Letters to a Young Technologist. Note: there are 5 total letters on this webpage. (https://letterstoayoungtechnologist.com/What-is-Technology)
Confucius and the Whistleblower by Peter Wei (https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/03/04/confucius-and-the-whistleblower/)
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K LeGuin (https://shsdavisapes.pbworks.com/f/Omelas.pdf)
Across all three articles read for class today, there is an emphasis on the idea that technologists are separable from the rest of society. In the Letters to a Young Technologist, it is explained how those developing modern technologies have a culture of taking a neutral stance on any particular technology. Instead of weighing the costs and benefits of each technology before developing, technologists are encouraged to develop technologies for the sake of developing technologies. Given the connotation between science and technology, there is a belief that the creation of technology is related to objectivity and is shielded from human will and judgement. However, the authors of the Letters explain that technologies entrench biases in society towards certain paths by making those paths easier and making other paths more difficult in comparison.
In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” Ursula K. LeGuin explores the moral question of when the suffering a minority is justified if it enables the happiness of a majority. Although LeGuin’s story is not obviously applicable to technologists, technologies such as social media can result in similar situations to LeGuin’s story. For example, if social media results in an overall positive outcome for the majority of society but results in suffering for a minority through an exacerbation of eating disorders, one may question whether the suffering of a minority is justified if it is outweighed by the happiness of a majority. By describing the suffering of the child locked away in great detail, LeGuin makes the position of justifying suffering unattractive, even if it results in the prosperity of an entire town. While utilitarian ethics would justify Omelas’ situation or the killing of a relatively small number of people in the Trolley problem, LeGuin challenges this view point and encourages a deontological approach, similar to the Letters to a Young Technologist.
Finally, in Peter Wei’s Confucius and the Whistleblower, the author explains how whistleblowers make the assumption that it is moral to abandon and expose corrupt institutions as opposed to using relationships to encourage reform. Like the previous two articles, Wei explains that morality is not an individualist question but a collectivist question, where people have to recognize their moral position in society and how they can affect greater society through action.
I disagree with the article that says technologist should govern. Be present in some capacity, yeah. That those in charge should understand how the things they’re regulating work, yup. But getting an education as a computer scientist/programmer trains you to think about things in a very unhelpful way when it comes to compassion and seeing the bigger picture. There’s a reason why Plato’s vision of Philosopher Kings has never been implemented. Also the Confucian one is kinda ignoring a big part of Confucianism, in terms of being an “eloquent speaker of the communal language” which rebukes some of what’s in the piece, but I’m going to focus on Omelas since I think it’s the most interesting reading.
I don’t know what the intent was when assigning this piece, but I interpreted it as drawing a parallel to our (people who get this education, who have an expectation of cushy white-collar jobs) relationship with service, labor, and other “blue collar” workers. “Poverty, By America” by Matthew Desmond does a much better job explaining this can I even could, but essentially, we’re only able to get this cheap education (compared to what the college spends to provide the nice buildings and cushy tenured professorships) because of the endowment, which is only able to grow because of our active investment in companies that make absurd amount of money by creating an imbalance between the value they extract from their employees and the amount they pay. More directly, we make lives noticeably harder for people in town (a town, in which 1 in 8 people live in poverty, not that you’d notice by the look of the HSSC) by buying up all of the land that we can – pushing up prices and rent. And this isn’t just the college, it’s us students. The very people that need any job they can find just to keep their houses are paid to clean up our vomit after we purposefully poison ourselves on the weekends for fun. And I’m not giving myself absolution or higher moral ground here. My education is paid for mostly by Carleton college as a perk that it only gives to certain employees like my mom – not just tenure track, but all the ones that have the nice desk jobs. Unless your union forced them, they won’t pay for your child to go if you’re keeping the lights on or mopping floors. And that gets me on the topic of unions, of which the Grinnell College Union might be the most anti-worker. Complaining about getting less than $20/hr (which someone threw out as a negotiating tactic at a meeting I was at, not as a serious proposal) for so long that student workers were stuck with a lower wage for years after the college was ready to raise it. Citing “poverty wages” while attempting to force more the college to employ more students and fewer community members. Actively fighting against the college trying to shift student work away from the dining hall to less stressful work because they feared they’d lose striking power against the college. Ok, this got off topic so sorry, but essentially, myself, and all of us, are living in Omelas and it’s too hard to walk away.
