Which will determine our future: technology or us?

Will technology influence how we live? Or are we? I believe the wisdom of Marshall McLuhan throughout the 1960s remains applicable today. Our instruments shape us first, and then we shape them. Our worldview was widened by radio and TV. The Internet and mobile gadgets have altered where, when, and how people work. Vehicles like cars and aeroplanes have allowed us to move farther and farther. Although technology opens up many new opportunities, it can also be detrimental. Our air is tainted by transportation. Digital technologies, made possible by electronic gadgets, developed large tech firms and sophisticated surveillance equipment. We'll soon have to contend with the effects of revolutionary technology like AI and Quantum. Nowadays, we frequently feel that technology occurs to us and is beyond our control. However, technology doesn't develop on its own. Humans are the ones who develop the technology. More specifically, a select few individuals take the initiative. They are technophiles, and I count myself among them. I claimed to be among them, at least. I believe I'm a tech optimist going through an identity crisis. At first, I had different views about technology. Meet my sons Ramsey as well as Jordan a couple of years after having children; Jordan, in particular, is this boy with an incredible ability for anything digital. He went physically wild as a baby. At the tender age of two, when he showed me my iPhone. If he had a sluggish connection, he understood how to change WiFi networks. At the tender age of three, he also knew what he intended to do with his life. A famous YouTuber. And if you're a parent with children, you may be able to relate to the issue. You'll have your ice cream after your father takes a photo with your mother. But in any other circumstance, it would have appeared as it does now, and I would have been like a mobile electronics store with iPads, gaming systems, batteries, additional headsets, you name it. And I carried it around. And although though I helped enable this as a mother, I was also extremely concerned. The effects on his eyes are what? Will he soon require glasses? How about his intellect? Are there any games that can be too violent? Does he have sufficient buddies, too? What kind of social skills is he acquiring? I wish to restrict his screen time as his mother and make him play outside as I did as a child. However, I also play another part in my life. in my line of work. As a part-time lecturer at the Delft University of Technology, I work with businesses to accelerate technical innovation. As a specialist in innovation, I view Jordan from a different angle. I recognise his talent and passion for technological advancements and feel compelled to support him in pursuing his goals by nurturing this talent. This placed me in an intriguing situation because, as an expert, I watched with interest how I felt as a mother and thought, "What am I afraid of?" It also inspired study. And I discovered that there has historically been a pattern to how individuals have expressed their concerns about technological advancement. In general, people are afraid of technology. Greek philosophers claimed that writing could harm our brains if we recorded everything because writing was the newest thing. We don't need to retain information. Our knowledge would become rote, and we would become easily forgetful. Go to the printing facility in the future. The upper class feared losing authority over what was being produced when they worried that books might disseminate rebellious and irreligious ideas among the common people. Because people formerly physically gathered to learn about and discuss the news, the introduction of newspapers would be detrimental to the social fabric of society. However, with the newspaper, individuals would read the news alone at home. Cinemas would undermine society's morale. The TV generation will never become proficient readers or writers. And when the World Wide Web came along, we began to see the strangest headlines. The Internet was detrimental in every way. One effect would be that you would skip from article to article without being interested in reading larger pieces, making our knowledge this time more superficial. These represent only a few instances, but we frequently observe arguments of this nature. The most notable ones include diminished cognitive, cognitive and physical ability, loss of social competence, loss of morale, and loss of control. We frequently interpret societal change brought about by technology as a form of loss. Let's examine a case in point. If you had fun playing with Lego when you were younger, you'd likely prefer to see your kids or grandchildren use Lego instead of a computer game like Minecraft. Most individuals immediately point out what you miss when you go to the digital world. 3D understanding and fine motor skills. Children develop new kinds of fine motor abilities and 3D understanding in the digital environment. But if you aren't familiar with those, you often consider them to be of lesser worth. You may not have tried or mastered Minecraft, essentially digital Lego. All kinds of minerals can be mined, and then you can construct any item you want. Furthermore, there are countless options in our digital age. If you compare the two reasonably. It turns out extremely well in Minecraft. Nevertheless, we continue to favour Lego because we tend to select things that we are familiar with, understand, and value. And given that you didn't play video games growing up, you probably have prejudices. Your eyes and your brain will suffer as a result. In the worst-case scenario, you might develop an addiction, isolating yourself from others. What if books were created after video games? did Steven Johnson conceive a thought experiment? So, try to picture a world without books, newspapers, or magazines for a second. You don't read, yet you spend much time playing video games. And everyone around you does it; it's