is by Eric Wickham, and transcripts are by Bridget Peloux Rye.
01:01:44.960 --> 01:01:49.840
Tech Won't Save Us relies on the support of listeners like you to keep providing critical perspectives on the tech industry.
01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:54.960
You can join hundreds of other supporters by going to patreon.com slash tech won't save us and making a pledge of your own.
01:01:55.119 --> 01:01:57.679
Thanks for listening and make sure to come back next week.