Ready to incorporate more technology into your daily life? Me neither. But the tech giants have other plans. • Kansas Reflector

Assuming our world refrains from descending into a fascist hell, let us all imagine our lives in ten years.

Will our lives become increasingly shaped by social media and other invasive technologies provided by giant corporations? Or will it be a simpler life, based on face-to-face interactions and authentic experiences in the real world?

The funny thing about this question is that so few people want a more tech-enabled life. I asked the question on social media, and people overwhelmingly chose the latter. No one likes the onslaught of artificial intelligence programs that constantly churn out fake news. No one likes the psychological stress created by ever-changing social media platforms. And while we live in the grip of online retailers like Amazon, many of us would happily prefer local retailers—if they existed.

So why have the business elites decided this question for us? Why do their business plans and the forecasts of all players in the global economy give an increasingly important role to technology? Profit is supposed to provide the answer, but that only makes sense if customers keep buying.

I don’t think it was always like this.

I remember well the excitement of the mid-1990s, when everyone with an interest in technology understood that the Internet was going to revolutionize our world. These computer network connections allowed unprecedented access to news and information. Films, music and literature, once locked away in dusty archives, could now be seen, heard and read by anyone with a computer and a modem.

But at some point, technological progress was no longer about making our daily lives easier or giving us access to the world of ideas. It became about selling us experiences we didn’t want and goods we didn’t need.

Technology companies have become the dominant engines of our country’s economy and the global economy. They have become victims of the same short-term financial shenanigans that characterize our advanced capitalist society. They must generate profits, profits, profits, regardless of the effects on the general well-being of society. In less than a generation, technology companies have gone from harmless online bookstores to tobacco companies. With all the conscience-destroying dishonesty inherent in that comparison.

Last month, I wrote a story about how the large language model ChatGPT was generating false information about my last name. Since then, I’ve heard directly from readers who have experienced similar AI hallucinations. Social media and media reports suggest that students have begun using the technology in their schoolwork.

In other words, we have moved from technology that makes us smarter and more informed to technology that makes us dumber and less informed.

What progress!

Meanwhile, the Lawrence school board renewed its contract with Gaggle, an artificial intelligence program that scours students’ devices for allegedly disturbing information. Lawrence High School reporters reported how the supposedly sophisticated software flagged a variety of harmless behaviors to school administrators. School officials praised the students’ efforts and said they would address their concerns in the future.

We can now see that Lawrence officials have been seduced by the impossible promises of cheap technology. You can’t trust software to build relationships with students and their families and walk away without worrying about anything. It’s simply not possible.

Behind all this is the concern expressed by technology writer Cory Doctorow. He coined the term “ens***tifcation” to describe the process by which a useful website or piece of technology gains a huge audience through its simplicity and quality, then is methodically degraded by its owners to sell advertising and exploit users.

This process, he writes, can be observed on popular platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and many others. I would argue that ens***tifcation applies much more broadly to the technological realm. Wonderful and useful devices are introduced and gradually become less and less capable.

How many people can actually tell the difference between their HDTV and a 4K TV? How many can tell the difference between an iPhone 12 and an iPhone 14? How many can tell the difference between a seventh-generation Kindle and a ninth-generation Kindle? If you play games, what’s the difference between a PlayStation 4 exclusive and a PlayStation 5 exclusive? Please don’t all answer at once.

Enthusiasts list a multitude of differences between all these products. But for the vast majority of people, tech companies have decided to sell their customers the same thing over and over again. Meanwhile, social media companies are hooking you on online content that either numbs your mind or radicalizes users into right-wing fascism or left-wing absurdity.

I get it. I’m a curmudgeon who’s aging rapidly. In 10 years, I might be as ridiculous as the man who said in 1899 that “everything that can be invented has been invented.” For the sake of society, I hope that’s the case.

Perhaps then we should listen to the predictions of a futurologist. In other words, let’s listen to someone who doesn’t have to meet quarterly sales deadlines and who, instead, envisions the future in broad strokes. No one could be better suited for this job than Ray Kurzweil, an artificial intelligence expert and futurologist.

He has just published a new book, “The Singularity is Closer,” which presents a surprising series of claims about the future.

“The Singularity, a metaphor borrowed from physics, will happen when we merge our brains with the cloud,” Kurzweil told the Guardian. “We will be a combination of our natural intelligence and our cybernetic intelligence, and it will all be rolled into one. This will be made possible by brain-computer interfaces that will ultimately be nanorobots – molecule-sized robots – that will non-invasively penetrate our brains through the capillaries. We will multiply intelligence a million-fold by 2045 and this will deepen our consciousness and awareness.”

He admitted, after the interviewer said no, that it all sounded absolutely awful: “People say, ‘I don’t want that.’ They thought they didn’t want phones either!”

Lord, have mercy on us all.

Clay Wirestone is the Opinion Editor for the Kansas Reflector. Through its Opinion column, Kansas Reflector strives to amplify the voices of those affected by public policy or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.