Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Ashim D'Silva]

Yup, I think we’re about done at this point. I do like that you’re
optimistic about people wanting to know how things work—there’s just too
much going into a device these days for anyone to know everything about it.
And with machine learning, it’s going to be literally impossible.
Instruments to deal with unkind humans is really important too. And I guess
that means we’ll have to develop more structured ways to deal with unkind
technology and the humans that control it.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:26 AM Tomasz Rola  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:00:21AM +, Ashim D'Silva wrote:
> > Right, fair enough. Definitely a definitional difference then; that’s
> > specifically the use of a particular meaning of the word kind. Kind
> doesn’t
> > need this active component you mention—a deed can be kind, or kind
> regards,
> > as can climate or detergent
> > , kind on your
> hands. It
> > does however come from “kin” and that leads more into whether you wish to
> > have a kinship with your technology. Considering how much time we spent
> > with technology, I think there is a strange kinship we already have.
>
> Yes. But I am afraid the extent and nature of this kinship is hardly
> realized by majority of users. This gradually goes down to situation
> when we have more and more powerful tools about which we have no
> idea. Using expressions like "kind technology" is only going to lull
> us into thinking that we control something or understand it. The only
> way of dealing with technology that I can imagine is to understand as
> much of it as possible. Once we start telling ourselves this
> technology is kind, we may loose motivation (well, maybe not me) to
> understand "how it works under the hood".
>
> > To that end, it is the designers, the people, that are actively
> > considerate, but the medium through which they express their kindness is
> to
> > instil those values into the ways in which technology works.
>
> This is exactly how I would like things to be - people behind the
> wheel and kindly considering needs of their fellows.
>
> > How active that kindness will be in the long run as machines make
> > more decisions themselves is a continuing problem—the Asimov-esque
> > question, is it kinder to confine you to your house so you are not
> > harmed by the outside world…?
>
> I guess it would be kinder to confine me and cut off my Internet, so I
> do not go on bragging on mailing lists... which makes me look like I
> do not want to play nicely and flow with the flow without objecting
> problematic ideas.
>
> > That decision though, will not come from technology directly, but
> > from the values we give technology when making it.
>
> Here you seem to be extremely optimistic.
>
> > [...] Or we design technology that is inherently kinder, that is
> > harder to be misused.
>
> I would have been very happy if this came to be.
>
> > Both humans and technology have the potential to be unkind, but by
> ideally
> > we only control one.
>
> We have instruments to deal with unkind humans. We are totally caught
> by surprise each time technology does something it was not supposed
> to. By claiming that it is kind, we are merely making it possible to
> be harmed even more in a future, because nobody expects being hurt by
> kind person - but technology is not kind and it is not a person, even
> if we were calling it so. Just like a lion is not kind, even when
> tamed and fed.
>
> > For an example, the automobile was designed without safety features as
> > simple as seatbelts and crumple zones. Early lobbyists for the auto
> > industry fought off safety research because they believed cars were
> > inherently dangerous and was simply what the tool was. “Cars don’t kill
> > people, drivers do.” We’ve since been able to improve the technology
> itself
> > to be kinder to the human body, even if the human driver and the crash
> > speed is much worse. That is instilling the value of human life into the
> > way a car reacts to an impact; I’d say that’s kind technology.
>
> This is very good example, but it also serves my purpose :-). See,
> from time to time an airbag goes off (maybe because of an accident)
> and sometimes it breakes driver's ribs, nose or jaw. All technology
> comes with flaws. I do not think it would be good idea to claim that
> "kind car broke someone's rib". Actually, if a person was very nice
> for a whole year except this one day when he went around, picked a
> passerby randomly (including his family members) and broke his nose,
> then I could call him few words, but kind is not one of
> them. Actually, describing such guy as "kind" smells very much like
> Stockholm syndrome.
>
> Ok, I do not think we are going to agree on this, right? So be it. I
> am done, unless you have some other argument to convince me.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tomasz Rola
>
> --
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
> ** As the 

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Tomasz Rola]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:00:21AM +, Ashim D'Silva wrote:
> Right, fair enough. Definitely a definitional difference then; that’s
> specifically the use of a particular meaning of the word kind. Kind doesn’t
> need this active component you mention—a deed can be kind, or kind regards,
> as can climate or detergent
> , kind on your hands. It
> does however come from “kin” and that leads more into whether you wish to
> have a kinship with your technology. Considering how much time we spent
> with technology, I think there is a strange kinship we already have.

