Nurturing the essential social-technological nexus
Written by Pranav Pabba
One of the most interesting distinctions that have developed over the past century is the divide between the social and the technological. We assign roles like “writer” or “engineer.” We divide students into STEM or the humanities — even if a technologist dips their toes into the social sphere, writing and discussing public policy, they are the exception, not the norm.
The unspoken assumption is that we specialize. Society idolizes efficiency, and specialization — as Ford so famously demonstrated — is efficient. And so we dedicate ourselves to cultivating individuals with technological competence, separate from those knowledgeable in the affairs of people.
The problem is that, amid the emergence of increasingly high-impact technologies, there’s
a need for those adept in both fields. We need those who deal with technology to understand the people their technology profoundly affects, and those who deal with people must understand the technology that radically changes human modes of life. To thrive in a rapidly accelerating world, we must form this social-technological nexus to properly develop and manage our relationship with technology.
This is because, in many ways, the world is playing a perilous technological game with little time to act and massive stakes to lose. We only have to look at the spat of recent developments with incredibly negative consequences: Cryptocurrency, social media and biotechnology all metastasized to terrible proportions before authorities stepped in. As a result of these technologies, billions of dollars were lost, millions of people were exposed to misinformation and disease, and criminal syndicates became increasingly empowered to wreak social havoc. Governments, too, realize that technological incompetence is a problem. As a result, we’ve begun attempts at educating social leaders and trying to set clear social standards regarding new technologies, such as the AI Bill of Rights.
WE NEED THOSE WHO DEAL WITH TECHNOLOGTY TO UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLE THEIR TECHNOLOGY PROFOUNDLY AFFECTS, AND THOSE WHO DEAL WITH PEOPLE MUST UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY THAT RADICALLY CHANGES HUMAN MODES OF LIFE.
The issue, however, goes beyond mere regulation — a more significant problem lies in how people go about innovation. Once a technology is introduced, the proliferation of information regarding it becomes incredibly difficult to regulate. How do we restrict malicious misinformation generated by convincingly human AI? How do we prevent the spread of manufacturing methods of 3D-printed weaponized drones? We don’t.
Fundamentally, external regulation of technology from social leaders can only minimize its detrimental effects to a certain degree. More crucial is the inculcation of societal awareness into the technology-development process, directing it in a socially conscious fashion.
And yet, this kind of social awareness within technology is faltering. Yes, investment structures prioritizing social and responsible governance exist. They are also proving to be ineffective. Here is a recent harbinger: Microsoft has made a significant push for the OpenAI board structure to be changed from one whose goal is to ensure that AI “benefits all humanity” into a traditional financially incentivized one. Though there are valid arguments for the switch, its social motivations are still legitimate and critically important in the context of a company that makes groundbreaking AI.
Some say that extrinsic pressures on institutions are sufficient. But history tells us that’s not enough. Private organizations developing leading technologies are the embodiment of the “race-to-the-bottom” dynamic. Current technologists take optimization to the extreme — they pursue one thing to the detriment of all others. These objectives include boosting screen time and maximizing advertisement click rates without considering long-term non- quantifiables like equality, freedom and democracy. And so the question arises: How can we hope to achieve human prosperity if our fundamental values aren’t framed around it?
Theoretically, capitalism achieves precisely that: human prosperity. Advocates argue that with the free operation of private firms, market pressures push production in a socially optimal direction. But this approach has dramatically failed numerous times; unfortunately, capitalism can’t solve everything.
DEPENDING ON HOW WE UTILIZE TECHNOLOGY, WE CAN REALIZE OUR GREATEST VISIONS OR PROPAGATE FAR-FLUNG DEVASTATION.
The ultimate verdict is that social awareness has to happen at the ground level. Scientists, engineers and mathematicians have to be conscious of he societal impact their creations could have. Inevitably, there are a multitude of potential responses. Some might argue that technologists are blind to the faults of their creations. Some might suggest that independent technologists, scattered across the world and diverse in their opinions, could never reach the global consensus required to prevent harmful technologies. Some might even say that it is impossible to be societally conscious under immense pressure and that self-governance by technologists doesn’t work in high-stakes scenarios.
It’s so easy to view technology as a wild, uncontrollable force that spontaneously sweeps across the globe. Yet, we must keep in mind that at the source of every technological advancement, there are humans. Depending on how we utilize technology, we can realize our greatest visions or propagate far-flung devastation. Even when many believe that the responsible management of technology is impossible, we must believe that it is possible — that technology can avoid the negative and harness the positive. To achieve this, we need widespread and intertwined social and technological awareness. We can educate policymakers on the characteristics of new technologies; we can encourage technologists to learn about public policy, societal welfare, ethics and democracy. In other words, don’t let go of the reins. Don’t box yourself into either the social or technological — take the time to explore both. At least that way, you won’t be completely blindsided when ChatGPT-5 takes over the world.
Comments