Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Workers are 'friction-maxxing' to resist AI (FT)
https://www.ft.com/content/fd5e65df-83c7-42f3-9658-377c99df42d1Archived at: https://archive.ph/T9Lis
Are you “friction-maxxing” in your life and work? Friction in this context is the antidote to ultra-convenient tech, where we scroll on-demand news, ask AI to answer our questions, and sit half-attentive in virtual meetings. When we reject supposedly easy tech solutions, we embrace the friction of doing things ourselves, even if that requires more effort. Life becomes less convenient, slower — and conducted in person.
The concept of “friction-maxxing” was given a profile this month by Kathryn Jezer-Morton who, in an essay for The Cut, argued for “building up tolerance for ‘inconvenience’”, rather than treating it as something to be eliminated. Her concern was around parenting: she suggested enforcing periods of boredom for children because “without friction, most kids will have no reason to love reading, let alone think for themselves”.
snip
According to an often-cited 2018 New York Times essay by Tim Wu, difficulty is worthwhile because it is a “constitutive feature of human experience”. He believes we should resist the “tyranny of convenience”, which is “all destination and no journey”, because the “journey” is the important part.
Outsourcing our intellect to AI without doing critical thinking first threatens us with what researchers call “cognitive atrophy”. AI hacks also create new problems: automated note-taking in meetings, for example, may make participants cagey about speaking openly. Sometimes, rejecting the supposed convenience of AI achieves better results. Auto-generated email replies might require no effort, but do they convey your nuanced view?
The concept of “friction-maxxing” was given a profile this month by Kathryn Jezer-Morton who, in an essay for The Cut, argued for “building up tolerance for ‘inconvenience’”, rather than treating it as something to be eliminated. Her concern was around parenting: she suggested enforcing periods of boredom for children because “without friction, most kids will have no reason to love reading, let alone think for themselves”.
snip
According to an often-cited 2018 New York Times essay by Tim Wu, difficulty is worthwhile because it is a “constitutive feature of human experience”. He believes we should resist the “tyranny of convenience”, which is “all destination and no journey”, because the “journey” is the important part.
Outsourcing our intellect to AI without doing critical thinking first threatens us with what researchers call “cognitive atrophy”. AI hacks also create new problems: automated note-taking in meetings, for example, may make participants cagey about speaking openly. Sometimes, rejecting the supposed convenience of AI achieves better results. Auto-generated email replies might require no effort, but do they convey your nuanced view?