diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | posts/curse-of-convenience.njk | 118 |
1 files changed, 118 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/posts/curse-of-convenience.njk b/posts/curse-of-convenience.njk new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b15291a --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/curse-of-convenience.njk @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +--- +layout: post.njk +title: The Curse of Convenience +tags: post +date: 2024-03-12 +--- +<h4>From food to software, convenience has a cost</h4> +<p>Food production has been made invisible to us in modern society. We +buy ingredients from the supermarket, where fruits and veggies have +magically showed up. This adds a lot of convenience to our lives, we do +not have to concern ourselves with how things are made. We get to buy +them anywhere and anytime, whatever types of food we want regardless of +whether they are in season or not.</p> +<p>This is all well and good, with our ever-growing busy schedules and +things we need to do. Not having another item that we need to care about +is great. We can now focus more on the other things that happen in our +life.</p> +<p>However, this has consequences. We do not see how food products are +made, how the farmers who produced them are treated, how the animals are +treated, how monoculture destroys land, how importing food half across +the world impacts the environment and how toxins make their way into the +consumables that we eat.</p> +<p>Our lack of knowledge enables companies to get away with neglect and +abusive practices. The other day I learned that many of Europe’s +supermarket canned tomatoes are actually produced by <a +href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ordThf9eDMA">the Italian mafia +using modern slave labour</a>. My girlfriend has brought to my attention +the potential consequences of convenience, and now we buy more local +non-processed food, directly from farmers if possible.</p> +<p>The supermarket often <em>hides</em> from us the complexity and +impact that goes into growing and making food, and what we gain is +convenience and accessibility. However, without understanding where that +food comes from or its impact, we cannot meaningfully make ethical nor +healthy choices, we cannot understand how what we buy will affect our +own bodies or the lives of others. In that sense, convenience and the +abstractions hurt not only us, but the world around us.</p> +<p>As a software engineer who studied UX design, for a long time my +mindset has been: the user should not need to learn anything to use what +I build, I should not make the user think too much. We are told that +users tend to like these tools, tools that get out of the way and allow +them to be “lazy”. New tools these days strive for ease of use and +accessibility. They are scoped down to the essentials; they hide details +and create whichever metaphors, false or not, that make it easy to learn +and use what we build.</p> +<p>But metaphors are important, and so I will digress briefly to address +the use of metaphors within the mindset of convenience and +ease-of-use.</p> +<p>Metaphors serve as a way for us to quickly understand how the world +functions, by relating it to concepts that we already understand. Files +and folders, internet as a web, email as mail. Just by name, metaphors +allow us to quickly grasp advanced concepts. However, today’s metaphors +of LLMs as chat assistants convey to many that they are almost sentient. +This is not so strange, when we use metaphors like “Siri” or terms like +“hallucinate”. Metaphors turn into extended metaphors, and become +disconnected and incoherent, to the point of being misleading. Easier to +understand? Yes, but at what cost? Even in tech literate circles, I see +people seriously arguing that since LLMs learn like a human (false), +LLMs should have the same fair use laws as us. These broken metaphors +can end up having profound impacts of our lives. Seeing LLMs as +stochastic parrot vs sentient superhumans makes a huge difference for +how we want it regulated and how we interact with it.</p> +<p>This focus on convenience, ease-of-learning and ease-of-use, is in +many ways a great leap forward in the way we build software. These days +we do not need to decode cryptic error messages or read manuals when +using software. Software is so simple that even a toddler can pick up an +iPhone and use it. Systems are abstracted away: the user does not need +to understand how code works, where their data is stored, who gets to +look at the data they provide, the effort that went into building the +product and the cost of running it. Most people probably do not realize +how software is built on the <a href="https://xkcd.com/2347/">shoulder +of giants</a>, or rather, on the shoulder of a lone open source +developer who barely gets paid.</p> +<p>And then, what is a benefit in the short term, lends itself to a +crisis for the user and society in the long run. The <a +href="https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/ai-internet-carbon-footprint/">environmental +footprint of the web is now on par with the aviation industry</a>, AI +companies have <a +href="https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/">horrifying +working conditions for the people moderating data sets used by LLMs</a>. +With the insane compute costs of LLMs, I see the environmental +footprints only becoming worse. Today, we are offered so many services +for free, without really understanding or needing to care about the +hidden costs. We can upload videos to YouTube, we can upload reels and +photos to Instagram, all without paying anything. We get feeds of +content that are generated for us, that we spend an unhealthy amount +watching without really knowing what it will do <a +href="https://theoxfordblue.co.uk/tiktok-and-the-death-of-the-attention-span/">to +our attention spans</a> in the long run. Everything is abstracted away, +appearing to be almost magical. It encourages us to be wasteful and has +unknown health effects.</p> +<p>Now, we are starting to see studies indicating that <a +href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/11/16/todays-kids-may-be-digital-natives-new-study-shows-they-arent-close-being-computer-literate/">tech +literacy is dropping in the younger generations</a>. Lowered tech +literacy means that users are less empowered to question and change +status quo of the web. Without users understanding what is happening in +their computers, how systems work, where their data goes, users can not +meaningfully discern the costs of their actions- nor are they empowered +to seek out alternatives.</p> +<p>This should all signal that we need to change the ways that we build +software. The goal can not be to simplify endlessly, but to instead +sometimes go through the effort of teaching and informing the user of +what is going on.</p> +<p>My message is not that we should ignore accessibility or ease-of-use. +What I want us to do is exercise caution. Maybe instead of simplifying, +let’s try to encourage interest in how things work, let’s allow users to +poke around into the source code. Let’s talk about the importance of +performant software, so that users do not just blame hardware. Let’s +enable users to seek alternatives and exercise digital agency through +discussion of laws like Digital Markets act and GDPR.</p> +<p>Yes, software should be easy-to-use and accessible, but not if it +means that we disempower users and if our practices are unsustainable. +We need to promulgate simple and performant software, that is +transparent of its impact and empowers users with agency. I brought up +the example of agriculture in the beginning, because I think the +software industry is making the same mistake as that industry and we can +learn from them. Convenience should not be the end goal; it should be +empowerment, community and sustainability for users and society at +large.</p> |