For many years there has been a debate regarding being on “Team Human” or being on “Team Machine”. It is an issue that questions whether we need to stick to doing things the way humans have been acting or have an unfair advantage over others by using and inventing new technology. An article that helped me gain more information over this subject is “Business Does Not Need the Humanities – But Humans Do” by Gianpiero Petriglieri.
The article talks about how a few years ago, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg lost a game of Scrabble to a friend’s teenage daughter. Zuckerberg decided to write a computer program that would look up his letters in the dictionary so that he could see and choose from all the letter combinations before he played a second game with her. After the game, the teenage daughter of Zuckerberg’s friend talked about how“during the game in which [she] was play[ed] the program, everyone around [them] was taking sides: Team Human and Team Machine” (Petriglieri). This brings in the main topic of discussion within the article which is whether the machines are doing more good than harm and if it is really the machines people are rallying against.
image from sysomos.com
An unintended consequence of this assumption of there being teams for humanity and machine is that people believe we are up against the physical machine itself. In actuality, we are up against the people who create them. Petriglieri claims that the truth is there is no “Team Machine.” The contest is always between humans. Some humans havemachines, but those machines are not always a gift. The concerns about what technology will do to humanity cover up the problem of what powerful humans will do to the rest. If there is a “Team Machine,” it is not on the side of machines, instead it is just humans who have machines on their side. The main issue is what the machines do for leaders and to leaders, because soon enough they will be doing it for and to the rest of the population.
The complexity of the fight between people who are against machines and those who are for it, makes people wonder if any solution could be met. A solution proposed to help settle the score in the Scrabble match against the algorithm is to counter the corruption of “consciousness, community, and cosmopolitanism by a blind faith in instrumentality” (Petriglieri). By establishing the case that consciousness is more than a state of mindful composure in the present, there is consideration of the consequences of a person’s work whether that be in a private setting or in a broad space. Countering the belief of some people that a community is not just a tribe that reinforces our performances, it can be said that it is a group of people who are committed to our well-being and learning. Lastly, laying down the groundwork that cosmopolitanism is not an elite identity, introduces an attitude of curiosity regarding what lies beyond the boundaries of our territories, cultures, and faiths.
What is feared in regards to fearing the machines is that the fight might become uneven. We fear the loss of emotions humans have whether that be doubt or the feeling that there is more to humans than being productive, rational, objective, and effective. People fear losing the paradox that comprises humanity. Humans want to live and try to control the future, yet to feel alive they must be free to imagine it. By siding with machines, that paradox and all emotions associated with humans are thrown out the window. People need to keep in mind all of the gains and losses that goes with team machine, rather than think being progressive is always good.
I thought it was interesting how the article referred back to the rise of the assembly line in the early 20th century, then the rise of middle management in modern corporations in the mid-20th century, as previous moments when human beings feared becoming mere cogs in a business machine. In some ways, computers are a new kind of challenge, but in other ways they’re just the latest episode in a much longer story.