Furniture: Difference between revisions

Furniture (view source)

Revision as of 07:44, 16 September 2023

290 bytes added , 16 September 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 {{Author|Stewart Brand}} has a great expression for the kind of technology that is so good, so effective, that you don’t really think of it as technology: the “invisible present”.
-Technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t ''look'' like technology for very long: ''email''. The Internet. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google. We have moved on. We are looking at [[Neural network|neural networks]], [[AI]], [[distributed ledger]]s, permissionless, decentralised currency exchanges.
+Technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t ''look'' like technology for very long: ''email''. The Internet. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google. We have moved on.
-It looks like ''furniture''.
+It no longer seems innovative. It feels like ''furniture''.
-Things that persistently ''look'' like [[technology]], we call “''bad'' technology”. Hence, there is no such thing as good technology. ''Good'' technology is ''furniture''. Only ''bad'' technology is technology. Hence a [[paradox]]:
+Things that persistently ''look'' like [[technology]] —[[Neural network|neural networks]], [[AI]], [[distributed ledger]]s, permissionless, decentralised currency exchanges — things that seem on the sharp ascent of Gartner’s ludicrous hype cycle — we call “''bad'' technology”.
+Hence, there is no such thing as ''good'' technology. ''Good'' technology is ''furniture''. Only embryonic, still-being-hashed-out, haven’t-worked-out-a-use-case-yet or ''fundamentally disappointing'' technology — all of these categories being in some way ''defective'' — is considered “technology” at all.
+Hence a [[paradox]]:
 :If ''good'' technology ≠ technology