Also I’m pretty sure a non-insignificant portion of these reading replies are written by Chat-GPT, which I find deeply ironic.
The articles assigned for today’s class collectively underscore the notion that technologists exist within, rather than apart from, societal contexts. “Letters to a Young Technologist” reveals a prevailing culture among technologists, emphasizing a neutral stance on technology development, detached from evaluating the societal costs and benefits. However, it contends that technologies inherently embed biases, influencing societal paths.
Ursula K. LeGuin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” prompts consideration of the moral justification for minority suffering in favor of majority happiness, a theme applicable to technologies like social media. LeGuin challenges utilitarian ethics, advocating for a deontological approach akin to the perspective in “Letters to a Young Technologist.”
In “Confucius and the Whistleblower” by Peter Wei, the collective nature of morality is highlighted, with whistleblowers opting for moral exposure over reform within corrupt institutions.
Expressing disagreement with the proposition that technologists should govern, the reflection emphasizes the limitations of a computer science education in fostering compassion and a holistic worldview. It critiques the inherent imbalance in education funding, drawing parallels to the exploitation of “blue-collar” workers. The reflection touches on the impact of student actions on the local community, shedding light on economic disparities and the complex relationship between students and the broader society. It closes with an acknowledgment of the challenging reality of living in an “Omelas” and questions the authenticity of certain reading responses.
For our last day of class, it seems that the last set of readings that have been presented to us is a direct call to action. At the end of the day, we are the next generation of coders that is going to enter the workforce, and these readings are challenging us to not think in a purely neutral sense, rather we should be thinking about how our code will reform the programs that were made before us from within, with the newly-developed consideration for how our creation will affect the people who use it. We are being challenged to consider the minority that suffers at the hand of the majority’s enjoyment of what we create, in hopes of our reconsideration of releasing something before we reduce that minority as much as possible, or even altogether. Ultimately, this course has had a large focus on how coders have been conditioned for decades to think in a purely ‘scientific’ sense––a sense that is considered apart from society in the ways that affect the people that inhabit it. But with the creation of courses like CSC-395, there is hope in changing how coders are made, a hope that we will move away from being purely scientific.
This last set of readings is a great conclusion to the course, since it discusses the ultimate goals of creating technology and the morals behind different agents in the tech industry.
The first article from The Letters to a Young Technologist discusses the difference between technology and science and how technology is inherently purposive. This ties back to a point that has been discussed multiple times in the course, which is that technologies are the manifestation of some ideas of a programmer and are thus prone to biases. Since there are always various solutions to a single problem and different software engineers have different visions of how to go about it, there will always be a lot of subjectivity in the code, which is a breeding ground for more prejudices in society. The fact that these biases rooted in modern technology can quickly become culturally irrelevant or inappropriate as time goes on and social circumstances change calls for constant review and modification of the legacy code base.
I was most intrigued by the piece “Confucius and the Whistleblower” by Peter Wei because it offers some historical and philosophical perspectives on how to fight the prejudices behind technology, which is the ultimate goal of this course. Instead of quitting or publicly denouncing the institution that you deem unethical, it is more advisable to face the situation upfront and attempt to reverse managerial decisions. This is a specifically insightful guide for people who intend or aspire to work for tech giants in the future, and who will be faced with the moral question of whether to keep supporting the unethical products or to take action against it. This approach is much harder in reality, since most big companies who do the most damage to society in various ways are very decentralized, so trust and openness is essential to the practicality of the approach. This involves a two-way relationship where the superiors are receptive to ideas and concerns raised by subordinates, and subordinates feel valued and trusted enough to communicate their constructive criticisms to managers. Another point that I very much agree with is the social philosophy of how relationships are more important than law, because as long as trust is established between people in an institution and a safe space is fostered to voice concerns, everything will function well without a need for disciplinary or punitive regulations.
I found the “Letters to a Young Technologist” reading interesting, and I thought the ideas about the subjectivity and unscientific nature of technology were very appropriate for this class, but I mostly want to talk about the conflicting narratives of Ursula K LeGuin’s piece and Peter Wei’s piece.
