Nexus
A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI
Yuval Noah Harari
Having read it
★★★★☆
A decent and informative read, if a little academia-heavy in its beginnings and its near-endless (that’s me attempting some review comedy), in chapter [insert relevant number here] where we will talk about that but then talk about this in another, rather than just well, steadily get on with the narrative instead of a overly long introduction.
Still, many a point was made with good perspective and context to show that the algorithmic future is upon us and we, as a organic, relatively intellectual and sometimes moral, even responsible, species (although those things need to be always kept under review) that does actually have the power to write its own success story, not a downfall at the metaphorical hands of AI.
Technology only creates new opportunities; it is up to us to decide which ones to pursue.
Let’s make sure we collectively, especially those of us not part of state or corporate powers, to push for and uphold that humanity aims for and extols the four pillars put forward by the author: benevolence; decentralisation; mutuality; and change and rest. Technology (especially digital) is not a panacea and left alone, causes (and will cause) more division and unrest than its order apparently produces, or is presented, even sold as, through its gains of efficiencies and logic.
[...] For the survival of democracy, some inefficiency is a feature, not a bug. To protect the privacy and liberty of individuals, it’s best if neither the police nor the boss knows everything about us.
A good passage
[...] When all is said and done, the essence of patriotism isn’t reciting stirring poems about the beauty of the motherland, and it certainly isn’t making hate-filled speeches against foreigners and minorities. Rather, patriotism means paying your taxes so that people on the other side of the country also enjoy the benefit of a sewage system, as well as security, education and health care.
A second good passage
Democracy is a conversation, and conversations rely on language. By hacking language, computers could make it extremely difficult for large numbers of humans to conduct a meaningful public conversation. When we engage in a political debate with a computer impersonating a human, we lose twice. First, it is pointless for us to waste time in trying to change the opinions of a propaganda bot, which is just not open to persuasion. Second, the more we talk with the computer, the more we disclose about ourselves, thereby making it easier for the bot to hone its arguments and sway our views.
A third good passage
Many of the algorithmic biases surveyed in this and previous chapters share the same fundamental problem: the computer thinks it has discovered some truth about humans, when in fact it has imposed order on them. A social media algorithm thinks it has discovered that humans like outrage, when in fact it is the algorithm itself that conditioned humans to produce and consume more outrage. Such biases result, on the one hand, from the computers discounting the full spectrum of human abilities and, on the other hand, from the computers discounting their own power to influence humans. Even if computers observe that almost all humans behave in a particular way, it doesn’t mean humans are bound to behave like that. Maybe it just means that the computers themselves are rewarding such behaviour while punishing and blocking alternatives. For computers to have a more accurate and responsible view of the world, they need to take into account their own power and impact. And for that to happen, the humans who currently engineer computers need to accept that they are not manufacturing new tools. They are unleashing new kinds of independent agents, and potentially even new kinds of gods.