Tag Archives: technology

When Ends Illuminate Means (or, Saving Humanity from the Terminator)

I recently experienced the whiplash of traveling from the serenity of rural Wisconsin to the frenetic pace of Midtown Manhattan and found myself standing in Grand Central Terminal imagining De Niro and Grodin in Midnight Run and marveling at the fact that I was one of around 750,000 people that would pass through that day. It cost me ten bucks to travel from there to the JFK airport, which is basically a miracle.

My trip to NYC was for a conference on higher education thanks to my dear friend, Novita, whose technology group hosted the event. Conference attendees were mostly tech leaders at colleges and universities alongside vendors from the tech industry, and you might not be surprised that a major topic of conversation was “not” the trains at Grand Central. No, Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) was the topic de jour.

My primary relationship with AI had been jokes about how typing Capital A, Capital I (for Artificial Intelligence) in many typical fonts looks exactly like Capital A, lowercase l (for my name, Al), leading to all sorts of fun headlines for me personally, like “How Al Is Changing the Music Business,” and “Stop Talking About Al.” When it comes to new technology, I am intentionally a late adopter. I recognize that the world changes and that I must adapt to remain engaged, but I am critical of our collective tendency to jump at the new and shiny without thinking, so I choose to arrive fashionably late to the party.

But the conference conversations were timely for me as I reluctantly board the AI train. I heard multiple people quote a leader of the tech giant, NVIDIA, who reportedly said, “No, AI is not going to take your job. Someone who knows AI is going to take your job.” That will catch your attention (although it is still funny if you read that inserting my name instead). And I was struck by a side conversation where a couple of high tech leaders said that the very developers of AI are shocked by the speed of its development. That is actually frightening.

My perspective is that as with most things AI is neutral on its face with both good and bad potential. And yet I also identify with the camp that meets this particular technology with great apprehension. I should explain my perspective on the latter.

I feel like a broken record referring to Jacques Ellul and his prophetic 1954 book, The Technological Society, as much as I do, but Ellul’s warning about “ever-increasing means” toward “carelessly-examined ends” seems on steroids when it comes to AI. Not only are the means much more powerful and increasing much more rapidly than ever before, but also the conversation on ends is nonexistent, at least to my knowledge. It is my understanding that the developers aren’t even sure where the technology is headed, much less is our society engaging thoughtful conversations on where society is going to arrive given its current trajectory.

If it helps, I don’t just repeatedly refer to Ellul; I also refer to Jim Collins’s classic book, Good to Great, over and over and over. Good to Great examined companies that made the leap referred to in its title and shared lessons on how that occurred. I recently made a connection between the book and the AI Revolution. In Good to Great, Collins coined the term “Hedgehog Concept” and described it as identifying the one thing in the world that your business can do the very best and then described the “Flywheel Effect” as staying laser-focused on that one thing until the momentum builds to that breakthrough moment for greatness. Important stuff, but I had almost forgotten that Collins had a section on technology, too, and I had almost forgotten because he made the crucial observation that technology should never be the point; instead, technology should at most be a tool that accelerates your laser-focused work on the one thing that is the most important for your business.

This is ridiculously important right now, I believe. While I am fully convinced that society as a whole will not engage a conversation on desired outcomes, maybe you and I in our respective spheres of influence can fight the powerful head winds against us to determine with specificity sufficient for clarity on what we want our lives to look like someday (i.e., the ends) and then with desperation cling to that destination. If AI/tech can be useful to accelerate our journey to our worthy goals, then by all “means” (ha!), use it. But if not, do not get sucked into its powerful and seductive vortex.

I have long heard the saying that the ends do not justify the means, and that’s true in communicating that immoral or unethical behavior is still wrong even if it produces something good. But what I am trying to communicate today is that tenaciously establishing the ends first will help illuminate the means and allow you to banish all unhelpful distractions to the shadows. Put another way, establishing noble ends first illuminates the means that are worthy tools for achieving the noble cause.

Okay, that doesn’t have the ring of a future cliche to it, but I believe it reduces the likelihood that a cyborg devours our souls for lunch someday.

To Binge or Not to Binge: That Is the Question

This essay was first published in The Smart Set on 2.26.24.

I specifically hoped not to be an old person that longed for the good old days, but, well, here’s the deal: I remember when binge was considered a bad word. Now, it is a weekend plan. And I’m not talking about those darn kids today; I’m talking about my weekend plan.

Decades ago, the only time I heard the word was when someone was characterized as a “binge drinker” or possibly a “binge eater” and such descriptions were assigned with pity, or sometimes even, disdain. It was never a compliment, and it surely was never a self-description. Now, I and a zillion others proudly anticipate, for example, “binging” a television series as a source of entertainment, and strikingly, even as a source of self-care.

