Hello, internet. I am making one of
those videos where you sit in a chair
and directly address the camera about a
serious subject. I know it's not in my
wheelhouse, and there are people who do
this way better. And in fact, that's the
reason I'm making this video is that
something happened last week that I
really wanted to see people make this
kind of video about, and nobody did. So,
I'm hoping that I can generate some
attention for it and some interest in
this topic so that people will cover it.
Specifically, there was these clips that
were sent around last week. It was Eric
Schmidt, the ex-CEO of Google, giving a
commencement speech at the University of
Arizona. And this did get some coverage
the second half of the speech. He says
some things about AI that are clearly
supposed to be like positive, uplifting,
like applause lines or that kind of
thing, but actually he just gets booed
the entire time. uh and the students
clearly don't like what he's saying.
This was part of a trend of commencement
speakers mentioning AI and getting
booed. And that was kind of the end of
the news story about this.
But in the first half of that
commencement speech, which I went and
watched the whole thing, he actually
says a bunch of things that I think are
really important for us to look at.
They're in a way very troubling, I
think. At least they were to me. And so
I'd really like people to talk about it
and I'd like to hear what people have to
say to see if they think the same thing
as I do. So here is a clip from that
first half. Give it a look. We believed
that connecting every human being on
Earth to each other. And I really
believe this and all of the world's
information would be an unambiguous
good. We believe that it would
democratize knowledge, lift people out
of poverty, and make us wiser and kinder
and more curious about each other. In a
sense, we thought that we were adding
stones to a cathedral of knowledge that
humanity had been constructing for
centuries.
But the world we built
turned out to be more complicated than
we had anticipated.
The same tools that connect us also
isolate us. The same platforms that gave
everyone a voice like you're using now
also degraded the public square. They
rewarded outrage. They amplified our
worst instincts. They coarssened the way
we speak to each other. in that way and
in the way that we treat each other is
in the in the essence of a society. In
the years that after I graduated, no one
sat down and resolved to build a
technology that would polarize
democracies and unsettle a generation of
young people. That was not our plan, but
it happened. So, the thing that struck
me about this was that Eric Schmidt is
basically talking about all of the
positive possibilities of the internet,
like connecting all the people together
and providing them access to the world's
information, all these really good
things. He's talking about all of that
in like an active way. He's saying like
that's what we set out to build. And I
guess by implication kind of that is
what we built, right? And the weird part
is then he acknowledges all of these
very bad things that happened like the
fraying of democracy, uh the degrading
of the public square, the alienation of
youth, like all of these very bad things
that we all kind of now acknowledge have
happened in the last 10 to 20 years.
And somehow all of a sudden the tone
becomes completely passive.
He doesn't say, "We built this stuff and
then it turned out to do these really
bad things. That was our fault." Or,
"What a horrible mistake we made." Or,
"Here's how we failed." Right?
It's just completely passive. He says
all these bad things. We didn't set out
to do it, but it happened. Completely
passive. It happened. That's it.
And
you know, I can kind of see
that there are people in computing
history who could say things like that.
I mean, if Steve Waznjak wants to
complain about what Apple Computer is
doing in terms of maybe closed
ecosystems or something like that, and
he goes on a podcast and he says, "You
know, when I was building those first
Apple computers in my garage, I never
intended for anyone to turn it into a
company that was going to restrict your
access to computing or control what you
did on your device."
I mean, it would sound so genuine. It's
so true. It's it is what happened and
you could understand his perspective.
You know exactly what he's feeling and
what he's saying there and it's not his
fault. I would never consider those
things to be his fault. Right?
But Eric Schmidt,
the CEO of Google and in other executive
roles there from like 2001 to like 2017,
the very period when like the dark
patterns of internet business were
developed and entrenched in how the
industry worked.
led by his company like Google the place
that made advertising and data
collection and manipulating what people
did and all this sort of AB testing
everything that whole thing was like
their science that's what they were
building literally that thing
for him to come out and and like cosplay
as Steve Waznjak right basically he's
he's sort of like Tim Robinson in the
hot dog outfit
looking around going, I'm still trying
to find the guy who did this, right? To
have him say that,
it just it doesn't make any sense. But
then when I thought about it, I was
like, "Oh, I guess it does make some
sense." Because if you were there and
you were one of the primary decision
makers who'd said, "We're going to do
the business model this way and kept
following the money down every dark path
that it implied for the technological
landscape.
Unless you want to sort of accept that
you are the villain,
you have to have some kind of a mental
process for excusing yourself from the
results, right?
You have to have some way of isolating.
And I guess this is how in Eric
Schmidt's mind, he didn't build the dark
part of the internet. It just kind of
happened as an outgrowth of what was
otherwise a noble pursuit of a strictly
good thing.
