Servant's Industry

There is an acknowledgement of the shift from a previous economic base of manufacture and innovation to one of services and personal attention. This has been going on for decades, and is a byproduct of the globalization of trade and business. What it essentially means here in the United States is that workers no longer have a solid employment future at a company that makes goods because of the need for those goods. People are instead increasingly at jobs which perform services for others. These jobs regularly place individuals into lower-status and lower-power positions related to those they service or serve. The categories are huge, from hospitality, caring, and leisure, to financial, education, and sales. These include numerous specific titles: clerk, teller, waitstaff, nurse, consultant, cook, painter, instructor, manager, sitter, mechanic, driver, therapist, technician, and on ad astra. Included are food service, personal assistant/shopper, driver (chauffeur or taxi), host, and performer. Here "performer" includes not only actor, artist, athlete/competitor, or musician, but also buskers, content creators (YouTube or otherwise), and sex workers. This last group is no longer restricted to in-person services or pre-recorded videos, but nowadays includes "camera models" who can interact with online audiences through chat features. It is also this last group which I think best illustrates the issues I find with this trend. It is not about the commonplace argument about loss of talent, as I think many individuals could be incentivized into a manufacture trade if that were necessary. After all, all the folks in these jobs are skilled, often talented, and intelligent workers. It is actually about status and power, the ability of professionals to maintain autonomy and pursue advancement, and an overall stability for the economy.

In many ways, the move to "independent contractors" was not driven by employees seeking to expand their freedom and escape the confines of employers, but was a move on the part of employers to escape the confines of legal requirements around employment. Rather than pay one full-time person a guaranteed wage and minimum hours, providing benefits like holidays (or other paid time off) and medical insurance, it turns out to be cheaper to pay just a wage more workers to do the same work in a part-time capacity without all the other requirements. This has lead to not only a decrease in the number of individuals who can afford to live, but an increase in the costs to communities as those workers must find public services to offset the lost benefits. Similarly, the supposed "disruptive technologies" around sharing apps are advertised as an 'opportunity' for workers; they end up being just another way for the few to exploit the many. Much of this is what has been called the "gig economy", where a worker will not have a single job but cobbles together a living out of multiple "gigs".

Supposedly individuals more directly 'own' their work (or effort and skills) and are empowered to sell it to business owners in the 'free market'. Claiming that 'independent contractors' are in a better position than an employee, I think misses a few points. These workers are not subject to the protections employees are, and are desperate enough to jump into something-even if it's as risky as a pyramid scheme (Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM). Being ignorant of the practices and standards of a profession they are only in as a "side hustle", they don't know the history of folks who have worked in the field which led to the protections these self-proclaimed "disruptors" are side-stepping. Not that taxi driving is glamorous-nor is it the road to riches-but it is an established profession with understood guidelines and protections. Those are all the results of years of struggle by drivers to obtain the bare minimum of legal recognition and safety regulation. This cycle is played out in various fields in diverse ways, all summed up in the same manner: eliminate security for workers and increase benefit to owners.

How to Ruin Any Game in One Easy Step

I have played games since I was a child (before we had to specify "tabletop"), and am thrilled to enjoy the variety of games that are available these days. After years of playing casual as well as competitive games in various settings, I have noticed one trend. Being something I considered disappointing, I began thinking about this trend and have come to believe it illustrates a larger pattern. You may recognize this once I describe it, as I consider it to be quite commonplace. The effect is that which a 'rules lawyer' has on a game. A 'rules lawyer' (RL for this post) is an individual who spends time getting to know the rules of a game with the intent of being better-versed than other players and using that knowledge to exploit lesser-known aspects of the game or make arguments to their favor. Usually, the game will involve complexity or advanced strategy in addition to aspects of chance. Rules are, in one regard, just another aspect of the game that every player can access. They are readily available and essentially in place to keep things fair by eliminating confusion, imposing limitations, and level the playing field. However, most people just want to play, not 'waste' time with an intimate understanding of the rules. After all, the point of a game is to play, not sit around reading how to play. They get a 'good enough' sense of how to play and then set off to have fun. Instead, what often follows is everyone playing around the RL and trying to not get caught in some minute detail. If the game has a "master" or impartial arbiter, then the RL spends time using the rules to convince that person to decide in their favor. The RL will allow other players to make mistakes, then point out the error and declare a penalty; this can also lead to players resenting or fearing the rules being used against them. RL's will spend time haggling and protesting until others simply give up, also setting a tone for the rest of the game. The RL does not need to be successful-or win-in order to alter the course of the game; just the constant threat of their antics is enough to change the mood and decisions of other players. Rather than playing the game for enjoyment, everyone else is left playing around one person; this is because if they do not counter the RL, they stand no chance of continuing to play. Once this process has started, there is no 'legal' way to change it; after all, the RL is "just playing by the rules". It is also a challenge to object because a RL is not entirely a bad faith actor. It is not that a RL seeks to stop the game, prevent others from playing, or derail the game into pointlessness. The RL is usually playing to win, even if that is accomplished by every other player quitting in disgust. Again, this is contrary to what most people see as the spirit of competition, or "sportsmanship". There is no rule that says which ways of playing are acceptable, and it isn't contained in any rule-book. It is just generally understood that games are for enjoyment, and that anything which diminishes players' fun is discouraged. In a low-stakes, relaxed setting wherein people are just together to have a good time, this is merely a nuisance. My proposition is that the same pattern plays out in other areas of life, with significantly more serious consequences.