Stay with me now.

Here’s what has me perplexed: The word itself means doing something excessively, and to do anything excessively means doing it more than is reasonable or acceptable. If that’s still true and the English language hasn’t shifted just yet, then to binge means to do something too much.

All this to say: I’m (re-)watching The Office. Hilarious. So, so funny. Deep, loud laughter emerges from my body in a way that frightens the neighbors. It is so good. But I can’t seem to stop! An episode ends, and I know that I said it was the last one for the night, but another begins, and the opening is so funny, so I think that I’ll just watch a couple of minutes, and then it’s the entire episode, and then it ends, and I know that I said it was the last one for the night, but another begins… You get the picture.

I should clarify that “discipline” is my greatest strength, and what I find concerning is that more and more I recognize in myself the lack of my greatest strength, and in more ways than watching The Office. This is why I am writing today, to sort through my troubled mind, as well as processing what I suspect is a broader sociological phenomenon.

________

In 1992, Bruce Springsteen released the album, Human Touch, and the third track was a little song titled, “57 Channels (And Nothin’ On).” It was not one of his biggest hits, but it was one of the most-played songs on rock stations that year, and I remember it well. The Boss sang:

I bought a bourgeois house in the Hollywood hills
With a trunkload of hundred thousand-dollar bills
Man came by to hook up my cable TV
We settled in for the night my baby and me
We switched ’round and ’round ’til half-past dawn
There was fifty-seven channels and nothin’ on
Fifty-seven channels and nothin’ on
Fifty-seven channels and nothin’ on

Is that not hilarious? Only fifty-seven channels? Those of us who use “fifties” to describe our age now remember what might prompt such a song. We remember a time with thirteen channels, although in reality, there were only maybe four. The Boss’s incredulity was understandable to most of the world in 1992: how excessive was fifty-seven channels!?! Now, we have fifty-seven apps on our televisions, each one filled with never-ending options.

The shift has been nothing short of remarkable. It goes beyond the number of shows we can call up at any given time—even the shows we watch often have options within. For example, it isn’t enough to watch the news: You watch the crawl at the bottom of the screen to get more news than the news you are currently watching. It isn’t enough to watch a game: You watch the crawl at the bottom of the screen to get more scores than the game you are currently watching, including statistics, win probabilities, betting lines, fantasy updates, and more.

[Adopt crotchety-old man voice:] In my day, you had to get up off the couch just to change the channel! And in my day, there were these things called “commercials” that interrupted the show without a skip option if you can believe it. And craziest of all: After your favorite show ended, you had to wait an entire week to watch the next episode.

I guess I’m wondering if there might have been some good in those old days? Doesn’t sound right, but maybe something about less options and more waiting?

_______

My dad was a child in the 1920s, a full century ago now, and he told a certain story that may or may not have been true. Honestly, it sounds more like an adventure of Tom Sawyer, but regardless, he told me that his first job was working in a general store and that on the very first day his new boss told him that he could eat all the candy that he wanted from the candy counter. So, day one, he ate himself sick of candy and soon discovered that he was never tempted to eat from the candy counter again. That was the story, and it was obvious that my dad admired the Solomon-like wisdom of that old storeowner.

Now, I’m afraid that such wisdom is outdated, too. I, for one, am sensing the tendency to eat myself sick of candy, then eat myself sick of candy again, and again, and again, and again. I’m talking way beyond television, of course. Overconsumption of snacks, or scrolling social media, or many other forms of entertainment, among other possibilities. The sky appears to be the unfortunate limit.

When I think back to my law school days, the work product I am most proud of is a paper I wrote for Professor Ellen Pryor in a seminar course on “Law and Morality.” I titled my paper, “Enough Already: How Lawyers Can Respond to the Problem of Greed.” Within, I wrestled with the question: How should a lawyer respond to greed? And as I considered the various definitions of the ancient concept, one of the original seven deadly sins, I found a contemporary theologian’s one-word definition the most compelling. Stanley Hauerwas answered an interviewer’s question, “So, what is greed?” with a single word: “More.”

That seems to work for the binge mentality that I am wrestling with today. More. Always more. Never enough.

To really get ugly, gluttony is yet another of the seven deadly sins, which I once saw defined as habitual greed. “More” but as a habit. That starts to sound disturbingly familiar. I wonder if gluttony is just another way of saying binge mentality?

_______

I like to picture Jacques Ellul at his writing desk in the early 1950s, somehow able to peek into our present century. The French sociologist published a book in 1954 that was later translated into English as “The Technological Society.” If you can imagine, in the year before Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were born, Ellul published a book that predicted that technology would be presented as a servant of humanity but would eventually overrun the world and become its master. In the foreword to the English translation, famed American sociologist, Robert K. Merton described Ellul’s argument by saying, “Ours is . . . a civilization committed to the quest for continually improved means to carelessly examined ends.”

