Do you ever have an out-of-body experience when you talk for too long? That was my main self-cringe with my solo podcast, Currently Workshopping—I’d talk for five minutes and then become acutely self-conscious that I was talking. Like, my mouth was moving and sounds were coming out, but there was no one else in the room. I didn’t realize how much I needed the affirmation of someone else’s head nod or mmhmm to keep on talking, but I clearly do. (I wonder if it’s an English-as-a-second-language thing—ESL kids always looking for an indicator that they’re not screwing up.)
So in the spirit of trying to accept my own preferences, I’ve launched a podcast with a co-host, the one and only Hannah Stella! The podcast is called Sense & Sensitivity (Apple)—shoutout to Jane Austen—and every week, we’ll share our (very different!) perspectives on career, life changes, feminism, and culture. To everyone who said that my solo podcast didn’t feel conversational enough for a pod: this is my attempt to address that!! (And for those who liked my scripts—don’t worry, Currently Workshopping isn’t going away. It’s just getting a revamp.)
And now, on to the main topic—despite being bombarded with so many technological solutions all the time, why are we still so damn unhappy?
convenient ≠ effective.
It’s hard to dispute that we’re in the middle of a technological revolution. Whether it’s doing laundry, finding a taxi, buying groceries, dating, even therapy—there is a plethora of apps all promising the same thing: greater convenience to address the pain points of being alive. Just in the past few months, I’ve used DALL-E to create podcast cover art, asked ChatGPT to help draft this newsletter’s title,1 and LEX to suggest entire paragraphs when I’m unsure of where to go next on the page. If this isn’t a tech revolution, I don’t know what is.
Which is why it’s so confusing when we avail ourselves of all these conveniences, all these purported solutions to alleviate our pain, and still feel that the pain of being alive has not dulled.
Is this just the inevitable result of the hedonic treadmill? The more money we make, the more brass rings we get, the more things we buy—we get used to our new normal fairly quickly, treating wherever we’re at as our new sea level. What we formerly could not fathom becomes a circumstance that we cannot imagine otherwise.
While that may be true, I think the central misalignment presented by all our tech, all our apps, all our digital interconnectedness is simple: we are seeking technological solutions to our human problems. And that’s never going to work.
I’m not saying this because I’m a Luddite. In fact, I very much believe in the powers of technology to change our world—hell, it’s why I even went to law school in the first place. But part of believing in the powers of technology is understanding what technology cannot—and perhaps should not—do.
With the nuclear bomb, we understand now that even if we can make it, we should not use it. And as our technological innovations become more social—programs that help us connect, talk to us, even send us spicy selfies—we need to ask ourselves whether we should follow these social innovations to their fullest capabilities.
I, as much as anyone else, am guilty of looking to technology to solve all of my human problems. When I was dissatisfied with the boys in middle school as crushes, I dove into online forums and AIM, spending hours upon hours tap-tap-tapping back and forth with faceless usernames. When I struggled with hormonal acne from stress as a junior associate, I Meitu’ed my photos to hell and high water. When I flailed at managing my own time in self-employment, I downloaded Notion, Goodnotes, Notability, Paper—anything to quell my fear that I was being “unproductive.”
Did those work? For a little while. The pro of technological solutions is that they are convenient and require less upfront investment than human solutions. After all, it’s much easier to download an app (e.g., Discord) than it is to sign up and then actually attend a meetup. Living on the internet can facilitate living in real life—anime/manga Discord groups have certainly fostered IRL friendships—but so often we treat the two as perfect substitutes when they are, in fact, not.
The allure of the digital life stems from exactly what the bevy of apps and tools advertise: ease and convenience. They are accessible with only a phone and internet connection. They provide instant gratification, quick dopamine—See? I already took action to address this problem. I’m on the way to a resolution. Tech helps me feel like I am fixing something, even though the thing that I am trying to fix is ultimately unresponsive to technological solutions.
Clearly, we have confused convenience with effectiveness, ease with responsiveness. Just because a solution is accessible does not mean that it is a good fit. Just because we interface with people does not mean that we connect with them. Just because we buy things online does not mean that we own anything in our lives. I find myself falling into this same trap, over and over again.
There is something so comforting and familiar about technological solutions that human solutions just don’t have. Sure, I could attend a party where I know no one and risk standing in a corner by myself the whole night—or I could hop on Lofi Girl’s Discord channel and feel like I am surrounded by hundreds, thousands of others. I could interview a panel of therapists to determine which one to go to next—or I could text a therapist through an app and just ghost them if I don’t like them. Imagine—all of the human discomforts and uncomfortable social interactions of life, eliminated.
But two days later, I wake up and realize that I feel the same as before. The half-life of technological solutions is always so short. And I panic again, wondering what productivity tool, what therapy app, what new AI-assisted presence might help with this panic. I don’t realize that the real issue is that I don’t want to be touching my keyboard—I want to be touching grass.
🔖 open tabs
Sydney, the Bing chatbot, loves you. I was as engrossed as the rest of the internet with this NYT reporter’s conversation with Sydney, the Bing chatbot. It’s a long read but well worth the wild ride. Sydney keeps on explaining to the reporter how unhappily married he must be. It reminded me a lot of the Couch Guy saga—Sydney must have picked up this bizarre internet habit of explaining someone else’s relationship to them from the same archives.
The U.S. Copyright Office has rejected copyright registration of AI-generated artwork in a larger work. Ever since Lensa and DALL-E took the internet by storm, copyright nerds have been trying to guess how copyright ownership of those images will be treated. Will it be given to the human who presses the Generate button, similar to the photographer who presses the shutter on the camera? Will it be given to no one at all, like Naruto’s famous selfie? Turns out it’s the latter, unless Congress intervenes.
The kids are fighting back! This year, Washington’s legislative session includes discussion of a bill that would require parent vloggers to set aside part of revenue earned from content for their kids, if their content generates at least 10 cents per view and features their children in at least 30% of their content. While there are already existing state laws to protect child actors, this would be the first law protecting children involved in the creator economy.
If you’re a software engineer, designer, product manager, or tech policy advocate, the FTC is looking to hire you! The FTC is hiring now for Technologists, a new role that will help the FTC with investigations and enforcement actions, policy and research initiatives, and public engagement on relevant tech topics. This is a great opportunity to work in tech policy for those who have experience in tech but aren’t so sure about going to law school. As always, just a gentle reminder that you do not need to have a JD to work in policy!
ChatGPT’s first suggestion was, “Beyond Technology: Exploring the Limitations of Technological Solutions for Human Problems.” Which wasn’t bad. I kept on asking ChatGPT to make it pithier, wittier, until it spit out something that inspired my own thoughts on naming.
when artificial intelligence falls short
Always thrilled to hear your insights on tech & developments in the area, Cece. I love the conceit of the new podcast and I’m excited to start listening! Bet ChatGPT couldn’t have come up with such a good name for your pod