A Fool With a Tool . . .

I am a knowledge worker. Let’s say that. And, I participate in the knowledge economy. Look it up — that’s what the Internet says I am. And, there’s this idea that I make knowledge available, or I improve the process of managing knowledge. But is that true? Or, is it a just a minor part of what I do?

I work in information technology. I manage information, or I build tools that manage information. We are overloaded with information — the Internet says that, too. We are drowning in the stuff, and somebody has got to help us manage it, or we are going to be swept away by it.

Having access to information will make us smarter, more productive and happier. I used to believe that, but now I am not sure that those things are true.

So, what is true? What are we doing, really? What is all this coding and building and designing and shipping and creating all about? Is what we do valuable? By that, I mean more than just monetarily valuable. I am not going to be able to answer that is one short article, but, I do have a few observations to make. Think about these things. But, first . . .

What is information?

A bit is a small unit of information, and it is either a one or a two. That’s all you can know about a bit. If I have two bits, what I can know about them remains unchanged — all I can know about a bit or many bits is that they are ones or zeros. However, if I combine two bits, I notice that I now have four different combinations of one and zero: 00, 01, 10, 11. The combination of bits doubled the number of things I can represent by using bits. In binary, two bits can represent the numbers zero through three.

It is important to note that we can collect bits all we want, and we can stockpile them, but knowledge (the number of discrete things that can be known) only doubles when we decide to combine the bits to create new entities. The number of bits and bytes can increase and nothing deep has changed. If we want to call that information, I’m okay with that. But, information is NOT knowledge even when you double it.

Information is interesting. By the time I get to four bits, I can now express 16 different pieces of information. By the time you combine 6 bits, you can express 64 pieces of knowledge, and amazing things start to happen. Follow this.

There are 26 letters in the alphabet, and each one can either be expressed in lower or upper case — those are 52 pieces of information. Capital letters indicate the beginning of sentences, or they distinguish proper nouns from common nouns. All caps in a text message or in chat, or on Facebook or in an email, indicates yelling.

There are about 14 punctuation marks, and, if we drop the two least useful ones, with groups of 6 bits, we can now use a computer to represent any letter or punctuation mark, but each hypothetical entity has to be composed of 6 bits — 5 bits would be incomplete. My first computer, a ZX81, had 8-bit words, so I had bits to spare — to represent letters and characters, 8 bits lets us throw in the digits from 0 to 9, to include all of the punctuation makes and to sprinkle in some symbols. That’s the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII).

With these digital tools, I can represent ANY idea that can be expressed in English. So, that’s impressive, isn’t it? But, the alphabet gave us that — so digitizing it is not so new. But, wait . . . there’s more.

Inside a computer, we can use those same ones and zeros to represent machine instructions. The ones and zeros do not change, but they can be used to represent data as well as programs. (Context is everything.) With an instruction set, we can build a machine that stores executes instructions to manipulate and warehouse words and sentences: a word processor.

In another context, if we use ones and zeros to represent numbers, our machine instructions can be executed to perform mathematical calculation: a calculator.

In the beginning, the number of ones and zeros we store does not matter — if we horde more ones and zeros, who cares? Nothing has doubled or tripled or increased in a meaningful way if all we see is ones and zeros. In fact, if we collect a zillion ones and zeros, nothing amazing has happened at all.

But, using ASCII, I can use those ones and zeros to write several distinct poems: millions of them. I can store the works of Shakespeare, or write a play of my own. That’s pretty cool, but, it could be argued that things go downhill from there. In her book, Artificial Unintelligence, Meredith Broussard coined a term: technochauvinism, the belief that technology is always the solution.

As I have been fond of saying for years, a tool is just a tool. A fool with a tool is still a fool. A tool does not bestow us with talent, or intelligence. In the end, I would rather write LIKE Shakespeare with a pencil than write like me in bits and bytes WITH a word processor. (This is an important distinction.) Technology is a game changer, but, until WE change, we shouldn’t get out hopes too high.

I first thought about these things while playing with the ZX81 computer my girlfriend gave me for Christmas in 1982. It should be noted that the impact the ZX81 had on my life was not what it could do, or what I could do with it, but how it changed me and made me think. I imagined a future in which our new tools would unleash the spirit of the renaissance that is trapped inside all of us. I became very optimistic about what we would create as computer technology advanced and became more prevalent.

But machines are just machines, and our information is just an impressively large collection of things we have used computers to collect and store. Information does not become knowledge unless it is well curated, filtered, sorted, analysed or used for some good purpose. The proliferation of information does not improve our lives very much. Sure you can you use Google to understand your terminal cancer diagnosis, but you cannot often avoid your fate. Knowing what is happening to you is no substitute for the consolation of love, or of having lived a life that, in the end, seems to have been worth living.

I think it was Henry Miller who once wrote that it was precisely when he was most alive that he was least afraid of dying. These were brave words for a man who was not dying, but I think they are true nonetheless.

The Limitations of Technology

The person who builds the machines or the word processors that can be used to write poems is not a poet, and he or she is certainly not a poetry worker. He or she is not a mathematician. We build machines, we create software, we make tools. ‘Knowledge worker’ doesn’t seem to describe this to me. Neither does the term IT.

I use technology in the same way a carpenter uses a saw. We wouldn’t say that a carpenter is a saw worker or a hammer worker, or even a woodworker. Would you call a home builder a nail-gunner? Why call me a knowledge worker?

We so-called knowledge workers sometimes enjoy a reputation for wizardry and brilliance, but most of us just build what we are told to build. Given materials and a blueprint, we build the things we are paid to build. We don’t think about these things, but we cobble them together using the tools that we have been given. Am I different to my father in law, who was a most excellent carpenter and joiner?

My father in law did not come up with a new way to build houses or tables. He built his own house, but someone else provided the plan. His house is a most serviceable house, but it is as humble as he is — as we all should all be. There is a limitation to the things we build, as the old song states: “A house is not a home . . . when there’s no one there to hold you tight and no one there you can kiss goodnight.”

That’s the limit of technology. It does not make us great. We must rise up as a people to make technology great. That is the challenge. People make people better. People lead. People inspire. People hope. People aspire. A great technology in the hands of great people is worth more than the same technology is the hands of small, petty and mediocre people.

Technology is deceiving. We have the impression that we have created some kind of abundance, but have we? We claim to have achieved wonderful things. But?

I used to write long letters to far away friends when I was very young, and I had long conversations on the phone. Now, when I have more ways to communicate than ever, we text. It seems that we have less to say the more ways we have to say it. Improvement?

Sometimes I wonder if we have any right to be proud of the cesspool of cat pictures, selfies, memes, insults, threats, YouTube challenges and dick-pics that is the Internet. (Note to a friend: I love your cat pictures. That’s what I’m saying.)

Speaking as a member of the generation that built these things, this future is not what I imagined or hoped for. While we thought we were creating something new and better, we have helped create improved ways to intimidate and publicly ridicule our opponents, to extort or defraud kind people and to spy on and manipulate other people.

The limitation of the technology is that it will improve NOTHING unless WE ourselves improve. Filling the world with pianos will not fill the world with music, and, even if it did, who would have time to listen to it all? Would it be good music?Filling the Internet with books and videos, even good books and videos, does not create discriminating readers and thinkers. Information does not beget knowledge. Abundance and excess do not produce prosperity — prosperity carries with it a suggestion of success.

Who can be proud of creating the means to perpetuate the cinnamon challenge, the pass out challenge, the chubby bunny challenge and other such nonsense? A video of someone participating in the cinnamon challenge is information, but how many of these videos do we need? When someone posts a new one, can we say that our knowledge has increased? No, we can not.

I’m all for fun, and I hate to judge, but, I had higher hopes. Do not think that I am making comments about the people in the above video — I do not know them, but some things are deplorable or just plain stupid.

As ‘knowledge workers,’ we are producing something that is qualitatively different. We are producing change. We double nothing, not knowledge, not ability, not competence — we certainly increase it less than we think. In fact, we have contributed to clouding the distinction between information, knowledge, facts, wisdom and opinion. That’s change, not progress or increase.

There Are NO Facts: And knowledge Is Overrated.

Some of you might argue for the other side, and you might want to bring attention to the redeeming things that can be found on the Internet. You have a point, but as a 58 year old early adopter, I never imagined that the technology I first fell in love with would ever have to be ‘redeemed.’ I was dewy-eyed and very idealistic once. And, I was wrong to be so optimistic.

People like me have built things like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and YouTube. We build content management systems, reporting systems, e-learning platforms and billing systems.

And, then there is Google! Surely there is something nice to say about Google? Here are the words we use: ‘knowledge’, ‘research’, ‘information’, ‘expertise’, ‘democratization’ and ‘intelligence.’ Everybody , or so it seems, is an expert because they know how to use Google to confirm their own bias and call it research. Really? Is that expertise?

My own observation is that most humans start with an opinion, and then they choose and organize their facts accordingly. In the end, they use whatever logic comes to hand to support their opinions. Google has not changed the way we think. If we continue to think poorly, Google is just another tool that people can use to advance their own ignorance.

Google is a beautiful thing, but it often replaces deep thought and years of study with inane and unsupported facts. Is coffee good for you, or bad for you? Can cancer be cured with nutrition? Are humans causing climate change? If you have an opinion, it is always possible to use Google to find research that supports it. Anybody can become an expert. Better yet, why learn anything? We can just look it up when we need it.

Convening quarterly staff meetings and showing employees a Simon Sinek video does NOT make you a good manager or leader. Your ability to motivate people, or build teams, does not increase every time Simon Sinek makes a new video. YOU have to change. Book-marking a Ted talk, or tweeting it, does not make you smart. Following or ‘friending’ bright people does not make you smart by association.

We all like having facts at our finger-tips. But, I am pretty sure that facts do NOT exist all — a fact is what you get when you take a discreet piece of information and combine it with the idea or opinion that it is true. And, ideas change — ergo, the facts changes. A fact is often an interpretation of other so-called facts held together by spit, wire and bubble gum. (That’s a scary idea, and I am going to leave it alone.)

As recent political events in the United States and elsewhere have shown, knowledge and information can be trumped by persuasion and manipulation almost every time. Who cares how much knowledge we have doubled? More than anything (or just as much as anything), we have extended the reach of fraudsters, thieves, bullies and despots.

A lie is a piece of information that is combined with the idea that it is false. One person’s lie is another person’s truth, and vice versa. What is falsehood? What is truth? In truth, we do not really care. We care about winning the argument and proving somebody else wrong.

If you want to become an argument ninja, you will need more than facts and knowledge. I seems as if our ability to use powerful tools to persuade will always be undone by the inability of people to resist manipulation, lies, nonsense and fear. Until WE change, or until we use technology to help us change, change matters less than we think. Don’t believe the hype.

By itself, information is not upsetting. But, we tend to get upset when people have opinions, which informs their behaviour. Opinions are then supported or justified by some twisted form of logic, based on other statements that are purported to be true.

That is where technology, the things we build, the websites and computer programs, could be transformed. The Internet has advanced dialogue and discussion but, unfortunately, it has also increased the spread of disagreement, discord, dishonesty and deceit. Technology could be used for good, but, by itself, it is no better than we are.

I love Twitter. I have a Twitter account. Social media is a powerful marketing and political tool that has been used for good. But, when we built Twitter, we also made a tool to help fat-shamers, haters, bullies, misogynists, misanthropes, fascists and morons to spread poison and hatred. Even if this content were to double every twelve hours, can we call it knowledge?

With GoFundMe, many people can bypass venture capitalists, even banks, and fund their product development directly. Others can use it to perpetrate fraud. Or, we can raise money to pay for the funeral expenses a slain single mother. I do not think GoFundMe has increased the amount of malice or kindness in the world on a per capita basis, but SOMETHING has changed. Is it improving, doubling or even increasing?

For better or worse, we are shaping society and changing lives. Which brings me back to my Spider-Man realization: with much power comes much responsibility. Knowing what is right, collecting knowledge — none of that matters if all we do is collect and know.

I know that many readers will have a problem with my assertion that facts do not exist, or that they change. Ones and zeros are true on a digital level. But, at a certain point, as we use ones and zeros , we create things of dubious worth and certainty. We remain unchanged.

It is reasonable to have ambiguous feelings about what we have created create — even when we create wonderful things, they can be twisted and used for terrible purposes. People are still people. We have not changed or increased that. As the bits and bytes pile up on the storage devices of the world, nothing will get better until WE get better. (Can I say this enough?)

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the digital detritus that computer technology has helped us manage, share and accumulate does not constitute knowledge. Some of it is knowledge, but every time some ass-hole politician or celebrity tweets something stupid, nothing has increased or doubled or been added to. That’s to say nothing of cat pictures, inane selfies or pictures of food. How many of those do we need, really?

Knowledge is not doubling. A shitpile of ones and zeros does not make the world a better place. Perhaps it just attracts more flies.

A wise, kind or compassionate tweet does not increase the amount of kindness in the world. Don’t get too proud. GoFundMe did not invent kindness, and neither did knowledge workers. We did not invent love, and neither did Tinder. There is no increase. Sure, some people have a thousand friends on Facebook, but real friendship is impossible on that scale. How many friends does one person need?

The same technology that can be used to bring loving couples together can be used to bring fraudsters and their love-starved victims together. The convenience of online payment systems comes with the inconvenience of identity theft and other forms of digital crime.

Let’s Think Clearly About These Things

I am not trying to turn you against technology, but I do encourage you to develop a more nuanced understanding of the world we are bringing into being. Don’t believe the hype. Frank Abagnale, of Catch Me If You Can fame, warns us that the moment we create something wonderful, we have an obligation to think about how it could be used for ill.

Gartner and IBM are counting the bits, bytes, megabytes, terabytes and petabytes and claiming that something meaningful is doubling. The statistics are impressive. Change is happening, but I think that change should be expressed in qualitative terms rather than quantitative terms. Quantity is not meaningful or good in and of itself.

Change is not progress by itself. If you have an objective, you can progress toward it. Anything else is mere movement. Anything beneficial that comes of mere movement is a mere accident. We seem very willing to take credit for all of the good that this new technology achieves, and to dismiss the bad as unintended consequences that we will soon find ways to mitigate.

Have our objectives improved? Do with dream bigger? Or, are we just living for the next version of the iPhone? Are we more deliberate? More thoughtful? More philosophical? Have we caused God’s grace to abound on the Earth? Sorry — I don’t think so.

I favour vision over change and love over information. I would rather have an epiphany than collect another fact. Have our hopes become somehow grander or more worth the effort because we have all of these tools? A fool with a tool is still a fool. Just because it is easier now to find and read almost any book we can imagine, do we have time to read them? Do we know more, or do we just have access to more information? I think the latter.

What about understanding? What about wisdom? What about emotional maturity? What about skill, or competence? Are those doubling every twelve hours? Google me that.

If the discord on the Internet tells us anything it is that facts are only facts in the eye of the beholder. Information is a collection of ones and zeros that can be stored, managed and retrieved — intrinsically, mere information is neither true nor good nor useful.

If anything, contradiction and argument are abounding, alternative facts are spreading, conflict and bullying are proliferating, opinion is being elevated. Knowledge, study, deep understanding and contemplation may be losing their relevance.

Look at politics. If facts were as real as bricks, and logic was infallible, wouldn’t the Internet have produced a whole bunch of people with the same opinions? Or, more people with better ideas? Or, better ideas? Has it? Don’t believe the hype.

Face this. The data is just going to keep coming, and the information is just going to pile up. Is knowledge going to increase? I think knowledge is more than an accumulation of facts that can easily be negated. True knowledge is a distillation of things, a synthesis. In physics, the holy grail is not an abundance of theories or a doubling of data. The holy grail is a so-called unified theory. How can a people that values the wrong things ever accomplish great things?

Knowledge cannot exist without a knower. Computers do not know things. Not yet. To store or to collect is not to know. Aggregation does not constitute amelioration by itself. Can I say this enough? Can I say it in more ways? Improvement is harder to achieve than change — we are good at change.

If the Internet demonstrates anything, it seems that we only THINK we value knowledge. In practice, most of us prefer feelings and opinions. And, many of us are fooling ourselves that we know the difference between a feeling and fact. That’s what I see.

Is foolishness doubling instead of knowledge? No, I think there is the same amount of foolishness in the world per capita as there ever was, but the evidence of it is easier to find and we are more able share it with each passing day.

Not all knowledge is useful. Not all facts are true. Not all of our logic is logical, and when it is, it’s often used to support the opinions and feelings that preceded them. Until we become better thinkers, all of us, nothing is going to double or increase in this world other than the number of people, the number of bits, and the depth and complexity of our useless shithole of so-called information. (That’s perhaps too strong, but, one has to use strong language in a world that has no appreciation for nuance.)

What do I mean when I say that we should have a more nuanced understanding of the world we are bringing into being? See the bad with the good. Strive for the good, not the bad. Oppose and do not advance what is bad. Ultimately nothing meaningful has increased or doubled until people increase and improve until we have better motives. Don’t hate technology, but don’t believe the hype. Open yours eyes and choose and act well.

What About The Singularity?

I have often wonder if the dirty clothes under my daughter’s bed will come to life and walk out on its own someday. I have the same fear about some of the Tupperware containers in my fridge. One of the big fears we have these days is that bits and bytes, programs and machine’s, are going to somehow come to life and compete with us for dominance of the planet. Let’s watch and see.

When I say ‘we’ in the title of this article, I mean us so-called knowledge workers, but count yourself in if you want. I think we make things. We create tools for people: ways to send messages, ways to stay in touch and to collaborate, ways to evaluate students, ways to share and catalogue knowledge, ways to buy and sell things and to find information. Having provided and constructed these tools, we cannot claim to have achieved anything other than change, not increase. Change is not growth. Quantity is not quality. Movement is not progress. A fool with a tool is still a fool.

The starting point of everything we do — anything of consequence — should be people. What technology is, how much of it there is, or how fast it evolves: that matters less than how many of us can come together, how fast we can evolve and what we do with the technology we build.

As I mentioned earlier, I started to think about some of these things years ago, but I have never had the means to share these ideas the way I do now.

I cannot say that anything has increased just because I wrote this article, but there is a server out there, somewhere, that has accumulated yet another string of ones and zeros. At least I can say that. What happens or does not happen because I wrote this is what determines its worth. You determine its worth, not the server my article is stored on, not the ones and zeros, but human hands in the service of something bigger than ourselves. That has to be our goal.

Originally published at medium.com on October 13, 2018.