LM Sacasas on why life should not be delegated

In this brief episode we explore a short soundbite from a previous episode with philosopher of technology LM Sacasas. In it we explore the way that efficiency and ease might give with one hand, while taking with the other. 

- check out the previous episode in full here -  https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/michael-sacasas-what-should-we-be-doing-for-ourselves/id1680728280?i=1000705506079

- LM Sacasas substack here - https://substack.com/@theconvivialsociety

- This Examined Life substack here - https://thisexaminedlife.substack.com/?utm_campaign=profile_chips

Chapters

• 0:00 Efficiency’s Hidden Costs
• 1:13 Introducing The Clip And Guest
• 1:34 Extensions And Amputations Of Tech
• 2:32 Friction, Mastery, And The IKEA Effect
• 3:23 Generative AI And Intellectual Formation
• 4:13 Choosing What Not To Outsource
• 4:44 Get Involved, But Wisely
• 5:18 Closing Wishes And Calls To Action
• 5:38 Teaser: Is AI Alcohol Or Heroin

Transcript

SPEAKER_02: 0:00

To ask whether it is an unalloyed good to opt for efficiency, or whether or not there's some costs that are not just a matter of maybe binding a community together or family together in this case, example, but that it is good for us to have a certain skill set, certain skills that we can have that make us feel competent, this mastery over the world, sufficiency that is helpful for us psychologically, even just to flourish as human beings, a sense of satisfaction and be able to do certain things for ourselves. And again, that I want to stress that configuration of what those things may be may vary person to person, family to family, community to community, but we require some things like that. And so when we begin to always opt for efficiency, comfort, safety, security, we delegate tasks, we lose skills because we outsource whether those are physical or intellectual. The sum effect may be unconsciously depriving ourselves of some of the friction challenge, the need to apply ourselves to intellectual, physical engagement with the world that may be a component of our flourishing, doing well in the world.

SPEAKER_01: 1:13

Hello, and welcome to the Examined Life in Brief. In these short episodes, I take a sound violent like the one you just heard and we explore it for a few minutes. The extract you just listened to was Michael Sarcasus, who is a philosopher and writer about technology, how it forms us, and how we might develop a more flourishing relationship with it. In the conversation, which I really valued, we explored his question: what is it good to do for ourselves, even if a machine can do it for us more efficiently or more productively? And I can't think of many other issues that are as pressing than how we relate to technology. There is an assumption that efficiency is always the good that we should be seeking. If we could be quicker, if we could be more productive, then of course we should be, though often we fail to count the cost. The writer Marsha McLuhan talks about technology as an extension of the self. For example, the foot is extended by the car, or the phone extends the voice. Though when it's overextended, then something is amputated. If we take driving, for example, we not only lose the exercise that we'd have gotten by walking, say, to the shops, but we also don't connect to nature or the area we're in or the people we might meet along the way. There are lots of amputations. In the clip you heard, Elam Sarcasis talks about our need for friction, for challenge, both physically and intellectually. If we want to flourish as human beings, then there will be times that always opting for comfort, convenience, ease is not in our best interest. Think of the many functions that used to be part of our embodied nature now are outsourced to technology. Simply gardening, growing vegetables are things people find immensely satisfying, or building a fire rather than turning on the thermostat. There's such a difference in how connected we feel, and as Sarcasus points out, we miss out on a feeling of mastery. We don't tend to feel pleased with ourselves by flicking a switch to turn on the heating, but there's something genuinely rewarding about building a fire. There's strong evidence for this in things like the IKEA effect, which describes the value we place on things that we ourselves have built. In my case, they're almost always worse and a lot shakier. But because we have been engaged in the process, we've cared about what we're doing. And then there are those intellectual activities. This is something which feels really acute right now with the rising tide of generative AI and large language model. Think of the difference in your kind of intellectual formation and wrestling with a text or writing something instead of outsourcing it to AI. Thinking something through rather than asking AI for a judgment. It's so tempting to take the easy and efficient route, but something profound is lost in the process. The task itself is often the point. If we treat things instrumentally, as if the end result is the only point, then life is kind of emptied of meaning and a sense of reward. Clearly, there are many things that I'm grateful are ultimated. But the point is to be discriminating about the technology that we allow into our life, what we outsource, and those things that we choose to do for ourselves. The question behind this discussion is really what is the good that you seek? If it's just efficiency, fine, go with the machine. If there's more to it, however, if there's more that you might lose by outsourcing it to a machine, then you might want to ask yourself whether it's worth going the long way around. We might want to think about how activities form our character, root us in the world, bind us to community, develop a sense of agency. My friend Pete's catchphrase used to be get involved. It's a phrase he hoped to draw more people into whatever he was trying to do. And this was not always a good idea. Pete is an extreme skier who's injured himself a number of times. There were things he suggested that it was good not to get involved with. But I love his maxim. I think it's helpful to keep in mind. If we don't get involved in life but outsource too much of it to technology, then we court the danger of skating over its surface, losing any sense of engagement and mastery. Certainly, my big takeaway from the conversation with LM Sakassis was to be really discerning about what I do end up outsourcing to machines. I'm gonna leave it there for this episode. I do wish you a week where you find some rewarding sense of friction physically and intellectually and so on, and that you might consider his question carefully. What is it good to do for ourselves, even if a machine can do it for us? As ever, do please like, share the episode. If you've enjoyed it, then send it to somebody, review it, helps other people to find it, and sign up for the Substack, This Examined Life, where you can receive updates to your inbox, and you can even support the podcast if you like. I'll leave you with a short extract from a conversation I recently had with Sir Anthony Selden that I'll be releasing very soon. In it we discuss AI and whether it is more like alcohol or heroin.

SPEAKER_00: 5:50

Is AI alcohol or heroin? And if it's um a drug, then one binds it altogether. But if it's alcohol, one learns how to use it. So that's one way, amongst many ways of thinking about it. I tend to think that it is like alcohol, but it's properly used, one masters it. Uh rather than it masters one.