Better mechanical machines lead to clearly measurable increases in productivity such as the time taken to reach point B from point A or the number of flawless widgets produced per minute (and yes, grilled chicken breast or whatever). More human effort is then redirected to designing, operating and maintaining these machines. This also creates new needs for human ingenuity to come up with systems and means of organization to derive the advantages of such machines.

Information machines, in an obvious state of infancy compared to mechanical machines, are a different ballgame altogether. IMHO we have begun speculating but do not have a sense of their trajectory and impact, especially as they insinuate themselves in ever-smaller sizes into all kinds of mechanical machines. In this case, the discrepancy between increased productivity and more work (or more complexity) is clear.

We just about know how to use machines to crunch numbers and data trends on a scale far beyond human capability, we know how to use such capabilities to help humans collaborate on a global scale but there are huge gaps in our understanding of converting ideas to communication (witness the “improvement” in requirements gathering for a system) and of factoring human behavioral aspects into everything else we do. A typical example is how social engineering incidents always occur despite superior security technologies and control processes.

Perhaps, just like the convergence of computer and communications led to Information Technology, the convergence of information and human thought might lead to a new Idea Technology phase. This may entail new developments in the neurosciences and use of restricted subset languages.

With mechanical machines, the laws of physics seem to clearly indicate the limits of size and speed. With information machines (though their operations are ultimately realized through physical machines and therefore governed by physics) the limits are hazier and border on the philosophical.

More baldly: all human striving is an effort to cut corners/steal bargains/something for nothing from mother nature. It always backfires.

Stuart Kauffman has a good line on this. His complexity-theoretic whimsical laws of thermodynamics are:

1. You cannot win
2. You cannot even break even
3. You cannot quit the game
—
4. The game gets more complex all the time

That idea btw, is in the book… haven’t found time to work on the damn thing for 2 months, thanks to work pressures.

Re: George Foreman… brings up an interesting thought. Just like entropy _can_ be lowered locally, if not globally, there should be lots of such localized examples. My favorite is a little $1 plastic dish scraper that has really paid for itself a thousand times over.

Venkat

I’d modify that statement to say “we end up building technology that allows us to achieve more, where the limits of achievement are our imagination alone”.

People have often commented on the technology productivity illusion, where products that were touted to save us time (starting from the 1950′s onwards with mass-consumer produced household appliances) instead morphed into the overworked, ever-capable and unflappable supermom. One cannot help but feel that, “back then”, they didn’t know any better, thus leading to the unknowingly incorrect claims that technology would save us time and allow us to do less (like the Jetsons).

–
“We are motivated by the delusional picture in Case 1, and we end up creating Case 2.”

Is Case 2 the natural progression of technology’s influence on humankind, or does it arise as a result of our motivation and desire to strive towards Case 1? We’re at the point where we should be able to stare the beast in the eye and realize that Case 1 is not only silly and old-fashioned thinking, but that this motivation is slowly losing it’s power as the model that everybody aims for.

As a lighter counter to the ultrashort diatribe written above, I have to admit that the Foreman Grill truly has saved me time and effort for smaller meals such as chicken breasts, beef and fish steaks. I can safely say that I haven’t attempted to entertain larger parties with the Foreman Grill alone, somewhat countering the idea that combined man (me) + machine (kitchen grill) will aim for loftier grilling achievements.

Bay’s conjecture is simply this: Autonomous machines are more demanding of their operator than non-autonomous machines. Venkat Rao expands on the significance of this conjecture. …

re: nature of work
It is not so much quantity as it is quality/nature. Our job is more and more information transformation (cognitive) rather than physical labor. Both the scope of the job and the value propositions are infinite. We are trying to figure out how to cope with this new world. ‘Information overload’ is a common phrase to describe the lack of effective methods to deal with the new world.

But something else caught my attention – the reference to coffee at the bottom. I have a couple of quick questions. I will give you a coffee if you respond! (private message is just fine – pingali@gmail.com).

1. When and why did you add that link?
2. How many respond?
3. When and why do people actually respond?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I like what I read.

thanks!
Venkata

I am surprised by how superficial and naive the treatment is…