Low Hanging Fruit: How Your Constant Endorsement Of Stale Technology Kneecaps Innovation Where It's Most Needed

There’s no shortage of media praising the benefits of technology and, likewise, no shortage of companies whose “About Us” section highlights their contribution to modernity and progress.  In actuality, technological ingenuity has become increasingly stale in the past several years, instead being replaced with redundancy and fads. 

Evidence of this claim can be seen in an article from the MIT Technology Review.  It contains a chart depicting how innovation peaked in the 1950’s and has declined into stagnation since.  This sentiment was alluded to by CEO of Cloudera, Jeff Hammerbacher, in a Businessweek interview.  There, he stated, “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads.”

Nevertheless, the assertion that tech is circling the innovative drain is mostly based on my own journey down the path of personal coding projects.  It is during these moments when I’m brainstorming problems and possible solutions, that I realize just how limited applications of software and even A.I. have become. 

The low hanging fruit has been picked and rather than reaching higher up what has ensued is a toxic relationship between developers/engineers and consumers; one that threatens to discredit all the advancements that came before it.

I first noticed this when deciding on a college major.  Research led me to believe Computer Science was a responsible choice, but I was struggling to get motivated about career prospects.  One of the earliest red flags was a story I’d read about a Ga Tech alumna who’d overseen the development of an app.  The headline “Shattering Tech Startups” and the following tagline that explained how her app merged beauty and technology seemed sure to be a source of inspiration for a STEM skeptic such as me.

But disappointment set in after reading the entry.  Given that the app, which analyzes customers’ hair and makes product recommendations, doesn’t really do much that a human can’t, sans technology.  Further, I had dreads for over a decade and my takeaway is hair is like cannabis: the more you neglect it the more abundantly it grows.  Of course, as a male, I have the privilege of being apathetic about my appearance. 

Though, I’d still argue that any glamour a consumer gains from such a product isn’t worth the brainpower that went into the development of the app.  This is in addition to the lab resources needed for the hair analysis and the subscription fee the customer absorbs.

Regardless, I continued to look for reassurance that tech is applicable to societal problems.  Similarly, I came across an article about a student who designed a device that a user engages to alert the cops during assault: which sounds a lot like dialing 911.  The incrementalism didn’t stop there. 

IBM had an open-source challenge, Call For Code, where students were encouraged to utilize pre-built starter kits to engineer solutions to social problems.  The objective seemed right up my alley but after looking at the past winners I was again discouraged.  They ranged from HUD’s for monitoring first responders’ vitals to drones that could read SOS messages from survivors stranded after a natural disaster.

While the causes are noble, it’s hard to get excited about a contest where the gold standard is software for personnel who most likely already have access to state of the art tech.  It's also unlikely that info from a display telling them how in danger they are may do much to dictate their actions; given that it's kind of understood going in.  Likewise, I’m equally as doubtful of a drone’s usefulness in emergency situations. 

An article from the NCBI supports this cynicism, explaining how limited resources in New Orleans were the main hurdle to rescuing residents after Hurricane Katrina.  So, unless these inventions will provide immediate access to safe housing, potable water and vector control, I’m not sure throwing people’s cries for help into some fancy caller queue is worth the R&D.

Additionally, weekend morning shows like Henry Ford’s Innovation Nation and Consumer 101, while useful for learning about tech history, don’t do much to stir the imagination either.  They occasionally highlight products such as one I saw designed by a married couple that uses containers equipped with sensors to gauge food freshness: a problem integral to healthy eating but that doesn’t need software and custom plastics to solve.  Hypothetically, a family with that much leftovers should optimize their shopping/cooking, not increase their reliance on tech that enables them to waste food more efficiently.

            Of course, no critique of technical innovation would be complete without acknowledging where stagnation appears the most: in dating apps.  Without going too far on a tangent, I’ll simply note that the concern here isn’t so much unnecessary peripherals like drones, smart containers or some goofy device meant to save you from an attacker for the small cost of your privacy.  Rather, it’s this trend in the software space of placing rhetoric over function. 

            In other words, when companies claim their product caters to cat lovers or taco enthusiast, for example, but don’t actually put the effort into engineering it to ensure that’s true, then a standard of mediocrity is set for applications that results in complacent developers and frustrated users.  What’s worse is we often make excuses for such redundancy.  It’s why you’ll hear someone factor in the founder’s intention rather than assess whether apps like Dig, Tastebuds or even Hinge achieve said goal. 

Such blind consumerism ignores that these products are mere Tinder clones and, generally, amplify existing social inequalities.  Given that, regardless of the niche, whites are generally most successful with dating apps.  

Ultimately, I’ve channeled my studies more toward artificial intelligence, in hopes that this sector will be most equipped to grab the “hard to reach fruit.” Still, I’ve realized even A.I. isn’t immune to stagnation.  For example, a Simplilearn video explaining the basics of machine learning also highlights four relevant applications: healthcare, fraud detection, sentiment analysis and, relative to Hammerbacher’s prophecy, e-commerce.  Only the first two provide value to society and, even of these two, only healthcare has the best chance of being used to help the have-nots. 

This is considering state revenue services can use fraud detection software to target people who, due to being exploited by an unjust economic model (i.e. American capitalism), may fudge their taxes just to get some extra income.  Income that can be used, not for frivolities like clothes and jewelry, but rather for rent, car maintenance and other responsibilities.

By and large, technological innovation has slowed to snail-like proportions, causing stagnation in fields such as Homeland Security, Healthcare and even Dating.  Milton Friedman’s notion that the free market drives progress is clearly not holding up, seeing as how things have been lackluster for decades.  This may be an oversimplification of the late economist's view but I'm clearly not the only one to notice this.  In an article at Jacobin Magazine, science writer Leigh Phillips concludes "we need to revive arguments about how capitalism holds back production and stifles innovation that were once at the heart of progressive discourse."

If the hindrance Leigh refers to continues, the argument for universal basic income will become harder to dismiss.  Similarly, author Peter Frase alludes to such an initiative in his piece titled "Ours to Master"; stating it (Ubi) would “facilitate labor organization by acting as a kind of strike fund and cushion against the threat of joblessness.”  Moreover, if everything’s been built and human technologists are out of original ideas, then maybe they should have a seat and let the machines take it from here.

Truly, these remedies are easier said than done.  Though, there is something you can do from the seat of your quarantine couch: abstain from technology.  Not all of it, of course.  But collectively opting out of a singular product, such as Uber Eats, may kill two fowls at once, metaphorically speaking. 

Firstly, it would stir innovation in more substantial fields like energy and medicine, given that talent would no longer find it lucrative to work for a MatchGroup or ByteDance, per se.  Being more selective of our tech consumption could also force top brass at all companies to consider salary caps for its employees. 

Since the haves won’t voluntarily redistribute wealth, maybe the sudden loss of a major corporation would force them to either lose it all or give capital back to the oppressed class; either directly or through less exclusive hiring criteria.  This ultimatum is reasonable given that the infrastructure that enables these titans to indulge in such gains was built and is still maintained by the laborers.

Hopefully these points have allowed you to question how your actions contribute to innovative stagnation, and reconsider what products and services you opt-into and even where you work.  Until next time, thanks for reading and stay pissed.