Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration AI AI and Posthumanism Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression Archive Archiving artificial intelligence Augmenting Reflexivity automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings creativity Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative digital education futures Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital labour Digital Media and Information Literacy Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities Dying world elites Emerging tech in education Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI Generative AI for Academics higher education Interested Lacan Listening LLMs LLMs and Human Agency LLMs and Organisations LLMs and Psychopathology margaret archer music Ontology of emerging technologies Organising Philosophy Philosophy of Technology Platform and agency platform capitalism platform university poetry politics Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy public engagement public sociology Reading reflexivity sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics Social media in higher education social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized writing

Machine learning and authoritarianism

On pg 258-259 of her Don’t Be Evil, Rana Foroohar poses a question which will become more urgent with each passing year, binding political economy and digital governance together in a way which will define the fabric of social life:

Is digital innovation best suited to an environment of decentralization, in which many firms in the private sector working under smart regulation and within a truly free marketplace are allowed to compete? Or is the best model for the future one of centralization, in which a top-down surveillance state can collect all the data it wants, and allow the companies that it has handpicked to do with it what they like?

What I find worrying is the obvious contingent compatibility between machine learning and authoritarianism. The geometric increase in the value of big data rewards centralisation, the realisation of this value depends on freedom from constraint and its impact is to empower the data-rich actors in a whole range of social, economic and political ways. As she writes later on pg 259:

Still, even if the United States were moving faster on 5G, many believe that it will be easier for a surveillance state such as China to own and harness the data that will be transferred via the 5G chips that will exist in all sorts of products from tires to tennis shoes to fetal heart monitors. That would, in turn, allow Beijing to harness the productivity benefit from such data more quickly. The key idea behind this thinking is that we’ve left the “innovation” stage of artificial intelligence use, and the only thing that matters is the data—whoever can get the most of it, wins.