False Geniuses And Not Idiots

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

My friend Serdar had another banger post “Maybe we need fewer not-idiots.” He discusses many things, from how we keep the worst out of power to our weird worship of so-called geniuses. It’s worth reading on it’s own, but I want to zero in on something – America’s worship of supposed “geniuses” and treating them like divinely-appointed rulers. I find this strange because America also has a strongly anti-intellectual streak that you’d think would make people wary about such “geniuses”

Thing is, the worship of “genius” in America isn’t about intelligence.

Let’s take a look at the “lauded genius” of the last few years. Inevitably a “move fast and break things” person. Iconoclastic yet somehow worshipped by those who are supposedly “conservative.” Also, inevitably, kind of an a-hole. Also, sometimes dumb and clueless and even self-destructive, with an unsurprising side of drug abuse. Also on top of that, why do they have a business major yet talk science and so on?

Those following these supposedly superior humans sound suspiciously like the “cult of the auteur,” where someone is a creative genius, supposedly above us all, and thus not bound by our rules. It’s often been applied to artists and writers, excusing bad or even horrific behavior. “What would we do without them,” is what said cult essentially says, while the truth is such people’s destruction destroys more than it creates – if said creation was even worth it.

Yet this praise of geniuses (and thus auteurs) exists alongside anti-intellectualism. We are in an age where science and education is under attack by people who will them praise ketamine-fueled techbros and their supposedly brilliant ideas. Scientists who raise valid concerns on health or the environment are sidelined, while a business major who spends a family’s inheritance to buy a company is considered our intellectual better. The love of the genius and the hatred of intellectualism seem to go hand in hand.

I think this is obvious when you look how the cult of the “genius” and the cult of the auteur are similar – they praise someone for being an asshole. It’s not about brains, it’s about cruelty

These cultists do not want someone civil or functional, but someone brutal and uncaring. They want something “muscular” in the most insulting way, someone who is about force not thought, someone to hurt the other and rally the us. Saying such people are “geniuses” is a way to provide the veneer of intelligence while valorizing behavior that should land someone in therapy, rehab, or jail – or all three.

Such people see actual intelligence as weak, you know all beholden to facts, understanding, and – horrors – empathy that helps them understand how people work. Those worshiping the faux geniuses don’t want actual knowledge or wisdom, but a regressed-adolescent image of strength. Which is why so many lauded geniuses turn out to be both not that smart but remarkably weak as they are performers first and foremost.

We don’t need these “geniuses.” We need real intelligence of all kinds, from the understanding of math to the understanding of people. We also need the maturity to step outside of the games of the emotionally arrested who want a “genius” to worship.

And that, to go back to my good friend Serdar, is why we need less not-idiots.

Steven Savage

It’s Bad It’s So Bad It’s Good

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

All right, it’s time to talk AI again. This also means I have to use my usual disclaimer of “what we call AI has been around for awhile, it’s been very useful and is useful, but we’re currently in an age of hype that’s creating a lot of crap.” Anyway, there, packed that disclaimer into one sentence, go me.

I’ve seen “AI-ish stuff” for 30 years, and the hype for it is way different this time.

Watching the latest hype for “AI” (that pile of math and language that people are cramming into everything needed or not) I started listening to the hype that also seemed to be a threat. We have to build this. We have to build this before bad guys build it. We have to build a good AI before a bad AI. This may all be dangerous anyway!

Part of current AI marketing seems to be deliberately threatening. In a lot of cases it’s the threat of AI itself, which you know, may not be a selling point. I mean I don’t want a tool that might blow up in my face. Also Colossus: The Forbin Project freaked me out as a kid and that was about competing AI’s teaming up so you’re not selling me with the threat that we have to make AI to stop AI.

But this marketing-as-threat gnawed at me. It sounded familiar, in that “man, that awful smell is familiar” type way. It also wasn’t the same as what I was used to in tech hype, and again, I’ve worked in tech for most of my life. Something was different.

Then it struck me. A lot of the “hype of the dangerous-yet-we-must-use-it” aspects of AI sounded like the lowest form of marketing aimed at men.

