Utility and Futility
Of data mining, mindhunting and lavish living
Dumping close to 500 gb of data led me to the question: if all of the digital discards had a physical presence in terms of dimensions like weight, height and volume, then the Earth would have been submerged a few years back. There is the mythological concept of ‘pralaya’ or apocalypse. Will collective data dumping cause the next pralaya? But, I digress …
Dumping my data also led me to think: if I’m finding my own data so worthless after such a short period of time, what value do data owners led by the likes of FAANG find in endlessly storing the data generated by billions of people?
FAANG has since become MAAMA, since Facebook & Google decided to rechristen themselves, Netflix is not what it used to be and Microsoft catapulted from a has-been OG to a piping hot Big Tech stock. The fact that this acronym itself has undergone a change in a short period of time is an indicator of the ephemeral nature of digital.
While the utility, and the outcome in the form of commerce and revenues, of data for them is obvious, do they ever wonder about the futility of data ownership beyond a point? Do they realise (I am sure they do, it’s more a philosophical rant) the transient nature of owning data? Do they realise that what’s true today of an individual is not necessarily true tomorrow. Choices change. Preferences change. Outlooks change. Perceptions change. Yes, the machines are learning really fast these days. Yes, they will adapt to newer and newer inputs at short notice to keep pace with changing preferences and choices and outlooks and perceptions because of the all-pervasiveness of algorithms that are the lifeline of everything tech. Yes, we have massive advances being seen in the area of AI. Yes, we have the case of a Google engineer who was fired for calling his AI system sentient. Yes, we have also heard of two AI chatbots fighting with each other in a language that they developed on their own – and though that turned out to be untrue, that day is not too far. Yes, we now have so much editorial ink being spilt on the good, bad, ugly, future, pros, cons, uses, misuses, etc etc of ChatGPT that Wired magazine came up with a ChatGPT special issue! As Ryan Reynolds says in the ad below - it is mildly terrifying, but compelling.
To everything that seemed to be improbable for technology to achieve not so long ago, the answer is increasingly becoming a resounding ‘yes’.
And yet …
In spite of all the progress, and it may be naïve on my part to think thus, I truly believe that technology will always play catch-up with the way the human mind and brain works. I am not getting into the genetics and the biochemistry and the neurology of the argument since I am not qualified. The reason I say that technology will always play catch-up is because there is always that H(human)-Factor that makes us a tad bit superior to the most intelligent robots. Call me old school, but I am a believer in the H-Factor. And when I see even the most technologically advanced corporations ultimately depend on the human angle, it only reaffirms my belief. I was watching a segment about the Sandvik factory that makes carbide inserts – don’t ask me why I was watching it and don’t ask me the specifics of what they are and how they are used, but they are seemingly very important.
You can drag the slider straight to minute 5 of the above video if you find the first five minutes boring.
The entire process is automated end to (almost) end. ‘Almost-end’ because the most critical aspect of thoroughly checking the carbide insert tips is done by human hands and eyes. The engineers at Sandvik realise that in spite of Industry 4.0, nothing can beat the keen eye of a human – not even the best of robots that work ceaselessly, tirelessly and precisely, 24x7.
Even in our everyday lives, how many times have we heard that a picture captured with the best and the most powerful of lenses still doesn’t come close to the glory that the human eye is able to capture? Why is it that the highest grade retina displays and the best of printing technology still fail to accurately replicate the myriad colours, shades, sheen, glitter, glow of various species of flora and fauna exactly?
Or take the case of self-driving cars - I am yet to come to terms with the very concept of a self-driving car, but let’s leave my personal bias aside for the moment – which seem to be in a perpetual state of beta testing. For those who were unable to read the article in the above link for subscription reasons, the headline of the article says it all.
And this clip below will give you the laughs.
To me therein lies the futility behind the blind advocacy of the utility of data and technology. And for me therein lies the inherent superiority of the H-Factor. The fact is that algorithms need to be constantly altered to keep pace with the ever changing nature of billions of people. Operative words being ‘keep pace’. They are not exactly able to predict or predetermine how exactly humans will behave all the time. They can only influence or steer humans towards something they want to fulfil business interests for the short term before humans move on to the next. The H-Factor is the reason that the slightest of finishing issues in the carbide inserts are spotted by the keen human eye in Sandvik. It is the H-Factor of teachers and professors that has, in a short span of time, been able to figure out when a student has used ChatGPT to churn out an essay. And it is the H-Factor that consistently comes up with creative solutions within brand constraints that make the brand’s message appealing (And just by the way, hasn’t advertising as we have always known it been about operating under constraints? ). It is the H-Factor that is able to vividly experience the universe that no metaverse will ever be able to replicate. And needless to say, even a base level proficiency of hand-eye-memory coordination ensures that we don’t drive down a dead end street everyday!
