How New Leadership Succeeds In The Digital Age

“As management guru Bill Fischer said recently, “You've got to truly believe deep down that your workers can change, that they're good people when they come to work with good intentions, and that if you leave them alone or provide support or enable them, they'll be able to do more than you'd ever thought. It goes back to an admirable reaffirmation of the belief that the people that we work with are capable of doing much better things than the organization has allowed them to do. And so, it’s about giving up control. It's not abdicating responsibility, but it's setting a direction and stepping out of the way.””

How New Leadership Succeeds In The Digital Age
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2021/03/14/how-new-leadership-succeeds-in-the-digital-age/
via Instapaper

The year of divergence: Wall Street vs Main Street

“This helped exacerbate another divergence: between exuberant Wall Street, where stock indices rebounded from a crash in March to an all-time high, and Main Street, filled with rows of boarded-up businesses. The tech-fuelled stockmarket rally pushed Apple’s market capitalisation above $2trn and allowed Tesla’s market value to overtake one giant carmaking rival after another, ultimately leaving all of them in the dust.”

The year of divergence
https://www.economist.com/business/2020/12/29/the-year-of-divergence
via Instapaper

The Uncanny Valley Vertigo

“We experience vertigo in the uncanny valley because we’ve spent hundreds of thousands of years fine-tuning our nervous systems to read and respond to the subtlest cues in real faces. We perceive when someone’s eyes squint into a smile, or how their face flushes from the cheeks to the forehead, and we also — at least subconsciously — perceive the absence of these organic barometers. Simulations make us feel like we’re engaged with the nonliving, and that’s creepy.”

Some details on 'androrithms'

From my book www.techvshuman.com 

Algorithms vs. Androrithms

I think that being human is largely about those things that we cannot—for the foreseeable future—compute, measure, algorithmically define, simulate, or completely understand. What makes us human, in my view, is not mathematical or even just chemical or biological. It involves those things that are largely unnoticed, unsaid, subconscious, ephemeral, and unobjectifiable. These are the human essences that I like to call androrithms that we absolutely must keep even if they appear to be clumsy, complicated, slow, risky, or inefficient compared to nonbiological systems, computers, and robots.

We should not attempt to mend or upgrade, or otherwise eradicate what makes us human; rather, we should design technology to know and respect these differences—and protect them. Unfortunately, the slow but systematic reduction or even discarding of androrithms has already started all around us. For example, social networks allow us to create our own profiles as we see fit, and revel in our fabricated identities, rather than wrestle with the one we actually have in real life, aka in our meatspace.

The brilliant—if somewhat politically derailed —German philosopher Martin Heidegger stated in his book Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) that “a human being is the only entity which in its existence has this very Being as an issue.” The German word dasein (being there) really describes it best.

Dasein speaks to the core of the difference between (wo)man and machine and is an important theme throughout this book: It is the sentient being that is at the core of our human desires—the mind, the spirit, or the soul, that elusive part of us that we cannot seem to define or even locate, but that nevertheless runs our lives. 

 



My definition of Androrithms

This is a key neologism in my Technology vs Humanity  book (i.e. it's a word I made up). I like to use the term in order describe what really matters for most of us: human ‘rhythms’ not machine rhythms i.e. algorithms. A super-computer can win in chess or GO but can't talk to a 2-year old. A person that I meet somewhere needs an average of 0.4 seconds to gain some kind of basic understanding about me, even without speaking – yet a computer still does not really understand my values and feelings after it has ingested my entire browsing and social network history of the past 7 years (an estimated 200 Million data points).  Just try this IBM personality insight test:)

Androrithms include human-only traits such as empathy, compassion, creativity, story-telling and soon to be relicts (?) such as mystery, serendipity, mistakes and secrets.  “Computers are stupid – they only provide answers” (Picasso)  Computers are for answers, humans are for questions (Kevin Kelly). As I like to say: for every amazing algorithm we need to strengthen our already existing androrithm.  Every technological advancement impacts on how we interact as humans, and in many future cases we will need to safeguard, hedge or kind of ‘national-parkize’ those human idiosyncrasies so that they are not diminished or even eradicated by the tendency of technology to present itself as a solution to everything. (A great example would be how people are increasingly looking towards technology to solve social challenges: political activism on Facebook (press Like rather than making sure the right people get voted), or on increasing security and digital surveillance to ‘solve’ terrorism)