Another striking piece Michael. I like to give myself some time to sit with your writing (I’ll usually take a few weeks), before reading your newest material. When I return for the new article or for a re-read, there is always a profound resonance that your words have. Each article is more familiar than the last, putting into language the thoughts that I’ve been struggling to articulate and understand. Remarkably enough, just as I was thinking this, you go on to mention Richard Brautigan’s poem, a personal favorite. Thank you.
replace "machine" with "the church" and you have a formula for religion
"...in their online impression management, were they consciously suppressing or obscuring particular aspects of their personality or activities, which they now feared the machine would disclose, or was their unease itself a product of the purported capacities of the technology? Were they uneasy because they came to suspect that the machine would disclose something about them which they themselves did not know? Or, alternatively, was their unease grounded in the reasonable assumption that they would have no recourse should the technology disqualify them based on opaque automated judgments?"
I thought you wrote Clive Cussler, not Clive Thompson, and I was very, very, very confused...
Another striking piece Michael. I like to give myself some time to sit with your writing (I’ll usually take a few weeks), before reading your newest material. When I return for the new article or for a re-read, there is always a profound resonance that your words have. Each article is more familiar than the last, putting into language the thoughts that I’ve been struggling to articulate and understand. Remarkably enough, just as I was thinking this, you go on to mention Richard Brautigan’s poem, a personal favorite. Thank you.
replace "machine" with "the church" and you have a formula for religion
"...in their online impression management, were they consciously suppressing or obscuring particular aspects of their personality or activities, which they now feared the machine would disclose, or was their unease itself a product of the purported capacities of the technology? Were they uneasy because they came to suspect that the machine would disclose something about them which they themselves did not know? Or, alternatively, was their unease grounded in the reasonable assumption that they would have no recourse should the technology disqualify them based on opaque automated judgments?"
Can we be authemtic? Are all labels other than "human" insignificant?