You know the stuff. THIS energy drink is SO dangerous YET you’re a wimp if you don’t try it. Take this course to make you a super-competitive business god – if you’re not chicken, oh and your competitors are taking it anyway. Plus about every Influencer on the planet with irrelevant tats promising to make you “more of a man” with their online course. The kind of stuff that I find insulting as hell.

Male or female I’m sure you’re used to seeing these kind of “insecure dude” marketing techniques. If you’re a guy, you’re probably as insulted as I am. Also you’d like them to stop coming into your ads thanks to algorithms.

(Really, look online ads, my prostate is fine and I’m not interested your weird job commercials).

Seeing the worst of AI hype as being no different than faux-macho advertisements aimed to sell useless stuff to insecure guys really makes it sit differently. That whiff of pandering and manipulation, of playing to insecurity mixed with power fantasies, is all there. The difference between the latest AI product and untested herbal potency drugs is nill.

And that tells me our current round of AI hype is way more about hype than actual product, and is way more pandering than a lot of past hype. And after 30+ years in IT, I’ve been insulted by a lot of marketing, and this is pretty bad.

With that realization I think I can detect and diagnose hype easier. Out of that I can navigate the current waters better – because if your product marketing seems to be a mix of scaring and insulting me, no thanks.

Steven Savage

Yellow Sticky Notes And Operating Costs

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

Once, many years ago (I think in the 2010s?) I interviewed at a video editing software company to be a Project Manager. When I asked what tools they used to track work, they pointed at a glass divider covered in sticky notes. That was it, that’s how they wrote video editing software which, as you may guess, is not exactly a simple process.

If you’re familiar with Agile methods, it may not seem entirely unusual. If you’re not familiar, then I’ll summarize all-too-simply: Agile is about breaking work into small, easy, tested chunks as you go through a larger list of work. It’s basically quick, evaluated development of software in order of importance.

So sticky notes were, in theory, all you needed for Agile, especially if the Product Owner (person with The Big List Of Stuff To Do) had their act together. I’m going to assume this company had one that did since, hey, sticky notes.

This experience stuck with me. Now, some 15+ years later, having used many project management tools, having seem many technical innovations, being friends with people in tech for decades, a lot of us seem to want the sticky notes back.

We’re beset by enormous choices of tools and the tools have choices. You can buy this software package or that and integrate them. All of them have their own workflow which you have to learn, but you can also customize your workflow so you can confuse yourself your own way. Plus you have to work with everyone else’s tools together in some half-baked integration.

But when all of that doesn’t work, does the tool fix it? Nope you get to! So soon you’re downloading a spreadsheet from one tool, to load into another tool, then you have to correct the issues. That’s if you can think like the people that designed the tools or the workflow, and those people weren’t you.

Past a certain point all our new helpful tools require so much learning and reconciliation, we might want to use sticky notes. And yes, I have met people who still use sticky notes in otherwise high-tech organizations.

I’ve begun to wonder if we’ve entered an era where we’re so awash in tools that the price of learning them, customizing them, and integrating them outweighs their value. This is amplified by the latest updates and changes from vendors, companies being bought out, or regulation and policy changes. There’s a lot of change and adaption that we have to put time into so we theoretically become efficient in the time left.

And that’s before there’s a software outage somewhere in the Rube Goldberg world of ours that brings it all to a halt. I’m looking at you, Crowdstrike, I still have trauma as I write this.

I’m finding a great test of good software is to ask how it would work if it wasn’t software. What if was, I don’t know – done by yellow sticky notes? What if the software wasn’t software but a human recorded, human run physical process. Would it still make sense?

This is something I noticed working with certain medical and research software. Some of it may have old-school looks, or be specialized, but it works (and has to or people get hurt). I once took a training course on medical software and it was both insanely complex because of medical processes, but in review everything I learned made perfect sense and I could see how it’d be done on yellow sticky notes. Even I, some IT nerd who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a patient could figure out how this all came together – and had decades before the software existed.

Sometimes it’s worth asking “what if we did this old school” to see what the software should do and how much cost there would be in changing everything or making it incoherent.

And, hey, maybe you’ll just go back to the sticky notes. Maybe you should.

Steven Savage