Read on Twitter
This is a fantastic article by @STS_News on technology criticism and hype. Some thoughts on his arguments and the role of "shock" in our approach to emerging technology. 1/10 https://twitter.com/STS_News/status/1356309192248872960
Exaggerated claims regarding the game-changing benefits of new tech abound, but, as Lee highlights, the inverse can be just as problematic. We too often indulge is needless panic about techno-disasters that are either nowhere close or never to arrive. 2/10
"Criti-hype" is often the by-product of technical ignorance or cynical opportunism. Sometimes, however, it's a more forgivable sin; a sign of how difficult it is to strike the right balance between hysteria and complacency when evaluating the likely future impact of tech. 3/10
One of the most valuable tools would-be regulators have is "shock" - the outrage generated among policymakers and the public in response to the more problematic aspects of a new technology. "Shock" allows campaigners to exploit (or force open) a window of opportunity. 4/10
We didn't have to guess (for too long at least) as to the problems of strategic or atomic bombing. We could point to Guernica or Hiroshima. The shock generated by both was a valuable tool for campaigners (though, in neither case, sufficient to override instrumental factors). 5/10
One of the most challenging aspects of regulating technology ex ante is the absence of demonstrated ill-effects around which to build a campaign. Those seeking restriction or prohibition have to either borrow shock or construct it. 6/10
"Borrowed shock": when campaigners link the potential problems of the new to the established problems of the old. Campaigners against blinding lasers, for example, explicitly linked the laser to chemical weapons and the blindness caused in WWI. 7/10
"Constructed shock": when campaigners are confronting a technology regarded, fairly or unfairly, as sui generis. The challenge here is to generate sufficient urgency without becoming unmoored from reason. 8/10
The campaign to ban "killer robots" borrows (they'll intensify many of the problems of drones) and constructs (they fundamentally transform war for the worse) shock. Some campaigners do this well; others...have pictures of The Terminator on their reports. 9/10
I don't really have an earth-shattering conclusion to this rant, but I just want to draw attention to the importance of "shock". It's a vital resource for those of us working with (and warning about) emerging tech. But at the same time, it is oh so easy to abuse. 10/10
