Books Bragging Building in Public Cycling Food for thought Interviews Journal Lucid Dreaming Mental Health Movies Open Goals Poetry Productivity Quotes Ranting Smart Keys Sustainability Travel Youper
Friday Morning Hope:
See more products that put us back in touch with ourselves, each other, and the world around us. Thanks Humane team, for being persistent and rethinking Human-Computer Interaction.
Friday Evening Pessimism:
I don’t think their first product (ai pin*) will take off. 🙁
*In Brazil, Aipim means Cassava Root. I used to plant on my front yard, I miss that.
Reflecting on the thought-provoking work1 of Sharra Vostral, it’s intriguing to explore how her concept of “BIOLOGICALLY INCOMPATIBLE TECHNOLOGY” can be applied in the current digital age.
In the ’80s, an innovative product was launched amid much fanfare – a smaller, lighter, and super absorbent tampon.
Unfortunately, this new product led to an outbreak of Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS), especially among young women. The company said that the product itself was harmful, but in a complex interplay of variables, it enabled Staphylococcus aureus to reproduce rapidly, producing a deadly toxin. This concept has since been recast as “biocatalyst technologies” in her latest book, “Toxic Shock,” which has truly captured my attention.
Ultimately, that particular tampon was removed from the market, but its users were blamed for using it “incorrectly,” a notion that persists and contributes to the stigma surrounding TSS today. The prevailing sentiment seems to be that if someone suffers from TSS, it’s her fault.
Fast forward to the present day, we are surrounded by new digital projects, many of which have unanticipated outcomes. Social media has often been implicated in a rise in depression and anxiety², and thousands of novel digital solutions are emerging. Particularly alarming is the sharp increase in suicides among young women², which brings to mind the young women affected by TSS decades ago.
These parallels lead me to ask:
– Are we, as product innovators and leaders, unintentionally developing what could be deemed “psychologically incompatible technology?”
– Are we fostering an era of anxiety and depression-catalyst technologies? Like a Digital Toxic Shock?
– Will we blame the users (again) if something unexpected happens?
We must remember to keep human well-being at the heart of technological advancement.
For a deeper dive, here are the articles that helped me connect these ideas:
1. Rely and Toxic Shock Syndrome: A Technological Health Crisis
2. Jonathan Haidt and Zach Rausch‘s research on the teen mental health crisis
3. Almost a Third of High-School Girls Considered Suicide in 2021
In 1981, a poet predicted the rise of hashtag LLMs.
I’ve always found myself at a crossroads when it comes to roadmap prioritization. The constant struggle between waiting for conclusive results from A/B tests to set clear priorities, managing the flood of customer feedback, and the need to move forward with strategic planning has been a significant challenge for me.
I recently rewatched one of my favorite Goodwater Masterclass episodes featuring Sean Rad (Tinder). It reminded me of stories about successful companies where, during the early stages of their product development, the most impactful ideas were top-down and based on gut feelings.
Then, as the company grew, formal processes became necessary to deal with the increase in customer requests and the influx of new ideas from the team, which made decision-making slower.
When I’m asked to check a box to confirm I’m not a robot, I don’t give it a second thought, of course I’m not a robot.
On the other hand, when my keyboard guesses the next word I’m about to text, I start to doubt myself.
Just thinking out loud about building something to help me typing with more confidence and sound natural.
Food for thought: https://fortune-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/fortune.com/2023/06/13/chatgpt-like-human-language-robots-linguistics-artificial-intelligence/amp