Being Locked-In To Bad Software
I’m a techie, but I like how Jaron Lanier, the virtual-reality pioneer describes himself as a “techie-philosopher”. It more accurately captures my relationship with technology.
Some of Lanier’s ideas were referenced in a 2010 Zadie Smith essay I read, titled “Generation Why” in the New York Review of Books. It talks about the generation that built, and became the first users of, culture-defining tools like Facebook. I am that generation; Zuckerberg and I are the same age.
Two things that made me reflect:
1) She says, of the way that her generation and younger ones text differently:
‘For me, text messaging is simply a new medium for an old form of communication: I write to my friends in heavily punctuated, fully-expressive, standard English sentences—and they write back to me in the same way. Text-speak is unknown between us. Our relationship with the English language predates our relationship with our phones.’
That last line underpins many of my generation’s behaviors and choices as well. While I certainly engage in, and enjoy text-speak, especially with my younger friends, cousins, my niece, there’s something to be said about being the last generation to have meaningful memories of a time without the internet.
To have relationships with things that predate our relationship with technology.
For me: my relationship with books, nature, humans, writing, play, school pre-date my relationship with tech, or my work and identity as a computer scientist. As do my ideas about what being social looks like, where joy comes from, and what a friend is. These ideas have evolved as I have, over the years, but the foundational stuff stays relevant.
This is a strength when building software—it leads to a desire and a knack for imbuing tools with depth, nuance and flexibility.
2) Smith writes: ‘Lanier wants us to be attentive to the software into which we are “locked in”. Is it really fulfilling our needs? Or are we reducing the needs we feel in order to convince ourselves that the software isn’t limited? As Lanier argues: “Different media designs stimulate different potentials in human nature”.
This is a crucial motivation for how I think about building technology. In my current startup, we are reimagining the future of work, with that lens.
The observation is that our workflows are often clunky, tiresome, repetitive, overwhelming and a drag because they are not thoughtfully-designed. Each new tool wants to lock us in instead of make work easier, more efficient, and more enjoyable. Our choices are: bloated tools that give us everything-under-the-sun options, or context-less tools with generic options. None of these tools build global or long-term intelligence about who I am, my work, and needs.
On top of that, context-switching is a productivity killer. Between my 16 essential daily work apps (yes, I counted) and 30+ almost-daily apps—my technology stack—I hop between dozens of apps and hundreds of browser tabs. Every time, I switch contexts, sign-ins, screens. I reorient myself, even if reflexly. Most of these tools do not work well together. Integrations are clunky and provide very limited functionality. Managing work has become the work.
There is a better way. The danger isn’t that AI and technology will destroy us. It’s that it will drive us insane.
Who would’ve thought reading Zadie Smith over a cup of tea on a snowy Saturday would inspire a post on the shortcomings of current SaaS tools?