Indeed, if we take the above examples and apply them to actual lawyers, we can find similar situations. An attorney-at-law will study the 'rules of the game' (laws, administrative rules, legal precedents, etc.) and interpret them to persuade judges. These legal rulings determine how things work in the real world and reflect what is considered "just".  However, lawyers are not hired to pursue justice, but to get the result the client wants. These legalistic opportunists seek to exploit every angle and loophole in order to win. In doing so, they leave no room for actual justice, arguments for virtue, or humanity. After all, the "justice system" is intended to strip away the human, emotional component in order to arrive some dispassionate and objective ruling. It was meant to eliminate the arbitrary and biased system of personal favor and "keeping people in their place". This is where the examples from above begin to sneak in, because those same RL tendencies to bend the rules towards personal goals are what have crept back into the legal system. Just the same as in the above RL examples, it is all there, in black and white, they are "just playing by the rules". Just as above, even if it is a minority of 'players' using the RL approach, it begins to change the way the 'game' is played for everyone. I recognize this can sound harsh, and I am using this tone in order to convey how harmful I see this approach as being. It is not to disparage the professionals who work within the system designed in this flawed manner. The criticism is that some number of actual attorneys are willing to take the RL approach, and this serious flaw has been allowed to warp the legal landscape.

There is no "level playing field" when a minority of the players start out with an intent to play the game to crush the will of other players rather than adhere to the "spirit" of the game. Because, truly, there is no way to demonstrate-clearly and ineluctably-that supposed "spirit". Finally, it is an irony that laws are the rules of our "justice system", yet even they cannot determine what constitutes justice.

Back to Branding Cattle

I recently learned about Edward Bernays and how he changed the way advertising is done. The basis for his work was that of his uncle, Sigmund Freud. In case you are unaware, here are a couple facts: Bernays instigated the field of 'public relations' (around the time of the first world war) and later wrote a book called The Engineering of Consent. Similar to how the weaponization of racism by the Republican Party in the mid-1960's represented a fundamental change in politics, so did the introduction of propaganda at home alter everyday life. Rather than advertising a product on its merits (or outright lying), Bernays used techniques to manipulate consumers in subtle and gross ways. Rather than a factual, rational basis for buying a product, the intent was to introduce an emotional, non-conscious desire for something (or what the object represented: freedom, power, etc.). A common example is hiring attractive women to smoke cigarettes in public so as to reduce social stigma in order to sell cigarettes to the other half of the population. It is commonplace for "celebrities" to endorse a product in order to lure customers, with the most recent version being social media "influencers". The very label is indicative of the crass nature of the field, and a blatant (if unheeded) warning to individuals about what they are consuming. In recent years, there has been much made of 'building brands', discussions of what a 'brand' means, and how 'branding' builds customer loyalty. This can be seen in advertising slogans and campaigns going back decades, telling us we are part of something when we make the choice to buy one product over another (sodas or cars). All of this is actually just refinements on the original use of psychological discoveries to lure consumers and keep them "loyal", which is to say "spending their money with us instead of elsewhere". This is the basic concept of advertising: to turn individuals into consumers (a commodity to be drained of capital).