I disagree deeply with many of the ideas within “Confucius and the Whistleblower”. I do truly believe that in many situations where someone finds themselves clashing with the ideals of their institution, remonstrance is morally sound, but to dismiss the whistleblower as someone who gave up or someone who is naive is absurd. In theory, remonstrance should work in systems where it is encouraged, but that’s not our reality. As we’ve seen from examples in our class and from media, and as we’ve all probably experienced, remonstrance usually is not just discouraged, but punished. Timnit Gebru brought up concerns while working at Google in a respectful, careful way and it cost her her job. The workers from the mechanical turk reading were discouraged to sway from the results that were expected. Is the expected solution in these cases to “work your way up” in the company, continuing your morally dubious work until you’re in a position to change things? How often does that happen? Wei doesn’t have examples from the past century.
When reading about Omelas, I couldn’t help but compare those who left to the whistleblowers described by Wei. In the case of Omelas, their society at its core relied on the abuse of a child, to rebel against that immoral practice is to rebel against the system entirely. There is no “changing” the system because that is what the system is, to remove the abuse is to remove the system. To exist in the system is to benefit from the suffering of others (I can make a lot more parallels here to capitalism, as well as the notion of “good cops” in an institution that is corrupt at its roots but I’m not gonna do that here). So what is the moral solution? You can’t change the system from within it, and you can’t continue to participate without benefiting from corruption, so you do your best to leave or not participate, or aid in the dismantling of the system. Sometimes these options are impossible, but when they are possible it is not amoral to leave.
As computer scientists we don’t have to be complicit in abuse and discrimination in the fields we are in, especially if we have the privileges that make it possible to leave our jobs/positions. If you can affect change from within the system, then that is fantastic and should absolutely be celebrated. But if you feel you can’t, or are actively punished for doing so, there is no shame in leaving and speaking out.
I should add that “leaving” does not imply ignoring the corrupted institution. Those who leave because they cannot affect change from within the system also have a moral obligation (if they are not in serious danger due to the repercussions) to speak out against it. Leaving in these cases implies refusal to participate and efforts to dismantle.
Today’s readings were a very nice end to a class that has been a valuable part of my CS education thus far. The Letters to a Young Technologist was the perfect reading for our last class. The letters were thoughtful, intricate, and informative. I enjoyed how the letters went to the extent of giving definitions of broad terms, providing histories, and attempting to prepare us, the young technologists, for the future and our role in it. This reading, to me, summarized what I took away from the course the most; we are entering an imperfect professional world as young technologists, and it is our responsibility to enact and be a force of change rather than continuity.
Confucius and the Whistleblower by Peter Wei gives us some uncomfortable truths that many of us are going to face. I think, whether enrolled in this class or not, most Grinnell CS majors graduate and go on to work in big corporations. We live in a capitalist world dominated by the big corporations. I like how the article told stories of Confucious and whistle-blowers’ past whilst passing along what real whistleblowing is according to Wei. Wei states that “resignation is not the moment of moral triumph…moral triumph is when he did his utmost to change the institution from the inside” (2022). The article is coming to terms with a reality that many of us will face when we enter the corporate world and accurately gives us insight on how to act within our discomfort in ethically and morally corrupt companies–to act as an individual agent of greater collective change for the betterment of the world around us.
Lastly, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K LeGuin explores whether the suffering of the minority is worth the pleasures of the majority. To me, the article connects to many things discussed in class where technology or algorithms greatly disadvantage non-white minorities. As LeGuin so strongly portrays how the minority suffers, it again reminds us how when one is at a disadvantage, in a way (and certainly of differing magnitude), we all are.
I was really struck by the reading, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. For a piece that, is to my awareness, not nominally about CS at all, it feels so on the nose.
I’m not quite sure who the child is. My first instinct is to say the child is the landscape of technology as a whole, where people look on and realize the disaster of it all, the way their privacy has been disrespected, the way they themselves has been made a commodity, but I don’t think that’s right. If that were the case, society would be feeling the pain of the child—they would then not be the ones looking, reeling, and going back complacent.
I’m pretty sure instead the child is the people technology hurts the most, the ones who are misclassified by the algorithms without any real remorse, the ones who have disparate outcomes. Those folk have cried out against the systems that oppress, and if they were heard at all, it mostly takes the form of a brief outcry, that like the people of Omelas, might last a minute or might last weeks, but ultimately fades into complacency because they don’t want their own comfort to end. We don’t want to give up Google, or our precious AI, so culturally we’re all too willing to get comfortable with the suffering of a minority so we can have a commodity.
I think what what we, Omelas, miss here is that it’s not really going to be a minority. Those who are minoritized in broader society are subject to further minoritization and oppression in the society of machines, but data mining does not discriminate, and while it is not as targeted, we all become commodities in the end. There are levels, but no one is immune to the neglect and abuse, no one gets to be exclusively the citizen looking in, we all hold a fraction of the child within us, even if we fail to acknowledge it.