And you can see him say this very
specifically.
He even describes it as the same tool.
The same tool that is used for positive
X is used for negative Y is the mental
framework he used and what he said in
the speech.
So to him it's as if he only presided
over the construction of the tool part.
He only was responsible for Google the
search engine. He wasn't responsible for
Google the advertising company, Google
the data collection company, Google the
behavioral modification, AB testing,
whatever you want to call all of that
dark pattern layer. Somehow he just
built a search engine and wow, look at
all the crazy terrible things that
started to happen downwind of that.
It's just really strange, but I guess it
makes a lot of sense.
And with that in mind, right, like if
you take that perspective,
the part of the speech, the second part
of the speech where the students were
booing much more actively and that were
they were booing about AI specifically,
it now takes on a very different tone
really. Uh go take a look at like a clip
from it now just because, you know, just
to refresh your memory of what was in
there. You probably already saw it, but
here's an example from the second half
of that lecture and the kinds of things
that Eric Schmidt was saying.
>> My hope is that you will choose to
engage anyway, that you'll choose to be
in the room where these decisions take
place and to have a voice in how they're
made. When you are in that room, bring
something with you. Bring the values
that make us human in the first place.
The technology on its own is just a
tool. It will optimize for what we tell
it to optimize for. But somebody has to
decide. And in your lifetime, that
somebody is going to be you. So choose
freedom.
Choose open debates and the slow, often
messy, but beautiful project of learning
to live alongside people with whom you
disagree.
Choose equality.
Choose a diversity of perspectives,
including, let me add, and if you if
you'd let me make this point, please.
So, when you combined the first and
second halves of this commencement
speech, hopefully you can now see why I
really want people to talk more about
this because it's not just a case of
somebody getting up and saying some AI
punchlines and they get booed because
people hate AI. I think there's
something much more twisted going on
here.
This is a case where someone who had
direct decision-making authority during
the time period when the very worst most
dystopian parts of the technology
business model were developed, perfected
and entrenched.
And he is giving this commencement
speech to a group of students who have
known nothing but that their whole
lives. They're not like me. They didn't
know a time before all of this. They
didn't experience technology in the 80s
or something like this.
So all they know is the dark pattern
version. All they know is the one where
they don't own anything and their data
is kept by other people and their
behavior is tracked and their data is
sold and they are targeted for
advertising. That's what they know about
technology. That's what technology is
like for them and only that.
And Eric Schmidt, one of the primary
architects,
is now looking them in the eye with a
straight face and saying, "You should be
enthusiastic
about the next new wave of technology.
You should want to be in the room and
make decisions about how that new
technology will go. And you should bring
your humanity with you and your good
judgment about how we can do things in a
way that will benefit all of us and be
good for all of us.
Well, yeah,
but why didn't Eric Schmidt do any of
that? He just said in the first part of
the commencement speech that there were
all these really bad things that
happened on his watch
and he was in the rooms the entire time.
He was in one of the most important
rooms where these decisions were being
made and he either didn't or didn't want
to or couldn't
stop any of that from happening.
So if he wanted to pass on something
valuable to these students, well that
would have been the thing. It would have
been the introspection of what went
wrong. Why did he fail? Why did he say
okay to building this very bad aspect of
technology on top of the useful tool?
The parts that we all think are actually
good. Why didn't he stop that top part?
Why doesn't he take some responsibility
for it? Why doesn't he see
that the thing that people are afraid of
with artificial intelligence is not just
technology in the abstract.
It's that they saw what Eric Schmidt and
his cohort of Silicon Valley decision
makers did the last time they were given
a new technology
to guide.
They saw them build the dark pattern
version of it. They lived it and now
they are terrified
that they're going to do the same dark
pattern thing on top of the next new
technology that AI will go exactly the
same way.
And what do you have to show them to try
to convince them that you're not going
to do that? Do you show up with an
apology for what happened? Do you show
up with an acknowledgment of your
culpability there? Do you show up with
any advice about how to avoid it?
Nothing.
Just the passive voice.
But it happened.
That's it.
So, I really hope that people who are
better at making this kind of video than
I am will dig into this more and make a
bigger deal out of it because it can't
be right that this is the kind of thing
that is being said by the people who
were responsible for the newly dystopian
aspects of technology. It didn't just
happen because the tool was let loose on
the public and it just happened.
People built the bad parts of it. They
did that.
And we have to have some acknowledgement
about that and some introspection
because if we don't want it to go the
same way again with artificial
intelligence as it did with the
internet,
we'd better figure out both why it
happened and how to convince the next
Eric Schmidtz of the world and the
current Eric Schmidt for that matter
because he still has influence in
Silicon Valley and Washington DC
that their decisions led to this and we
need to do better next time.