I’m old enough now to understand and remember the desire for improved means. I spent a lot of time watching television as a child while wishing for improved means. Now, I’m wondering if anyone spent real, slow, quality time examining the ends that those improved means would produce? The ends that we are now experiencing?

_______

Stephen Covey shared an illustration in one the books in his Seven Habits empire. Covey proposed something he called the “law of the farm” in contrast to something like cramming for an exam in school. For the latter, you might be successful, but cramming simply will not work on the farm. You can’t cram for harvest. You have to plant in a certain season, water, and cultivate, and only when you have patiently and consistently performed all of the above and the time is right will you reap the harvest. On the farm, all things must come in due time.

Maybe one of the things that works best by the law of the farm is a human being. Maybe, we discover our best when we don’t cram too many things in at once. Maybe, we discover our best when we aren’t rushed, when we learn to wait, and when we go without for a while—until the time is right. Maybe, in all of our progress, we have focused too much on the means so that we have forgotten what we should aim for in the first place: a deliberate rhythm that produces a fruitful life. Maybe “enough” is a more important word to learn than “more.”

_____

The Judeo-Christian tradition values the concept of shabbat, or Sabbath, a day set aside for rest and contemplation. The weekly practice creates a rhythm of life: work; work; work; work; work; work; rest; work; work; work; work; work; work; rest; and so on, and so on. It sets in place a habit that reminds you that you actually can stop, regularly, rhythmically. It reminds you that you can do without for a little while. The concept even extends to agriculture, where land lies fallow in regular rotation so that the very earth is renewed and replenished—the law of the farm.

Today, I am considering whether we should devote increased attention to anything that causes us to stop, to rest, to say that’s enough. Anything that trains us to do without and to refuse the temptation to always say yes to more. If not, the continued acceleration in the availability of more and more and more of the things we desire might not end well.

I’m probably being a bit too dramatic. As always, I remain hopeful for the future, but as the great Michael Scott once said, “I’m not superstitious, but I am a little stitious.”

Reality Check

vr

Virtual reality is all the rage, and an interesting phenomenon for sure, but reality itself is weird enough for me.  Last week’s business trip provided plenty of proof.

For instance, while watching baseball in a New York City hotel I saw a commercial hawking Chia Clinton and Chia Trump for twenty bucks a pop (Trump is winning that race 79% to 21% at present).  This was immediately followed by a commercial promoting an online dating service just for overweight people.  I’d say you can’t make this stuff up, but the point is that people do.  A few days earlier, I visited the president of the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio, which is crazy enough, but also had the chance to hold Brett Favre’s Hall of Fame ring before it was presented to him at Lambeau Field yesterday.  Who needs virtual reality?

But the best part of the crazy business trip was connecting with Jon Wood, an old college roommate, who seems a little unreal in the one-of-a-kind sense but appears to have us all beat on what it actually means to be real.

Jon never meets a stranger.  No, you have no idea, Jon never meets a stranger.  He talks to anyone.  And everyone.  I’m sorry, but I can tell that you don’t get it.  He talks to EV-ER-Y-ONE.  No exceptions.  In the less than twenty-four hours I spent with Jon last week, I met multiple members of a country club, the entire staff at Diamond Deli, work colleagues at Bridgestone Americas, his elderly barber (no haircut, just stopped in to say hello), a friend that staffs a parking lot in downtown Cleveland, the bartender where we stopped for dinner, and every staff member at a Cleveland Cavaliers preseason game (who got a fist bump from Jon whether they wanted it or not).  Half of the people met Jon for the first time, while the other half met him with a massive smile as if he was their very best friend.  I know Jon, so none of this surprised me, but each time I am fascinated by his approach to this precious life we all get a chance to play.

Jon is a successful attorney with a wonderful family and much to admire from any vantage point, but what I admire the most is that to Jon every human being he encounters is someone with boundless dignity and worth getting to know regardless of appearance, age, income, race, education, or any other category that normal folks use to decide whether someone is worthy of interaction.

Who knows, I might end up the biggest fan of virtual reality, but as I sit here today and see pictures of people wearing goofy googles the size of car batteries reaching out for something that isn’t there, I vote for Jon’s approach of experiencing reality by actually seeing everyone he meets with eyes (and heart) wide open.

I Have Seen the Enemy, and It Is Email

tumblr_inline_ndi9guyr6u1shtvce

I occasionally offer a rant on how email may be destroying the universe, which a few hundred of you appropriately receive by email as encouraged by yours truly.  The word sanctimonious describes me if just to give hypocrite a break.