The technological domination we all live in is often cast as inevitable and futile to escape, but particularly as technologists, perhaps as technologists, we are responsible for walking away from Omelas. It’s a hard thing to get people on board with, but what is really progress if it produces, sure, a slight comfort to many, at the cost of the decimation of some. Maybe we’re called to pull back. At the very least, it is the technologist’s duty to stop marking abuse as acceptable. If we determine the system itself is abuse, that’s not an excuse to leave it, that’s a cue to start fresh. The approach is hard, scary, and may leave those who take it risking everything (job, social position, relationships, comfort, ease of existence under capitalism, etc.), but that is the call, and we must hear it.
I read the ones who walk away from Omelas my first year in my tutorial class. I remember being disturbed by it. Thinking about it in the context of the whistleblower reading is really interesting too, because the ones who walk away from Omelas don’t change anything at all. Some whistleblowers probably do make a change, but for the most part they practice the same avoidance of the issue that we see in the short story. Nobody ever frees the kid, they seek out some form of happiness that is devoid of rampant exploitation, and allow the previously witnessed exploitation to continue on, which is not a solution to the issue at all.
I think these reading have been some of the most emotional readings so far. As we finish up the course, we are starting to dig into the actual action and consequences of action. The various letters written in “Letters to a Young Technologist” have a variety of good intentioned and wise comments about the action of ethics in creating technology. I think one of the most poignant comment that the author made was that “many of our deepest problems are not technology problems.” This is a topic that has come up many times in our class, and I think this is an important last reminder of this fact. The author also mentions that those trained to be “technologist” need to use their knowledge to influence policy because of this shortcoming. I do worry that there is not exactly a very wide representation of all people in the field of “technologist.” Not that there is a good representation in our governing bodies, but I think that there needs to be an understanding that representation will need to be beyond just “technologists.” I felt a deep connection with the arguments made in the reading talking about Confucius. There was a lot of discussion about how to approach reforming and transforming legislation and practices in institutions. We talked about this earlier in the class, but it is definitely helpful to have a framework for approaching change. Lastly, I found the thought experiment about Omelas summed up the way I, as students of this class, have been feeling about some of the technology we have been reviewing. There have been a lot of advancements that I can see benefiting me that ultimate harm others through their implementation, such as the captcha reading of books. Is it right to walk away, and just not use these technologies? I think we need to give active help. Right now I feel like I am doing too little like the people enjoying happiness.
I agree with ‘Letter’s to a Young Technologist” in its assertion that technology is value laden and that it is important to study history as we create for the future. However, there are many thing I am disagree with or question:
– One of the first lines asserts that the work of laborers in the past was devalued, but that has changed (as evidenced by the rise of the “space billionaire”). This is kind of a staw man, because the actual laborers in this system are not the billionaires. While it is important to recognize how influential the tech industry, it is also important to not misrepresent where most of the power lies (not all, definitely). Accurately capturing it would also mean that collective action is directed towards the right things, things that will actually lead to lasting change.
– The assertion that we need “innovation friendly regulation” is such an insane assertion to me, given that article right before ‘Its Time to Govern’ literally decries the ethic of “move fast and break things”. Yes, it is important that representatives in government are well versed in technology as a means to adequately regulate it, but this certainly does not imply that technologists should govern and definitely not as a means to make innovation easier (ie: move faster).
As for the case of ‘Confucius and the Whistleblower’, I agree that remonstrance should be normalized. However, the reading contradicts itself on the second to last page. While asserting that remonstrance should be venerated over a culture of whistle-blowing, it then states that “joining an institution that has lost its way with the aim of changing it from the inside is a fool’s errand”. As I think Tom has mentioned, it presupposes the conditions of its existence. So this entire argument is a complex question fallacy. It would be great if it worked, but in the age of ever increasing job precarity (a lot of it at the hands of automated or tech mediated management), increasingly few jobs/workplaces afford its workers the opportunity for remonstrance.