Isn’t it obvious in the fact that we have labelled it Artificial Intelligence? That is what it is - artificial. It is manufactured. It is acquired over a period of time by scouring through billions and trillions of bytes of data that someone has had to develop software for to be able to do that. It is a world of black and white, of one’s and zero’s. Whereas the natural world is in a myriad of colours, and all the in-between’s among the one’s and zero’s. And probably the reason why natural invariably outscores artificial is because the H-Factor is able to differentiate. It is able to create (and spot) the nuances. It is able to, on its own, always find a way. Haven’t we learnt since we were kids that natural is always better than artificial?
Why then these doomsday scenario discussions on how technology, data and their ilk are going to upend lives beyond recognition? I find it mildly amusing, and compelling (couldn’t resist that :-)), that there are discussions on how technology is sounding the death knell for various professions. Haven’t these arguments been heard since the first Industrial Revolution? We are already well into Industry 4.0, and from a layman’s point of view (like mine), mankind seems to be thriving. Thriving to an extent that we have just added another billion to the global headcount in a short span of a couple of decades. Per me as long as we learn to adopt, adapt and deploy our H-Factor, i.e. where the softer, intangible faculties of humans far exceed the harder, tangible capabilities of technology, we should be in a good space where AI, ML and any other fancy acronyms that may come up, and the H-Factor can all coexist peacefully. And what is the H-Factor but the inherent superiority of the human neural network, aka our brain. It is way more superior than what we are currently crediting it for. Not for nothing did Hercule Poirot unfailingly remind anyone who cared to listen …
“It’s the brain, the little grey cells, that one must rely on.”
Be braver. Be kinder.
It just so happened that not only did I wrap up two brilliant series recently, it also struck me that both of them are kind of about the topic of utility and futility in very different ways.
Mindhunter is about the utility of having a qualitative database of how the mind of a serial killer operates so as to catch trends early on to prevent new entrants from running amok. At the same time it is also a kind of futile effort as killers continue to find newer and newer ways to unleash terror.
Similar is the case with The White Lotus. While there is an obvious materialistic utility to having obscene amounts of money, there is an inbuilt futility in it as boredom, warped behaviour and pushing the limits of what’s acceptable is inevitable when you don’t know what else to do with it.
Based on a book by the same name, Mindhunter tracks the beginnings of a new division in FBI that specialises in understanding the psyche of serial killers. Innocuously named Behavioural Sciences Unit, it becomes operational by the sheer doggedness of Agent Holden Ford and supported by Agent Bill Tench. Through 19 engrossing episodes over 2 seasons we see the two criss-cross America meeting and interviewing dangerous inmates just so that they can put together a psychological framework of such people so that they can hope to identify patterns in upcoming cases before they spiral out of control. A slow burn series, it requires complete concentration on things unfolding on screen. It’s a case study in script writing where just descriptions of the crimes through dialogues can be more disturbing than abundance of the actual blood and gore of the acts. Three words to describe it - brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.
How does a week in the life of super-rich guests at a super-luxury resort look like? To know more, check in to The White Lotus. It’s a glimpse into the lifestyles of the rich, their inadequacies, their insecurities, their shallowness, their make-believe, and the glossy veneer they put on to hide all of these shortcomings. Each episode is a day in their stay at the property - first in Hawaii and then in Sicily. It’s the sordid nature of the happenings of beautifully shot beautiful people in beautiful locations that keeps you glued. It shows how one short week can completely upend everything in terms of money, relationships and influence that one spends a lifetime carefully crafting a narrative for others to believe in the facade. You could get a sense of deja vu thanks to Zoya Akhtar’s Dil Dhadakne Do which dealt with a similar theme, albeit on a cruise. But then rich-people-problems have a voyeuristic and vicarious pleasure to them that makes for compelling viewing. S2 is better than S1. But it’s essential to watch them in sequence as S1 acts as a foundation for what to expect. Standout act: Jennifer Coolidge, the only common cast in both seasons. The series and she have been Emmy favourites, and rightfully so.
Nice explorations and perspectives, Shantanu, enjoyed reading and introspecting.
Just last week Krish was showing us how ChatGPT works and he was thoroughly enjoying exploring that AI program. Today on the radio they were discussing how 70/80% of students are cheating by using ChatGTP to help them with there homework...Its mind blowing!