go.liard \'go-l-y*rd, -.ya:rd\ \go-l-'ya:rd-ik\ n [F] : a wandering student of the 12th or 13th century given to the writing of satiric Latin verse and to convivial living and minstrelsy - go.liar.dic aj | |
Typical: my writings on Myers-Briggs psychotypology Random essays
Other essays Good things to read |
Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced Think for a moment on how our culture characterizes "magic". Generally, it is envisioned as "occult" -- the obscure and arcane. It requires intensive specialized training, and even then, it is so dangerous and sensitive to tiny errors -- get one word wrong in a spell, and... -- that ordinary people can't possibly use it. It is capricious and erratic. And when magic is performed by an adept on behalf of the uninitiated, often there is a terrible, punitive cost. The "magic" we imagine is rare and strange and uncanny and scary and very, very marginal to every day life. Is that our dream for our technology, then? To make occult, arcane systems that give power to wizards in their isolated holdfasts and to sorcerers with their dusty tomes, but have no impact on the poor peasants who give their towers a wide berth, save perhaps to make them superstitious petitioners unto a power they loathe? I think it is manifestly obvious that is not what technologists dream. We talk about ubiquitous computing, smart objects, bringing code and connectivity to the masses. We don't want our contributions to humanity to marginal, ignored curiosities -- we want our work to become part of the fabric of everyone's lives. We want our work to matter to people, and hopefully serve them well. We want to rock the world on its axis, and change the very nature of our nations, our cultures, our philosophies by loosing technologies into the world. We try to enact public policies through cunning code. We wage war against injustice with software licenses. We write games and create new art forms to astound and delight audiences of millions. There is a temptation, though. We are so often treated like janitors, how ever well paid, that the idea of being powerful wizards who can lord their capabilities over the uninitiated is seductive. The disdain of the ignorant who can't be bothered to even try to learn to use the tools we give them, does not inspire us to make tools even more usable. But even more seductive is the idea that technology -- and being technologists -- makes us powerful, and seductive is the siren song of our love of wonder. The power we covet is not mere temporal power -- power over people does not interest us -- but power over nature, power over time and space; we want to make possible the impossible, even the unimaginable. And native, it appears, to the heart of the technologist is a love for wonder, for the "gee wiz" factor; we see beauty in the strange and unimagined. We love the metaphor of "magic" because it speaks to us of power and wonder. Hence Arthur C. Clark's much quoted statement "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." We quote that so often because we love the idea of making wonders and having power. But I submit that if the best we can do is make technology as dangerous, non-robust, capricious, arcane, alienating, marginal, and costly as "magic" -- then we have really crappy technology. Unfortunately, for a very long time, that was precisely the state of the art in software. Some would say it still is, but I can testify things are getting better. It's been a long time since companies were allowed to get away with the excuse "I'm sorry the computer won't let me enter that". It's been a long time since business men wondered if buying office computers (at all!) was really a worthwhile investment. What Clark wrote is true. But he wasn't presenting a standard to which to develop technologies! As a standard, it's a pathetically low one. The very best technologies cease being "technologies". They become just part of life. Nobody calls a hammer "technology", but it is. The best technologies are like hammers. They are excellent at doing what they do. They are powerful -- a hammer is powerful enough to do you serious damage if you use it poorly, or kill someone if you so intend -- but reasonably safe. Hammer heads generally don't fly off their handles. They are reliable. They are not any more confusing than necessary. Nobody wonders at hammers. Another example of an excellent technology is bridges. We want our software and networks to be like bridges. We want to just be able to use them without wondering if they'll crack under the strain. We want them to connect so smoothly that users can ignore the fact they're on a bridge if they want to, and can focus on getting where they want to go. We want them to facilitate and connect and help people go what they want to do. We want them to be aesthetically pleasing where possible, and we want them to be durable. We want them to fade into the background of conscious thought, even as they become vital to our day-to-day lives and livelihoods. We want the users of our work to think of it the way a commuter thinks of the bridges he crosses on his route to work -- that is, not at all. An example of a non-magical computer technology is the automatic teller machine. Everyone uses ATMs now. Nobody is superstitious about them. Nobody thinks of them as awe-inspiring and intimidating. Nobody wonders "will it eat my bank account" (even when sometimes they do.) They are a fact of modern life that we take for granted. There's nothing that feels in the least wondrous, strange, uncanny, special, weird, or "magical" about them. They are reliable, prosaic, ubiquitous tools. And that's what all great technologies are. We can do better than "magic". Let's confront, accept and celebrate our technologist's love of wonder and things magical -- and acknowledge that that isn't a great standard for technological achievement. Let's harness our desire for power -- coming to terms with the fact that purely theoretical power is not power at all, and the only real power is the power for people to actually do real things. We need a higher standard than "magic". Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. |