Finally, ‘The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” contends with a reality most all of us live in. We know that the privileges that we enjoy are a direct result of the harm caused to another. I am just going to take the example of AI (but there are obviously things closer to us that we can think about too). Most of us are now aware that these systems are trained by low-payed workers, with endless working hours and virtually no job security (eg: mechanical turk, remotasks). Yet we collectively continue to use such systems, like ChatGPT, because it makes certain things easier/more efficient for us. We continue to use these systems as they outsource AI content moderation to the most precarious places, because as long as we cannot see the active harm it perpetuates and, can therefore, deny its existence, most of us can abstract away the people that they harm. Ultimately, I don’t know what the best way to ensure ethical adherence within the tech industry is. Despite all of my criticisms though, I do think it is important to start somewhere and do something. It is better than the apathy of the status quo.
I found it interesting to be reading these letters to a young technologist, where we see the mentions of how technologists have the power in their creations and how there should be a sense of responsibility in whatever creations they make. This reflects to our other readings and mentions of how as our world of technology is constantly improving, we should be aware of the things we make and how they would affect today’s world and people. Another thing that was interesting was the reading, Confucius and the whistleblower. I really don’t like the fact that these whistleblowers are able to snoop around, find some information, and then cause reasons to be mad at certain things. From there, they would just disappear and pretend that they weren’t even a part of it and just a person who is in agreement of the conflict that rose from them. This leads to companies to take a hard blow and no necessary needs to reform but reconsider their products. We see that this is quite disappointing on our side, as we should try to help reform companies instead of just throwing shade at them. We should continue to focus on helping each other out and trying to give technology more meaning than just an advantage, but rather a convenience that is convenient for all of us.
The readings today mainly focus on as young computer scientists, what we need to do in order to try our best to minimize the social and ethical issues that exist in algorithms, and how we can use algorithms as a better way to solve problems and make the world a better place. In the letters to a young technologist, we talk about what technology is and what is the difference between science and technologies. As science is the journey of exploring the truth, while technologies and engineers are more the application of truth or science. And as the bridge between science and the human world, technology needs to involve the ethics and moral of human and help improve society with a science sight.
Readings for today mainly focus on what we need to do as computer scientists for the advancing technology. Technology is evolving every day and it is challenging for society to adapt and utilize it without technology causing some problems to society.
I am more optimistic about technology advancement unlike some of the readings because I believe it is impossible to prevent harm by technology no matter how society prepares. However, as a computer scientist, it is important to understand how technology will be used by people.
The Omelas reading is comparable to the societal and environmental costs of technological advancement. I also think the Omelas text made a good point that it’s not only those high up in power who benefit and contribute to this system, but all of us. For example, the VICE article we read a while ago about training AI systems not only exploits the laborers, but creates an environment in which dissenting opinions of these laborers are silenced and ignored. In fact, it goes further to punish those who have opinions conflicting with those of the majority by affecting their future job prospects and pay. Additionally, risk assessment algorithms, health technologies, language models, etc, while improving the experience of some and bringing about some really interesting advancements, all disproportionately affect the marginalized with little work toward change because organizations/companies aren’t incentivized to change things that don’t bring them profit. Or they just put out a statement on ethics to show they’re supposedly working toward change and then fire those who call them out.
The change in the perception of who makes technology—the author claims that those who made technology were “devalued as laborers”—I’m going to have to disagree with. Perhaps technological advancement and influence have more value in today’s world, but those who make technology are still devalued (those who must obtain the physical materials that make our tech, those who are underpaid to train models, etc). If you define the “laborers” as the “space billionaires” then I guess Plato’s ideas of the inferiority of the craftsmen in comparison to the philosophers are not upheld, but to be honest those doing the manufacturing and those exploited to do the jobs that are considered less “intellectual” that produce tech are still seen as inferior to the “philosopher.”
I think these were rather interesting readings. I especially enjoyed reading “Confucius and the Whistleblower” because it challenged a lot of the thoughts I have around the practice of whistleblowing and its moral righteousness. I think I have a largely cynical view of this practice unfortunately. I think everyone has a basic responsibility to work individually to correct wrongdoing when they are able. Often, though, battles like this are so one-sided it is impossible to get a reaction without leaking or compromising yourself. Edward Snowden, for example, had no real authority over government programs run by the NSA and approved of by people by the president. Most likely, many people who were aware of the things being done disagreed with it. There is no real course for a firm correction of a superior in this case. I also take issue with the concept of loyalty when applied to corporations. Would a corporation show the same “loyalty” to me if I was habitually doing something unethical, or at least something that would worsen their reputation? Most likely not. Oftentimes, resigning and making such troubles known is the best way to truly pass it off to “a hundred hands.” I definitely agree with the overall message, that improving practices, behaviors, and policies is a group effort that all must take part in, but I do not think people should necessarily be judged to the extent they combat behavior if they have taken care to report it in a way that demands change.