Yes. But I am afraid the extent and nature of this kinship is hardly
realized by majority of users. This gradually goes down to situation
when we have more and more powerful tools about which we have no
idea. Using expressions like "kind technology" is only going to lull
us into thinking that we control something or understand it. The only
way of dealing with technology that I can imagine is to understand as
much of it as possible. Once we start telling ourselves this
technology is kind, we may loose motivation (well, maybe not me) to
understand "how it works under the hood".

> To that end, it is the designers, the people, that are actively
> considerate, but the medium through which they express their kindness is to
> instil those values into the ways in which technology works.

This is exactly how I would like things to be - people behind the
wheel and kindly considering needs of their fellows.

> How active that kindness will be in the long run as machines make
> more decisions themselves is a continuing problem—the Asimov-esque
> question, is it kinder to confine you to your house so you are not
> harmed by the outside world…?

I guess it would be kinder to confine me and cut off my Internet, so I
do not go on bragging on mailing lists... which makes me look like I
do not want to play nicely and flow with the flow without objecting
problematic ideas.

> That decision though, will not come from technology directly, but
> from the values we give technology when making it.

Here you seem to be extremely optimistic.

> [...] Or we design technology that is inherently kinder, that is
> harder to be misused.

I would have been very happy if this came to be.

> Both humans and technology have the potential to be unkind, but by ideally
> we only control one.

We have instruments to deal with unkind humans. We are totally caught
by surprise each time technology does something it was not supposed
to. By claiming that it is kind, we are merely making it possible to
be harmed even more in a future, because nobody expects being hurt by
kind person - but technology is not kind and it is not a person, even
if we were calling it so. Just like a lion is not kind, even when
tamed and fed.

> For an example, the automobile was designed without safety features as
> simple as seatbelts and crumple zones. Early lobbyists for the auto
> industry fought off safety research because they believed cars were
> inherently dangerous and was simply what the tool was. “Cars don’t kill
> people, drivers do.” We’ve since been able to improve the technology itself
> to be kinder to the human body, even if the human driver and the crash
> speed is much worse. That is instilling the value of human life into the
> way a car reacts to an impact; I’d say that’s kind technology.

This is very good example, but it also serves my purpose :-). See,
from time to time an airbag goes off (maybe because of an accident)
and sometimes it breakes driver's ribs, nose or jaw. All technology
comes with flaws. I do not think it would be good idea to claim that
"kind car broke someone's rib". Actually, if a person was very nice
for a whole year except this one day when he went around, picked a
passerby randomly (including his family members) and broke his nose,
then I could call him few words, but kind is not one of
them. Actually, describing such guy as "kind" smells very much like
Stockholm syndrome.

Ok, I do not think we are going to agree on this, right? So be it. I
am done, unless you have some other argument to convince me.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] John Perry Barlow, Internet Pioneer, 1947-2018 | Electronic Frontier Foundation

[Udhay Shankar N]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
wrote:

John Perry Barlow, Internet Pioneer, 1947-2018 | Electronic Frontier
> FoundationThere is so much to say about John. The many years at the EFF
> board with him. The great memories. So much to remember.
> Dave
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/john-perry-barlow-
> internet-pioneer-1947-2018
>

​I'll miss him - with all his ego and cantankerousness, he was ​genuinely
insightful, visionary and influential. His writings helped inform many of
my thoughts about community in the online sphere, leading to him being the
second person I ever emailed (in 1994).

I got this from his daughters sometime in 2016 (which itself was the
continuation of a situation that started a few years ago), so this was a
long time coming.