 

Now we return to the subject hinted at above, since this all seems to me related to the idea of "race". This notion of "race" was initially used to differentiate groups of people based on appearance and eventually to justify slavery. The seductive excuse of 'superior' and 'inferior' races, for instance: ones which possessed inherent traits that determined whether they were capable of reason or not. For a quick explanation of this, I highly recommend this TED talk. To this day, the discussion of race bears the mark of this origin; just by using the term, we are framing our conversation around an imaginary, outmoded idea of differences which do not truly exist. While advertising and "race" may not seem immediately related, allow me to conjecture a link. Bernays' version of ads are about utilizing psychological understanding in order to manipulate consumers and drive behaviors. The explicit goal is to collect more money; the underlying goal is to trap consumers in a system whereby their primary drives are used to steer them into choices, in other words: to exert control. Can the same be said for the concept of "race", or its concomitant, racism? Whereas advertising is a relatively straightforward process, the weaponization of "race" seems less so. I will rely on former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson, who most clearly expressed it thus: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Again, while he is overtly speaking in terms of 'emptying pockets' of money, unpacking it reveals the real motive is power. He is speaking of the utilization of "race" as a means to drive citizens to give up their independence of thought, freedoms, and even rights in order to prevent some prophesied calamity due to an other "race". Again, this can be seen in history; one recognizable example would be the trope (at least in the U.S.) which sexualizes "black" men and creates a primal fear in "white" men about loss of status and potency. You likely know the name of Emmett Till, who is but one of many innocents who lost their life to this insidious lie. So there is no confusion: I am not excusing racism or racist behavior, only seeking to understand how it works; understanding something allows for change to that thing.

 

To resume this exploration of how "race" is used to control individuals, we must understand that while the idea is to place some group "superior" to another, neither is free as long as the structure of "race" exists. Just as the above trope illustrates, any supposed "superiority" must be jealously and closely guarded. This means that the "superior" group is trapped in a fight (with an imaginary foe, played out with real persons) and cannot have an unguarded moment, lest some sign of the falsity of their narrative be found out. After all, what would it mean for Johnson's "lowest white man" if they were just the same as that "best colored man"? Because we are looking at this through a (non-professional) psychological lens, we can recognize that these motivations can play out without conscious thought or direction. In fact, the strategy of racism, and subsequent control of racists, does not require any particular cohesion. Just inculcate a fear and hatred of some group, and let those motivators work on people; the results are stunningly predictable. This is terrible enough, but-as mentioned above-what is worse is that no one is free of this system as long as the concept of "race" holds sway. The greater risk is that a construct becomes an overwhelming force within society-something one can either work for, or against, but cannot ignore or escape.

Why is Everything AI?

Fundamentally, I think every artistic creation asks the question: what does it mean to be human? Possibly because, as individuals irrevocably separate from one another, we seek ways to bridge this divide and be understood. The impetus for this post is the number of popular shows which revolve around artificial intelligence. In writing this, I wonder about what this art has to say about the subject.

It seems recent years have seen a glut of media offerings centered on this topic, ranging from movies (Ex Machina, Terminator, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Blade Runner 2049) to TV (Westworld, Humans, and the new Battlestar Galactica). Often, this AI fiction (wherein humans have created machines sophisticated enough to be self-aware) is presented as a battle between creator and creation. This goes back to the ancient Hebrew story of the golem, and became a staple of popular culture with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The theme has always been 'do not meddle with the affairs of gods'. The creation of life is reserved to those of god-like comprehension and powers, and any lesser being attempting the feat will be doomed by doing so. This is readily apparent in the subtitle of Shelley's book "modern Prometheus", referencing the Greek fable of a titan bringing the power of fire (sometimes 'knowledge') to humans. It is worth recognizing that in the fable, Prometheus is returning something that the gods had taken from humans. An interesting thought, that Frankenstein could be reclaiming something rightfully belonging to humanity.

Along with the inherent shaming messages in these stories, I find a contradiction as well. The central message of "you are not worthy to do this" is apparent and almost universal within the genre. However, the more recent iterations add the notion that these creations are-or, at least, see themselves as being-better than humans; this becomes the tension that must be resolved for the audience. The question of "which side will win?" becomes an existential contest, as the answer determines whether humanity or AI survive at the end of the story. This seems to continue the theme that humans are to be punished for the audacious act of creation. It is not that the project will fail because of the flaws of humanity, just that the unworthiness of humanity will imbue the creation with the desire to destroy the creator. In keeping with Greek mythology, it could also be a continuation of the theme of supplanting predecessors. The primordial gods had been overthrown by the Titans, who-in turn-were overthrown by the more familiar gods (Zeus, Ares, Poseidon, etc.). The contradiction I see is the fundamental truth that we make life all the time. We make little humans; we create life to continue the species. Here, again, our creations will supplant us. After all, that is their function: to inherit the world we build for them, and do better than we have. True, we sometimes parent poorly and we are not always deserving of having the responsibility for the life of another being. However, this is balanced by the truth that often it is the process of becoming a parent that allow us to become a better version of ourselves. Only through being forced into the reality of living that responsibility can we summon the courage to change for the better. This is not an argument in favor of having a child, that it is the only-or best-way to "grow up", nor to excuse abuse. It is meant to recognize some truths about us which the fictional escape of visual arts have not seemed to present. We do create life, and sometimes with little thought to the needs or subsequent experiences of that life.

