It was brought to my attention the other day that I am getting heavily flagged on STEMgeeks, which is fine, people can do what they want with their stake, but it raises some interesting questions, because - I don't post on STEMgeeks. I do however use the "Technology" tag for some of my posts that talk about the implications and potential outcomes of various technologies, like this one last night that talks about Deep fakes and the risks of AI on our future. I consider the implications of technology on our experience a vital aspect of the development and advancement of the technology itself and if left unconsidered, the direction of innovation has a higher potential of being harmful to the things we consider important.
As said, this raises some interesting questions. Firstly, the post is being pulled into the STEMgeeks community through a generic tag, to populate a space that I haven't targeted. this is of course part of the model, but it does raise some potential future discussions - with one being reputation and personal branding.
I wouldn't have known I was getting flagged on STEMgeeks.net unless it had been brought to my attention, even though I can see the flag on Hive platforms. But, since I am not putting my posts in there specifically, the flags (warranted or not) do have an effect on those who use the STEMgeeks platform to consume from and can influence opinion of viewers on STEMgeeks as well as other platforms. But, what is it being judged on?
As said, I don't post directly to the STEMgeeks interface, it is automatically pulled in on a generic tag and one that I am quite qualified to use, considering my background experience and employment. For those who don't know, I have my own company training personnel, with most of my clients being manufacturing sector, meaning that we are navigating a changing space due to automation, AI and innovation. I see and discuss the impacts near daily. My second job is with a corporate information management company, where I again train people across global organizations in the automation of their internal information and communication processes, as well as onboarding endusers and other factors - this leads to the next question.
If technology (including scientific, engineering and math) doesn't consider the social implications in regards to how the innovation and change is going to be used and ways it can impact on our lives, what is the goal of the innovation itself? In my opinion, technology should be used to be value-adding to our experience and while there are many ways to approach what value is, the general betterment of our world should be the focus. The problem seems that often, there is a disconnect between the people creating the technology and the implications the tech will have on us, those who are affected by it.
For example, some of the greatest innovation that has affected us over the last few decades is in the field of finance, where the innovation has been able to create a host of new mechanisms for those with access to make more money. So, how is that working out for the 99% currently?
Innovation itself doesn't mean healthy progression and often, it is quite the opposite, as profit is the driving factor, not betterment of society. As a result, a great deal of research funding is spent on innovation in areas that feed our desires, not our health. I believe that with a little more consideration, we would be able to discover a more balanced line of best fit, where not only are there incentives to innovate, but the incentive leans more heavily to the value-adding side. I think that innovations in cleaner energy production and storage would be an illustration of one of these areas, as we aren't likely to reduce our demand on energy quickly, but the current methods are unsustainable for our species.
The last question is more specific to the platforms and Hive itself, as it concerns user experience. Should generic tags be used to pull content into platforms? Of course, there is no issue in doing this per se, but if my content is going to be utilized to populate an interface, as well as the content of my follower base through the comments, but that content isn't suited to the platform in question and is being judged inappropriate in some way, isn't it a type of character assassination?
Should a runner be judged on their ability to sing - when they are singing in the shower and aren't performing for an audience?
Again, I am qualified to speak about technology from a human perspective, its uptake and how it can impact on experience - but I am unlikely going to produce an innovative technology myself. But, the conversation around the technology is very much up for public discussion and should be welcomed. Writers and creatives have been adding to the discussion forever, as there is a life imitating art aspect to it - the dream of flying was held in the imagination before the engineering started to solve the technical aspects of how to do it.
I find the conversation interesting because often the thought behind the design is discounted by those who solve the problem from the technical perspective. I wrote a short post some four years ago called, The architect or the Egg that takes a look at this issue, if you want to have a read, but the gist of it is, that the process of creation is, thought, word, action; and the discussion around the conversation between the art and the technical goes a long way to directing and finding solutions. It is a ramping cycle, where one feeds the other and in turn, the solution opens up more real estate to feed upon again.
What is interesting for the future of interfaces is that they have to find a way to target and cater to an audience, but it isn't always intuitive. For example, the majority of readers of many popular tech and innovation websites aren't technical people themselves, they are tech enthusiasts, like me. I don't want to read about the mathematical solution, I want to know how it applies to and affects my life in the real world - I want to know how my experience is impacted. I do not think that I am alone in this - informed by my experience dealing with people who seem to be far more like me, even though 90% of my private clients have at least their Masters of Science or Engineering.
In some ways, I see it being about buying decisions. For example, when someone is buying a new car, they might look at the technical specifications, but they have no idea how an individual part is made. Not only that, with most cars in a price range being quite similar on specs and features, they end up making the purchase decision on how they think they are going to feel about driving the car. This is why advertising works, as it targets the emotional mind, not the analytical mind, and without that story, too little is sold and all the engineers involved end up looking for work.
There are 4 core steps for most people to make a decision, with each person requiring focus on different areas, depending on their experience and personality - why, what, how and what if - reason, details, process, application. Often, technical people sit in the middle two sections, especially when it is a topic that they know - yet they forget that their audience might need the why and the what if in order to be interested at all. A lot of good ideas are missed, not because people couldn't understand the technical nature, but they had no reason to bother, as they didn't see how it applies to their experience.
How much value is being missed because of a lack of discussion?
With all the interfaces out there, it is going to be interesting how it progresses with mainstreaming and hopefully there will be a lot of both niche content and related crossover content between, which will create bridges between communities and the tokens. I imagine at some point, there will be magazines developed that may for example be on a subscriber model - where the best of Hive is available in an easy to navigate form, pulling the best curated content from many interfaces into a portal. I think that in time, this can create a lot of value for consumers and build the profile of Hive creators, by rewarding value-adding conversations and solutions.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
The discussions on Hive content and distribution are always interesting for me, as they require the consideration of the technology and economics, from the perspective of the community. As I see it, if we are going to make a valuable platform for second-layer applications, investors and consumers - we have to find solutions that meld the three prongs together. Not only this, we have to be able to generate conversations and build a narrative of how Hive delivers value above what the other platforms can offer.