>
>We, The Barlowettes, have hacked into the Barlow Friendz list to invite
you to  "Everyday Miracle: A Benefit for John Perry Barlow” - an intimate
evening of music in celebration and support of our father and
partner-in-crime.  Performers include Bob Weir, Jerry Harrison of Talking
Heads, Members of The String Cheese Incident, Sean Lennon & Les Claypool,
Lukas Nelson, Ramblin’ Jack Elliott, and Special Guests.
>
>Tickets for purchase here: https://www.ticketfly.com/purchase/event/1347933
>
>As many of you know, Barlow has had a tumultuous year and a half, much of
which has been spent in “medical incarceration”. Due to a dizzying array of
medical events and complications, JPB has been living with extreme pain and
limited mobility since April of 2015.
>
>Tragically, even a healthy savings and robust insurance is no match for
the cost of extended convalescence in contemporary America. Thus, after 18
months of onerous outlay without any income and recently expired disability
benefits, we have reached a critical juncture where we must reach out to
you, his fellow innovators, artists, cowboys, and partners-in-crime, to
help us in making sure that we are able to provide the quality of care
necessary for Barlow’s recovery.
>
>What better way to ensure Barlow’s wellbeing than a celebration!
>
>Your support (whether through benefit attendance, auction purchase, or
donation) is both an expression of love and caring for his comfort, and a
vote for keeping the planetary treasure that is Barlow’s body and brilliant
mind churning out rare insight and pioneering action as long as he is able.
>
>All proceeds from the event will go directly towards Barlow's care and
recovery.
>
>The John Perry Barlow Wellness Trust is also accepting donations and even
has a live auction site for rare gems. It can be accessed anytime through
this website: http://www.johnperrybarlow-wellnesstrust.com/

>
>We hope to see you there!
>
>Love and Gratitude,
>Leah, Anna & Amelia Barlow
>



-- 

((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

[silk] Fwd: [IP] John Perry Barlow, Internet Pioneer, 1947-2018 | Electronic Frontier Foundation

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

-- Forwarded message --

From: "Dave Farber" 

Date: Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:08 AM +0530

Subject: [IP] John Perry Barlow, Internet Pioneer, 1947-2018 | Electronic 
Frontier Foundation

To: "ip" 










John Perry Barlow, Internet Pioneer, 1947-2018 | Electronic Frontier 
FoundationThere is so much to say about John. The many years at the EFF board 
with him. The great memories. So much to remember. 
Dave
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/john-perry-barlow-internet-pioneer-1947-2018

John Perry Barlow, Internet Pioneer, 1947-2018Cindy CohnFebruary 7, 2018

With a broken heart I have to announce that EFF's founder, visionary, and our 
ongoing inspiration, John Perry Barlow, passed away quietly in his sleep this 
morning. We will miss Barlow and his wisdom for decades to come, and he will 
always be an integral part of EFF.

It is no exaggeration to say that major parts of the Internet we all know and 
love today exist and thrive because of Barlow’s vision and leadership. He 
always saw the Internet as a fundamental place of freedom, where voices long 
silenced can find an audience and people can connect with others regardless of 
physical distance.

Barlow was sometimes held up as a straw man for a kind of naive 
techno-utopianism that believed that the Internet could solve all of humanity's 
problems without causing any more. As someone who spent the past 27 years 
working with him at EFF, I can say that nothing could be further from the 
truth. Barlow knew that new technology could create and empower evil as much as 
it could create and empower good. He made a conscious decision to focus on the 
latter: "I knew it’s also true that a good way to invent the future is to 
predict it. So I predicted Utopia, hoping to give Liberty a running start 
before the laws of Moore and Metcalfe delivered up what Ed Snowden now 
correctly calls 'turn-key totalitarianism.'”

Barlow’s lasting legacy is that he devoted his life to making the Internet into 
“a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, 
economic power, military force, or station of birth . . . a world where anyone, 
anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear 
of being coerced into silence or conformity.”

In the days and weeks to come, we will be talking and writing more about what a 
extraordinary role Barlow played for the Internet and the world. And as always, 
we will continue the work to fulfill his dream.


  

  
  Archives

 | Modify
 Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now