And also from the chaos of millions of dots connecting in my head as I read it.
And most of all, my head hurts from the thought of the mammoth task of getting this technology to work FOR us.
Lately I think a lot about that Black Mirror episode “Common People” where the couple is crushed by the costs of subscription to Rivermind to keep her brain online. It feels like we’re determined to fast track our way to that as a collective reality.
It seems that almost any spiritual practice - or i guess i should say - frictive practice (any kind of formal endeavor to deal with the stickiness of the mind) is meant to create friction against our path of least resistance tendency (system 1 in your formulation). The very reason why the word "practice" is used is because its a daily return to some action that is inconvenient for system 1. but just like the gym - practice slides in and out of the animal's capacity to stay the course. also tho just like the gym = momentum in practice builds on itself. the more you meditate the more you get the benefit of it and the inner aspiration to keep building that capacity. in a sense then i think whatever creates friction against that system 1 needs to develop some kind of energetic benefit that makes it worth staying the course. and often we adopt an addiction to that benefit that is healthier to us than the addiction to the convenience and numbness of system1. AA has one day at a time- and a kind of pride that is built from sobriety and benchmarks there.... people do fall off the wagon - but less so when their identity becomes reinforced by their practice - and they in a sense become addicts to AA- lots of different models to look at. but for sure we need to be seeing this as that spiritual practice / 12 step / heroes journey (taming the ox) level engagement in order to not surrender to system 1. im sure the worry is ... only some will have the time and cultural privilege / advantage to cultivate that ... while most will not.
This is insightful, and I think there’s something important here about how “practice” works. The idea that friction needs to build its own “energetic benefit” feels right. You can't just tell people "resist the easy path" indefinitely without giving them something that feels rewarding in return. Those practices you mention like meditation, sobriety, physical training, all have clear benefits that begin to accrue to the practitioner in noticeable ways. You tolerate reality differently after meditation. You notice the difference in your body and mind when you're sober vs. not. You’re stronger after the gym and stairs aren’t annoying anymore. AI resistance is trickier because the benefits are often invisible or at least quite delayed. If I resist using AI to write an email, what do I get? Maybe I've preserved some writing capacity I'll need later. But I don't feel those benefits in the moment, or even in any near moment. This creates a really unfavorable cost-benefit structure that requires strategy and discipline. Which is why your last point is I think realy important to appreciate. If maintaining cognitive independence from AI requires the kind of sustained, effortful practice you're describing, and we’re asking that of everyone, then essentially those with resources, time, and cultural capital will be able to afford the "luxury" of thinking for themselves, while everyone else gets pushed toward dependency by economic and other pressures. You already see this bifurcation with screen time, where kids from low-income, less-educated families spend like twice as much time on screens.
Hi Tim, we are researching 'The Addiction Economy' where the business model is 'undermining our ability to control our usage beyond the point at which it harms us' the UK NHS definition of addiction. We look at lessons from 4 physical industries - unhealthy food, alcohol, vapes and cigs and 5 digital - social media, gambling, computer games, pornography and AI Chatbots. These chatbots follow the same formula.
Your very helpful article struck me because what you are noticing is quite similar to these too, the over-riding of good intentions by addictive product design, and expecting will power to solve it. We call it the 'Moral Model', well known in addiction academia, individualising the problem and blaming the person for something which is fundamentally caused by the proliferation of product in an addictive commercial environment.
However, you have also pointed out an issue we are wrestling with, more information doesn't necessarily work, which we call the 'just say no' problem. Helping people understand how they are harmed by it, why it's not doing anything for them, doesn't really help - the 8million cigarette smokers who die every year and the 2.6 million who die from obesity related problems etc are a case in point. Only the structural solutions seem to work.
But we aren't going to get structural solutions anytime soon, so we can't just shrug, we need to help people understand and give them tools to help and perhaps the tools are constraints and friction imposed by the system and helping people understand how their skills are eroded and rebuild them.
With the cigs, it's quite straight forward, get rid of the marketing, restrict the product, and availability, tho thwarted by corporate interference, but with these it seems much harder. But as Tim Berners Lee says in his new book 'addictive product design' is the main problem of the internet, we must start there with AI too. Liking Centre for Humane Tech work on that, we have concluded too that the law might be a great place to start, as also happened with cigarettes.
Too long and rambly, sorry, but your post has been very helpful. Here's a good summary of our work if interested in The New World an EU political newspaper. Should be free with no sign up, sorry if sign up, but still free.
This is a really super article which we hadn't seen, thanks so much. Heartening too to see our 6 drivers alive and well, the role of the moral and biological model and the impact of individualisation and blame. Very cheering! Interesting too the piece about 'the alcoholic', I hadn't quite got that before in the way you say. Very helpful.
Thanks for reading and sharing your work! I also think it's trickier for tech than cigarettes because tech has many more upsides than cigarettes do, but definitely some similar themes with regard to what's reasonable restraint to expect of individuals v what are reasonable constraints to put on companies
Yes, agree we use the food as the closest analogy, gotta eat, it's everywhere and the negative corporate footprint is all over it.
Though our thought was also if they can't get a grip of cigs which have few redeeming features and users dying to quit then we really are screwed with addiction in the digital world!
We are starting with Tim Berner's Lee's point on Addictive Product Design and the stuff on corporate interference, why not.
My head hurts.
Mostly from vigorously nodding in agreement.
And also from the chaos of millions of dots connecting in my head as I read it.
And most of all, my head hurts from the thought of the mammoth task of getting this technology to work FOR us.
