If the 'medium is the message' is right, what is the message of Generative AI?
using Marshall McLuhan's Tetrad of Media Effects
‘The Medium is the Message’ is a famous line from Marshall McLuhan, who is one of the most well-known technological critics and founder of the media ecology.
The line explains how new mediums of communication fundamentally change the ecology of our behavior in the world by "the change of scale or pace or pattern" that a new invention or innovation "introduces into human affairs”.
The Decision’s Lab exploration of the Google Effect cognitive bias illustrated the validity of this theory pretty clearly.
While reading “The Extinction of Experience: Being Human in a Disembodied World” by Christine Rosen this past week, the ‘medium is the message’ line kept ringing in my mind. The book explored, in an alarming fashion, how our lives are increasingly being mediated through technologies and the negative second-order societal impacts it is having on our social behavior in the physical world.
McLuhan created a mental model called the Tetrad of Media Effects in order to have a holistic understanding of the effects of technology on a societal level (a concept that seems to never really come up in Silicon Valley before their products are deployed to market)
In order to explore how the mental model above can be applied to Generative AI, I used Claude 3.5 Sonnet to provide the Tetrad of Media Effects of Social Media by AI Marshall McLuhan using insights from Rosen’s book .
As Marshall McLuhan, I would analyze social media using the Tetrad of Media Effects as follows:
Enhances:
Social media enhances our ability to extend ourselves beyond physical limitations.
It amplifies our voice, allowing each individual to become a broadcaster to a potentially global audience.
This technology enhances our capacity for instant communication and information sharing, creating what I would call a "global village" where distance is no longer a barrier to connection.
As Rosen notes in "The Extinction of Experience," social media extends our social reach, allowing us to maintain a vastly larger network of connections than ever before possible.
Obsolesces:
Social media obsolesces traditional forms of communication and social interaction. Face-to-face conversations, letter writing, and even phone calls become less prevalent.
The importance of physical proximity in maintaining relationships diminishes.
As Rosen argues, this obsolescence of direct, unmediated experiences leads to a decline in human interaction skills. The art of conversation, the ability to read non-verbal cues, and the patience required for deep, meaningful exchanges are all at risk of becoming obsolete.
Retrieves:
Social media retrieves tribal patterns of communication.
It brings back the idea of a global village, where information spreads rapidly through interconnected networks.
It retrieves the public square, albeit in a digital form, where ideas are shared and debated. (a nice optimistic goal of Elon but X/Twitter is filled with bots and content from a handful of the human population who want to share emotionally charged content instead of trying to have good faith discourse)
However, as Rosen points out, this retrieval comes with a caveat - while it may feel like connection, it often lacks the depth and authenticity of true human interaction. The tribal nature of social media groups can lead to echo chambers and polarization, retrieving ancient patterns of in-group and out-group dynamics.
Reverses:
When pushed to its extremes, social media reverses into its opposite. The technology designed to connect us can lead to profound disconnection and isolation.
As Rosen discusses in her book, the constant connectivity provided by social media can paradoxically lead to a sense of loneliness and anxiety.
The curated nature of online personas can create a disconnect between our digital selves and our authentic selves. The global village, when taken to its extreme, becomes a place of information overload and social fragmentation.
In conclusion, social media, like all media, is not merely a passive conduit for content but an active force shaping human behavior and society. It extends our social capabilities while simultaneously diminishing our capacity for certain types of traditional interaction. It retrieves tribal communication patterns while potentially reversing into isolation and fragmentation. As I've always maintained, "We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us." Social media is a prime example of this principle in action, fundamentally altering our patterns of communication, our sense of self, and our understanding of community.
Now on to Generative AI (content below are my own thoughts)
What human behavior does generative AI enhance? (ENHANCES)
Enabling the average knowledge worker to replace Subject Matter Experts by crafting the perfect AI prompt technique for Generative AI.
Greater interest and awareness on AI systems and how to make sure they are ethically designed and regulated to reduce the 700+ risks they pose.
Greater productivity of knowledge workers largely through the offloading critical thinking, which is very easy even encouraged by AI labs because Generative AI models are much better generalists than you.
What human behavior might generative AI render obsolete? (OBSOLESCES)
Less slow, deliberate thinking (System 2 Thinking) in favor of rapid output for more productivity gains. This occurs in human-AI interactions already due to our tendency to fall into the Authority Bias and Automation Bias and our System 1 Thinking offloads the work to AI when we face complicated problems.
Reduced creativity of thoughts, as more and more people start to rely as a collaborator and source of truth.
Eradication of cultures not found in the training data of AI systems and a homogenization of thought to Western, English speaking nations.
What human behavior might generative AI retrieve or revive? (RETRIEVES)
A new market for human-generated, face-to-face content over AI-generated, technology-mediated content (hopefully the market for this is just not me)
Luddism, a strong anti-technology movement spurred by the job displacement effects of these ever-advancing AI systems. [Chicago Booth Review]
Amish approach to technology adoption summarized below could provide a more mindful approach to using technology
How will this tech impact my core values and way of life?
Can you modify/limit the tech to serve my needs without compromising my principles?
Will this tech strengthen or weaken my community bonds?
Does this tech serve a genuine need or merely a want?
What are the long-term consequences of adopting this tech?
If pushed to its limits, what unintended consequences or reversals might generative AI produce? (REVERSE)
Dependency on Generative AI as source of not just memory but for critical thinking (like system 2 thinking)
Generative AI features added to tech experiences that have no real need for AI features by users (Strava, Instagram)
High paying jobs continue to shift away from social sciences and humanities field even though their perspectives are the ones that can actually create ethical and responsible AI systems.
Psychological dependence of AI chat bots via friendships and romantic relationships.
Conclusion
I want to end this piece with a line from another iconic tech critic, Lewis Mumford, who one famously said “technology isn’t neutral. It is ambivalent.”
While neutral implies that technology is neither good or bad, ambivalence suggests how technology has the potential to have both positive and negative impacts and have an honest discussion regarding if and how technology should be adopted and designed and regulated.
I had fun exploring the various behavior changes Generative AI is eliciting from us using McLuhan’s Tetrad of Media Effects framework.
Are there any points you thought of that I did not list? If so, please share them!