just what everyone does. Books appear out of nowhere, and kids immediately fall in love with them and begin reading voraciously. however, we say. Again, it's a complex multimedia experience that engages all parts of your brain, so chances are we'd say that it's detrimental to your brain. A book is nothing more than words on a page. Because you can explore leadership in games, it's negative for creativity and leadership. In contrast, one way to read a book is by following the plot. Last, it will cause you to become socially isolated since the game you enjoy with others doesn't care if they are nearby or on the other end of the globe. However, a child would spend countless hours reading in their room if they had a book. And this is a fantastic example of how your context affects how you view emerging technologies. And science fiction author Douglas Adams previously provided a masterful summary of what is taking place. He said everything you experienced growing up is a typical aspect of life. nothing brand-new. Anything innovative and exciting that is created between the ages of 15 and 35 is likely to lead to a successful career. Anything created after the age of 35 goes against the way things work. Of course, things are not always thus clear-cut and applicable to everyone. Even after they reach age of 35, technological optimists like me prefer to concentrate on the advantages of new technologies. But now, I can't help but feel more concerned. We use algorithms to determine who is eligible for loans, only to discover afterwards that they unjustly discriminate against particular groups. We allow social media algorithmic filters to determine what we see, which shapes our political opinions. And eventually, we will have AI-driven virtual pals who are so familiar with us that we unthinkingly follow their advice and completely trust them without considering the political or business objectives driving the algorithms that create these friends. preparing for the future and accounting for the rapid advancements in AI. We risk ceding our sense of agency and control, I worry. I assure myself that my anxieties are valid and that the situation differs from earlier ones. We are surrounded by digital technology daily, but we cannot see how they operate. Big tech businesses have complete knowledge of us and control the content we are exposed to. After venture capitalists invest hundreds of millions of dollars in them, pressuring them to swiftly scale and commercialise what they know about their consumers, startups to improve the world quickly shift character. We are being interacted with by generative AI as though it were a human, making us reevaluate what is genuine and what is not. I believe that change is occurring too quickly for us to control its long-term effects. But I am already aware of that. Alvin Toffler described future shock as the fear caused by too much shift in too little time in the 1970 essay. My concerns are historical justifications for opposing technical advancements; I am aware of that. Since I wasn't born with AI, my point of reference definitely shapes how I feel about it and causes me to emphasise what we lose rather than gain. That has me wondering. Am I succumbing to the psychological phenomena I've been studying? Am I just growing older? Does today's reality no longer suit my frame of reference? In all honesty, I have no idea. And my life was straightforward in the past. I propounded new technology, encouraging people to recognise its advantages. I'm currently recalibrating myself to see if I ought to start alerting others to the hazards that lie ahead. But I know one thing: we cannot afford to remain silent while digital technologies advance at a breakneck pace. Technology optimists who work for the tech corporations that change our world emphasise new technology's advantages while severely underestimating its risks and social implications. If we don't take action, tech companies can create and use technology however they see fit without being constrained by moral or societal norms. And although we're still attempting to understand the consequences of AI and determine whether and how to manage it, we must already begin to consider the next revolutionary technology, Quantum. quantum science. Before the technology exits the lab and is extensively used, we can consider the ethical, legal, and societal implications, much like with quantum computers. But this is challenging. It's comparable to the development of the laser. Assume for an instant that it is 1960; Ted Maiman has just finished building the first functional laser in his laboratory, a large, unwieldy device with a weak signal susceptible to noise. And at that time, everyone is already speculating about how, decades from now, we'll be able to utilise lasers to slice through metal, print data on paper, perform eye surgeries, scan barcodes in stores, and even use them as entertainment at dance parties. It is so improbable as to be science fiction. We must nonetheless make an effort since Quantum is a game-changing technology that will influence the future. Just how, when, where, and through which uses are yet unclear to us. To comprehend its societal significance, we must imagine these potential uses in the future. We must comprehend the positive and negative effects to create the world we wish to live in. Today, we need to launch a significant public discussion. And I'm fortunate to play a part in this in the Netherlands, considering Quantum's influence. But you should all be involved in it because we need individuals from various socioeconomic classes, religious backgrounds, and cultural backgrounds. We need individuals with diverse moral principles and worldviews and those who distrust technology just as much as those who do. We don't merely have the future happen to us. We shape technology, and then our future is shaped by technology. And I'm looking for individuals who wish to consider this Quantum future. So, I invite you to work with me to better our future.