Lately I think a lot about that Black Mirror episode “Common People” where the couple is crushed by the costs of subscription to Rivermind to keep her brain online. It feels like we’re determined to fast track our way to that as a collective reality.
It seems that almost any spiritual practice - or i guess i should say - frictive practice (any kind of formal endeavor to deal with the stickiness of the mind) is meant to create friction against our path of least resistance tendency (system 1 in your formulation). The very reason why the word "practice" is used is because its a daily return to some action that is inconvenient for system 1. but just like the gym - practice slides in and out of the animal's capacity to stay the course. also tho just like the gym = momentum in practice builds on itself. the more you meditate the more you get the benefit of it and the inner aspiration to keep building that capacity. in a sense then i think whatever creates friction against that system 1 needs to develop some kind of energetic benefit that makes it worth staying the course. and often we adopt an addiction to that benefit that is healthier to us than the addiction to the convenience and numbness of system1. AA has one day at a time- and a kind of pride that is built from sobriety and benchmarks there.... people do fall off the wagon - but less so when their identity becomes reinforced by their practice - and they in a sense become addicts to AA- lots of different models to look at. but for sure we need to be seeing this as that spiritual practice / 12 step / heroes journey (taming the ox) level engagement in order to not surrender to system 1. im sure the worry is ... only some will have the time and cultural privilege / advantage to cultivate that ... while most will not.
This is insightful, and I think there’s something important here about how “practice” works. The idea that friction needs to build its own “energetic benefit” feels right. You can't just tell people "resist the easy path" indefinitely without giving them something that feels rewarding in return. Those practices you mention like meditation, sobriety, physical training, all have clear benefits that begin to accrue to the practitioner in noticeable ways. You tolerate reality differently after meditation. You notice the difference in your body and mind when you're sober vs. not. You’re stronger after the gym and stairs aren’t annoying anymore. AI resistance is trickier because the benefits are often invisible or at least quite delayed. If I resist using AI to write an email, what do I get? Maybe I've preserved some writing capacity I'll need later. But I don't feel those benefits in the moment, or even in any near moment. This creates a really unfavorable cost-benefit structure that requires strategy and discipline. Which is why your last point is I think realy important to appreciate. If maintaining cognitive independence from AI requires the kind of sustained, effortful practice you're describing, and we’re asking that of everyone, then essentially those with resources, time, and cultural capital will be able to afford the "luxury" of thinking for themselves, while everyone else gets pushed toward dependency by economic and other pressures. You already see this bifurcation with screen time, where kids from low-income, less-educated families spend like twice as much time on screens.
Hi Tim, we are researching 'The Addiction Economy' where the business model is 'undermining our ability to control our usage beyond the point at which it harms us' the UK NHS definition of addiction. We look at lessons from 4 physical industries - unhealthy food, alcohol, vapes and cigs and 5 digital - social media, gambling, computer games, pornography and AI Chatbots. These chatbots follow the same formula.
Your very helpful article struck me because what you are noticing is quite similar to these too, the over-riding of good intentions by addictive product design, and expecting will power to solve it. We call it the 'Moral Model', well known in addiction academia, individualising the problem and blaming the person for something which is fundamentally caused by the proliferation of product in an addictive commercial environment.
However, you have also pointed out an issue we are wrestling with, more information doesn't necessarily work, which we call the 'just say no' problem. Helping people understand how they are harmed by it, why it's not doing anything for them, doesn't really help - the 8million cigarette smokers who die every year and the 2.6 million who die from obesity related problems etc are a case in point. Only the structural solutions seem to work.
But we aren't going to get structural solutions anytime soon, so we can't just shrug, we need to help people understand and give them tools to help and perhaps the tools are constraints and friction imposed by the system and helping people understand how their skills are eroded and rebuild them.
With the cigs, it's quite straight forward, get rid of the marketing, restrict the product, and availability, tho thwarted by corporate interference, but with these it seems much harder. But as Tim Berners Lee says in his new book 'addictive product design' is the main problem of the internet, we must start there with AI too. Liking Centre for Humane Tech work on that, we have concluded too that the law might be a great place to start, as also happened with cigarettes.
https://centerforhumanetechnology.substack.com/p/new-ai-lead-act-will-make-companies
Too long and rambly, sorry, but your post has been very helpful. Here's a good summary of our work if interested in The New World an EU political newspaper. Should be free with no sign up, sorry if sign up, but still free.
https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/joe-woof-the-addiction-economy/?utm_campaign=&utm_source=1234578
ps i wrote about some of these dynamics re alcohol a few years ago: https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/alcohol-wine-drinking-healthy-dangerous-study.html
This is a really super article which we hadn't seen, thanks so much. Heartening too to see our 6 drivers alive and well, the role of the moral and biological model and the impact of individualisation and blame. Very cheering! Interesting too the piece about 'the alcoholic', I hadn't quite got that before in the way you say. Very helpful.
Thanks for reading and sharing your work! I also think it's trickier for tech than cigarettes because tech has many more upsides than cigarettes do, but definitely some similar themes with regard to what's reasonable restraint to expect of individuals v what are reasonable constraints to put on companies
Yes, agree we use the food as the closest analogy, gotta eat, it's everywhere and the negative corporate footprint is all over it.
Though our thought was also if they can't get a grip of cigs which have few redeeming features and users dying to quit then we really are screwed with addiction in the digital world!
We are starting with Tim Berner's Lee's point on Addictive Product Design and the stuff on corporate interference, why not.