These articles were a great way to summarize the course and focus on the importance of ethical responsibilities. A letter that stuck out to me was from the letters to a young technologist titled”to be technological is to be human” because it highlights the notion that technology is human-made, and is an extension of human thoughts and abilities in a way. The exploration of whistleblowers and the Confucian ethic of remonstrance had a nice perspective on confronting ethical dilemmas. The other readings talked about the idea that quitting an organization because it is unethical can be complicated, but the article reminded us that if they are disinclined to listen we must remain reverent and not abandon our purpose. Which I thought was a really nice way to say you don’t have to compromise your personal values because decisions are out of your control. Because we as individuals are powerful tools for change and the change can be done. Importantly, the readings underscore the ethical imperative to halt projects raising serious concerns. In sum, the articles summarize what we’ve been talking about all semester of how important it is to consider ethics when developing technology. Like specifically, who is it benefiting? Who is this technology harming, does it take advantage of any pre-existing harmful narratives etc. I believe that when we encourage a collective ethical responsibility we truly enhance our shared human experience
Each of these readings highlights the frame of morality we are put into. There is an illusion of choice, of caring oe not, but in reality, there is no way to opt out. No matter what you will be making a decision with direct consequences. The only choice is that of awareness. For those in power, it is often possible to choose the illusion that is unawareness. However, as all three readings point to this decision is not available to marginalized, disadvantaged, exploited, etc. people. Overall, these readings underscore the idea that you must choose right, because if you “do not choose” you are effectively choosing not right. Though I appreciate the message of these readings, there is a definite lack of interaction with the realities of race, gender, class, etc. that “complicate” the narrative. However, the very view of aspects of identity as complicating, somehow detracting from the message these pieces attempt to convey, is a part of the system that priveleges the majority/ those in power to the minority. I just found it interesting to look at the male-centric style employed especially in the piece on Confucius and the whistleblower. The teachings of Confucius reify fairly strict gendered norms and behavior, and it is interesting how the author of the piece takes Confucius’ teachings and instructions to men as the neutral case.
Saffron Huang’s first letter, “What is Technology?”, struck a chord. I have this running joke I like to make about how computer science isn’t “real science”. On the surface, the humor derives from the fact that “science” is literally in the name of the discipline, and that I am apparently making fun of my own discipline. I find the idea of a computer scientist willingly admitting that what they do isn’t actually science funny. However, the joke also comes from a place of sincerity: it’s not that I actually believe computer science isn’t science per se, but I am convinced that among natural sciences like geology, cosmology, and biology, computer science doesn’t feel like it belongs. And I think Huang was able to describe why in a way I wasn’t able to articulate myself: technology is not determined by science.
I found the allusion to Cheesemaking to be illusory. When we program, when we talk about problem solving, when we think about algorithms and computer architecture and software, we are focusing on technology, rather than science, and this distinction is critical, because like Huang suggests, this is focuses on contingencies and specifities, on endorsing a path to an end rather than a pursuit of truth. And I’ve taken 341; I know there are sciency parts to CS, but I think this as a branch of pure mathematics. An exploration of abstract logical truths rather than an attempt to understand the universe we live in.
Note: I tried to post this before 1 pm but I kept getting a “fatal error” message that persisted until I switched over to my laptop
Letters to a Young Technologist was an interesting set of ideas. I did get this sense of anthropocentrism throughout the letters, not necessarily endorsing TESCREAL but there was language surrounding regulation/legislation that I thought was singular. I think to understand technology is to be aware of its faults and honestly be a little scared of it. In general, there needs to be more humility regarding our relationship with technology. I thought it was really interesting that the letter “Value Beyond Instrumentalization” began with a Hannah Arendt quote, who theorizes about the “banality of evil.” I think her theory is relevant here because there is an explicit push for innovation and originality in technology advancements, but the desire to be the next [insert tech mogul here] is the driving force behind too many technological decisions, causing lineages of biases to remain embedded in algorithms and technology we use today.
I remember reading Omelas in middle school, and it was so much more jarring to re-read it given the context of this course. It is such an apt allegory for concepts like metrics, viability, and efficacy in tech, medicine, and other massive industries. Even the suffering of one can, and should, weigh heavily enough on people that they reject the world as they know it.
I had the same issue as Cassie!