Finally,  given we are using the tropes of AI fiction to examine reality, what are there real questions we should ask ourselves? Does this genre give us an outside perspective that allows us to see our flaws-especially those we wish we could deny? Is this a challenge to our present systems and a call to become those better versions of ourselves? Who ultimately bears the responsibility and consequences of creation? Because as much as AI is still in the future, we are parents right now. We are responsible for caring for the lives we have created already. For all those fictional flaws played out across the screen, there are real ones already playing out in our lives and our children. While it may be irritating that 'our side' loses in the fictional version, it is heartbreaking when we fail as a society in reality. We all experience that failure as creators and caretakers of life. It may be that the only way that we preserve ourselves, or we find ourselves worthy of preserving, is that we confront those parts of ourselves which make us less than the parents our children deserve. Maybe the reason humans are in peril in these AI stories is to demonstrate how vital it is to get creation right.

First Impressions

How quickly things have changed. It was just a few weeks ago that I had no idea what a pandemic was like. How confusing, chaotic, strange, scary, lonely, and relentlessly overwhelming it is. How I would fear for my life, and those of friends and family. How out of control it all seems. I don't know what anything means, and days are eternal as it seems like I am a moment away from panic.

I have, on the other hand, to stay calm and keep moving; to maintain my composure for someone else. It is because I am taking care of another human, and totally responsible for their life and psychological well-being, that I can focus. All the uncertainty and potential threats are less important than the duty I have to care for someone other than just myself. How we get through this will be as important as if we get through this. I believe this because I heard the stories of those who came after the economic depression of 1928, and those raised by the survivors of the 'dustbowl years'. The mental toll of that experience was so heavy that it weighed down the generations that followed for decades.

 Of course, we will do everything possible to keep ourselves safe. Just as important, we will not live in dread or in a way that prevents us from having joy in our lives. I will keep up our spirits and find ways to enjoy what is left to us, always maintaining the sense that this will end and we will emerge with our love intact.

Why can't I get my idea off the ground?

At least part of the reason we are not told that most innovations and advancements are made by people who have financial stability (if not pre-existing wealth) is that we will not continue to believe the lie that "anyone can do it". The constant refrain of impossibly 'bootstrapping' oneself into a better life leads to tremendous numbers of individuals falling for pyramid schemes and other 'get-rich-quick' schemes. Because we cannot make the connection between the necessity of having proper, adequate resources and the resulting ability to thrive, risk, and invent, we blame ourselves for any inevitable failure. Contrariwise, we can recognize the inherent unfairness and give in to hopelessness because the system is truly rigged. Certainly, there are other ways to fail, however lack of adequate resources is one we-as a society-can do something about. While it may be enough for many folks that it is "the right thing to do", for others the rationale that it increases productivity and creativity (think engineering, not art, if it helps) should be persuasive. 

There is no beneficial motivation to a majority of folks to be faced with destitution and/or death. Every decision we make does not need to be life-or-death, that sort of desperation does not lead to consideration or deliberation. It puts people into "survival mode" where they believe (not incorrectly, for certain) that they must do certain things to stay alive. Anyone who believes they are fighting for their life is willing to resort to extreme measures to accomplish that goal. Placing people into this position when it is unnecessary is both inhumane and foolish. There is overwhelming evidence that tired, distressed, under-nourished, and dependent individuals do more poorly at work, school, and in social situations. Relieving this burden would free up all that lost "human capital" so all those individuals could make more contributions.

There is no good reason people should starve, struggle, or die in modern times. The myth that 'misfortune is our lot' or 'suffering is good for the soul' allows some to justify the absurd notion that there needs to be some extra difficulty, when in truth life is hard enough, even with basic needs taken care of. It is past time to discuss the real reasons this system continues along with the underlying beliefs that perpetuate it.