AI is an exciting and rapidly evolving technology that has the potential to transform our world in so many ways. But let's be real, AI is not perfect. In fact, there are some limitations to AI that are worth discussing.

First of all, AI is only as good as the data it's trained on. If the training data contains biases or inaccuracies, the AI system will reflect these same biases and inaccuracies in its outputs. This can lead to unfair or incorrect results and decisions, which is definitely a problem.

Another thing about AI is that it just doesn't have that human touch. AI systems can only make decisions based on the data and algorithms provided to them, and can't account for unique or complex situations that often require a human's intuition and creativity. This can sometimes lead to suboptimal outcomes, and let's be honest, we don't want that.

And then there's the issue of transparency. Sometimes, AI algorithms can be difficult to understand or explain, which can be a problem when it comes to making important decisions based on AI outputs. This can be especially concerning when it comes to sensitive issues like employment, criminal justice, or healthcare.

As you reach the threshold of middle age, you begin to question purpose. Your purpose. Our purpose. Or, at least I do, and I am.

David Graeber, in his book Bullshit Jobs, condemns the vast majority of jobs as being useless, as "a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case.”

It’s an incisive analysis of our jobs, and how they contribute to our own self worth.

In my last post I waged an unforgiving, brutal war on the subject-object divide. I apologise for the carnage. I do hope you have recovered.

This divide, for those who don’t know or perhaps couldn’t get through my last post (😭), is a conceptual framework for approaching the world. It is similar and oft-synonomous to the mind-body divide, also known as Cartesianism. As I noted, this conception structures our thought such that we conceive of our consciousness as untouched by physical world; we are viewed as abstract entities who are able to rationally evaluate the world of objects (but these objects in turn do not affect us). Objects are conceptualised as inert - they can be dislocated from their context without effect.

So, in contrast to the subject-divide, I suggested that objects exist with us and our cognition in complicated ways, such that they:

• change our goals

• shape what we do

• can literally be our thoughts

You’re reading DisAssemble, a philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

We are taught that there is a subject and there is an object.

More money = better than. But better at what? Better at everything.

See, if you have that special brand of entrepreneurial get-up-and-go, maybe have the right business connections, or just know how to exploit workers to make your business succeed, you just might be great at everything.

As always, you are reading DisAssemble, a philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products and human-digital interactions.

I want to apologise for the delay in the latest newsletter, which is only now appearing more than 3 months after my last. With the war in Ukraine, I asked myself “does writing about the philosophy of technology with regards to designing new and better technologies matter?” It didn’t feel as though it did, at the time. It felt vacuous, self-indulgent, ineffectual.

I realise it is true, however, that relative to the horror that regularly occurs in much of the world, all philosophising, all musing, can be argued as self-indulgent and inconsequential. Does that mean we shouldn’t do it? When contrasted with direct action, philosophising can feel pointless. But I think that abstract thought, paired with context, can enable action (as I discuss in this newsletter). And action stemming from deep thought about human-technology interactions is perhaps more important than ever, given the extent to which the Ukraine conflict, and indeed many other conflicts, are mediated by - and indeed often driven by - digital technology.

So I know I will continue to write and speak about this topic. I hope you’ll continue to join me. And please let me know your thoughts and feedback (you can reply to this email, or email me: vikram at lightful dot com).

You’re reading DisAssemble, a triweekly philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

Bureaucracies curse me with a special kind of anxiety. A cold well of dread presses down inside my stomach whenever I have to deal with some byzantine telecom, or the government. Filling out paperwork gives me heart palpitations.

It’s not just me, I think. For most, bureaucracies are frustrating, impenetrable and most of all, forcefully categorical. You are in tax category A, or B, you are married, or unmarried, you are a citizen, you are an immigrant. Kafkaesque? Yes, intrinsically. But not merely because bureaucracies are byzantine, but also because they flatten.

You’re reading DisAssemble, a triweeklyish philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

Books and articles about how to design and build technology are always about just that. They’re always geared toward ever-more effective ways to get to get the best business outcomes; that is, make more money.

These texts never question why we build technologies, what technologies mean and do to people, or how we have come to build them the way we that we do. This parochialism is immensely troubling to me, and part of the reason why I started this newsletter.

You’re reading DisAssemble, a triweeklyish philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

I hate the term "CX". It stands for "Customer Experience", in case you don’t know. Even Wikipedia ⬆️ thinks it’s bullshit.

You’re reading DisAssemble, a triweekly philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweeklyish philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

“If you could do anything, what would it be?”

The well-meaning but naive words of the school guidance counsellor. In my secondary school’s ‘Career and Personal Planning’ class these words were presented to me with a certain reverence; they were a talisman that would guide me to success and fulfilment.

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweeklyish philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

A few times in this newsletter, I’ve brought up a term - ‘fluid assemblages’. Sadly, this fascinating concept is not my own, but rather Heather Wiltse and Johan Redström’s, who coined it in their fantastic book Changing Things: The Future of Objects in a Digital World.

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweeklyish philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

I start writing my newsletter. I am certain what I am going to write about. Certain.

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweeklyish philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

Oh this?

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweeklyish philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

"As a UX designer, it will be your job to explore use cases for the technology that the engineers create. The engineers create the AI solutions - you'll help in figuring out how to apply these solutions," the in-house recruiter said to me.

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweeklyish philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

They are apolitical.

Or they think they are. They say they only believe in progress. Progress, for them, is conceived by innovation and birthed by capital.

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweekly philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

I am so afraid of people's words.

Everything they pronounce is so clear

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweekly philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

Whenever I start a project with a client I feel a creeping anxiety.

How can I possibly understand the domain that the client works in? Why would my presence, that of an ignorant interloper, be of any value?

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweekly philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

I recently lapsed in keeping DisAssemble updated (I aim to make it biweekly) because I moved house, and an interview I am conducting for the newsletter is taking longer than usual (but it'll be great when it comes).

You’re reading DisAssemble, a biweekly philosophy of tech newsletter aimed at those interested in creating better digital products.

More than thirty years ago French theorist Jean Baudrillard said that photography was a: