My Consciousness Hacking Talk
I gave a talk entitled “Silicon Valley’s Philosophical Tipping Point” at Consciousness Hacking on Tuesday night. Unfortunately, parts of the recording are missing. You can listen to the entirety of the second half here
Because the entire talk isn’t available in its entirety, I include, therefore, the thesis as well as the notes I used to deliver the talk below.
Silicon Valley is swiftly approaching what I call a philosophical tipping point.
Part 1: Biography: How I got Involved with Silicon Valley
A. My awakening to philosophy (occurred in 2009)
B. My awakening to religion (occurred in 2014)
C. My relationship with Silicon Valley technologists (occurred in 2017)
Part 2: The Philosophy of Silicon Valley
Greg Ferenstein, who has studied the political philosophy of SV, has called them “hippies who dig capitalism and science”: “They’re trying to race into a better future as quickly as possible.”
- Pro-entrepreneurship: Silicon Valley is an “ecology of innovation,” with new ideas implemented and new companies born, funded, living, or dying
- Post-enlightenment progressivists: progress is happening and it’s good for everyone)
- Agents first: human beings are first and foremost human agents acting on the world
- Anti-conflict and Pro-win-win-win: in principle, everyone can benefit and no groups have to be at odds with one another
- Optimists: future will be or can be better than the present
- Meritocrats: merit ought to be rewarded–specifically, the best ideas in the room, regardless of who they came from, should win out
What is the picture? Human agents act, often in their role as entrepreneurs, by creating organizations that can have maximum positive social impact on the present world and that, in consequence, can create a brighter future for everyone.
Evidence: “Always there was a vision to make the world a better place,“ he says. "The assumption [was that] if you want to change the world and make it better, the best way to do that is to make an app or a start-up.” –Aza Raskin as cited by The Telegraph
In short, human agency is good, progress is possible and desirable, win-win-win is achievable (i.e., a win for founders, a win for stakeholders, and a win for users), the future can be better than the present, and the best ideas should be winners in the open market.
Part 3: Tech Backlash (“Techlash”): Tech Giants or Big Tech
How strange, then, to be in the very thick of a tech backlash–or what some have called a “techlash.” Chris Mims of the WSJ argued that the tech backlash is centered on limiting the power of major tech firms such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon.
Essentially, tech firms claiming that they’re benefitting all people are seeing how their naive views are being challenged with the counterclaims about the harms they’re either involved in or helping to create. In other words, the claim to be performing unequivocally intentionally good acts is colliding with consequences that are harmful.
–Data: privacy and use
–20,000 Googlers walk out over matters of inequality
–Destroying Jobs.– Is automation moving too quickly, with the result that truck drivers will be unemployed? (Andrew Yang)
–Falsehoods, Bullshit, and Truthiness.– Fake news, disinformation, hate speech, online harassment, child exploitation…
–Hijacking.– Devices “hijacking” our attention in the words of Tristan Harris? Are iPhones addictive? (“tech giants are creating the cultural equivalent of climate change.” – The Telegraph)
–Concentration of Tech Power.– Should these monopolies be broken up? Should they be regulated and if so, how?
–Responsibilities for Content.– Are tech firms responsible for the content expressed and shared on their platforms? (E.g., Facebook, YouTube)
Part 4: Tech’s Philosophical Tipping Point
My thesis is that Silicon Valley is approaching a philosophical tipping point.
Definition of a Tipping Point: A tipping point describes the moment when small things have accumulated and accumulated to such an extent that they suddenly cause a significant change. Things keep building up until they are about to burst, at which time they seem to spill over into something new.
The chief implication of tipping point arguments is that after this sudden change, there’s no way of going back to the ways things were before. Something profound has changed perhaps for good.
Therefore, a philosophical tipping point describes the moment when issues of a seemingly minor or else discrete nature keep adding up until they give rise to philosophizing. That is, things seemingly behind the scene continue to add up until you can no longer take them for granted; they scream to be examined at the fundamental level; at this point, basic philosophical questions arise and cannot be denied.
Consider your own death.
Or consider the existence and hegemony of nation-states.
Finally, consider Silicon Valley. Are we not witnessing the naivete of Silicon Valley “problem solvers” and “optimists” colliding with hard realities–some ethical, some metaphysical, and others political?
Part 5: A Case–Automation and the Future of Work
Let’s look more closely at one pressing case: automation and the future of work.
A few months ago, presidential candidate Andrew Yang appeared on the Joe Rogan Podcast to discuss, among other topics, Universal Basic Income (what he calls “The Freedom Dividend”). Here’s Yang: “New technologies – robots, software, artificial intelligence – have already destroyed more than 4 million US jobs, and in the next 5-10 years, they will eliminate millions more. A third of all American workers are at risk of permanent unemployment. And this time, the jobs will not come back.” Let’s call this the cautious alarmist position.
Meanwhile, the standard economists’ position is optimistic. It insists that each technological revolution to date has ultimately been a net positive for employment.
The alarmists proclaim that this may spell the end of human work while plucky economists believe that this will be a net positive and therefore there is no cause for concern.
MIT economist Daron Acemoglu takes a position between these two. In a series of papers authored with Pascual Restrepo, he has argued that
- “automation does not directly augment labor; on the contrary, it transforms the production process in a way that allows more tasks to be performed by machines.“
- Automation and human work operate in terms of countervailing forces: automation in this area may displace workers from, say, agriculture and into service positions; other kinds of automation (e.g., ATMs) may create the need for more bank tellers in the same sector (because more local branches opened up).
- In the age of AI, we need to create lots of new “labor-intensive tasks.”
- And, 4, “the real danger for labor may come not from highly productive but from “so-so” automation technologies that are just productive enough to be adopted and cause displacement, but not sufficiently productive to bring about powerful productivity effects.”
Question #1: What do you think–will AI largely replace human workers, or will AI largely augment human powers? Or will AI exist in a kind of dance with human workers, sometimes pushing, sometimes pulling in ways that Acemoglu and Restrepo describe?
Question #2: Larger existential question about Total Work: replacement and identity…
- - - - -
Comments, Suggestions, Articles on Total Work?
Feel free to send comments, suggestions, thoughts, and articles about total work to me at Andrew Taggart <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
If You’d Like to Become a Patron…
Thank you to my growing list of patrons! If you feel called to support my philosophical life, you can do so here <https://www.patreon.com/ajt>.
Looking for some clarity about the nature and history of total work? Start by reading my brief overview of total work on my Patreon account <https://www.patreon.com/ajt>, Next, take a look at the first issue of this newsletter <https://www.getrevue.co/profile/andrewjtaggart/issues/total-work-newsletter-1-working-ourselves-into-a-frenzy-89819.> Next, check out my Quartz at Work pieces (December 2017- present), which are available here <https://work.qz.com/author/andrew-taggart>.