But, still, I believe that email may be destroying the universe!  And although it would surprise us all, I may be an actual prophet.  A hypocritical, sanctimonious prophet for sure, but a prophet nonetheless.

I shared a Harvard Business Review article in March that proposed the elimination of email.  The latest issue of TIME magazine offered a mini-article titled, “Why we’re addicted to email—and how to fix it.”  The Atlantic shared a video last week that explained “How an Editor Stays at Inbox Zero.”

Though I’m sensing a growing recognition of the problem, I have yet to hear much of a solution.  The TIME article’s conclusion as to how to fix an addiction to email is that “we must learn to say no to some opportunities, in order to say yes to our priorities.”  There you go addicts, problem solved!  And The Atlantic‘s video was all about how to email efficiently (i.e., three sentence emails or fewer; dispense with a salutation, etc.).  Sorry, but increased efficiency simply tells me that I can (must?) handle more volume.

So what to do?

  • Step #1: Recognize the problem. It is growing and powerful.
  • Step #2: Rant about it in appropriate places. I have found that email works well.  (Ha!)
  • Step #3: Adopt all preliminary suggestions you find in magazines. In other words, do your best not to drown while waiting for help to arrive.
  • Step #4: Come up with a miraculous solution. I’m still fleshing out how this step works but feel good about its substance.

Hate to post and run, but I need to go work on a miraculous solution.  First, I should check my email.

I Have a Favorite Shirt

I have a favorite shirt.  There.  It is good to have that out in the open.  We hit it off right away, and then we started spending an inordinate amount of time together.  Now, it has blossomed into a beautiful relationship.

The relationship began in early February when I received the long-sleeved technical t-shirt for running the Surf City Half Marathon in Huntington Beach.  “I Ran This Beach!” is printed across the front, which is a little embarrassing due to the sophomoric Blake Shelton-ish double entendre.  But I love my shirt.

It is attractive, I guess, sort of a denim-y acid-washed color, but that isn’t why I like it so much.  I just really like the way it feels.  In an “I’m-embarrassed-my-wife-will-read-this” sort of way, I really like the way it feels.

Speaking of my wife, she probably hates it by now since I put it on every day when I get home from work and there is a decent chance that it doesn’t smell like a spring meadow, but that hasn’t slowed me down because changing into my favorite shirt signals an important transition from work to relaxation.  The person who had the bright idea of tying something in a knot around your neck and calling it business (busy-ness) attire was, well, pretty spot on.  Untying the knot that threatens to disconnect my brain from my heart and lungs and putting on my favorite shirt is an important part of my day.

Now that technology has successfully obliterated the work/relaxation line, I consider this daily costume change an act of defiance.  I will not be dominated by work.  I may work a lot, maybe more than I should, and maybe even at home, but it will be on my terms while wearing my favorite shirt.  And that feels good in more ways than one.

Examine the End

2

French sociologist, Jacques Ellul, published “The Technological Society” in 1954, a book that predicted that although technology will be presented as a servant of humanity, it will overrun the world and become its master. My iPhone constantly reminds me that he was on to something (in the 1950s!). In the foreword to Ellul’s book, famed American sociologist, Robert K. Merton, wrote: “Ours is . . . a civilization committed to the quest for continually improved means to carelessly examined ends.”

I read that phrase years ago and cannot get it out of my mind. We are obsessed with bigger and faster and more—but for what purpose?

NBC News presidential historian, Michael Beschloss, spoke in March at the national meeting of the American Council on Education about the increased pressure on the president to respond quickly to national issues due to the social media phenomenon. As a stark example, he referred to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and said that if President Kennedy had been forced to respond in the same timeframe that current presidents are expected to respond, he would have chosen to unleash heavy military action. It is estimated that forty million lives would have been lost. Forty million. Thankfully, there was time to reflect, and a different decision.

Charleston has dominated the news of late and rightfully so. It is an unspeakable tragedy—although there has been a lot of speaking anyway. I get it. Today, you have to speak quickly on important issues or you will miss the chance when the next story arrives.

I, too, have very strong feelings about the recognition of persistent racism in America and access to guns and gun control and the Confederate battle flag and am “committed to the quest for continually improved means” such as these (and more), but I would like some time and space for a deep and difficult examination of the true “ends” so that we might have shockingly productive conversations on how to get there.

My premise today is simple. For things to look up—and things can always look up—we need deep, measured, thoughtful conversations until we agree on where we are going, but it has grown more difficult to have such conversations because of our obsession with immediate actions.

————————————————————————————————–

* Click HERE if you are interested in an essay published in Pepperdine’s Dispute Resolution Law Journal a couple of years ago where I reflected on the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. It concludes with an attempt to identify Dr. King’s “end” given his language.