The digital world – a public nuisance?

The old coin/card ticket machines in the local High Street’s car park have been replaced by swanky touch-screen units that only take contactless payment. To be fair, there’s one new machine in the car park that still purports to take coins and contactless payment, although nobody has so far been able to get it to actually accept coins! There’s something else too. It’s an open-air car park and the screens on the new units are hardly readable on a bright sunny day. The new machines are straightforward to use once you know how, but earlier this week the only functioning machine was the one purporting to take coins as well as contactless payments. There was a queue, which the Badger joined, but the pensioner at the head of the queue was having trouble getting the machine to accept their contactless card payment. Giving up, they tried coins instead, and that didn’t work either. The flummoxed pensioner thought there was something wrong with their bank card. A kind lady stepped in and said she’d pay for the pensioner’s ticket using her own card. That didn’t work either, causing the lady and the pensioner to grumble ‘The digital world is a public nuisance’.

The Badger subsequently cogitated on whether the digital world is indeed a public nuisance. Putting the legalities of what constitutes a public nuisance to one side, whether the digital world’s a nuisance depends on your perspective. Grandparents, parents, young adults, and children have different perspectives, but research across this age spectrum apparently suggests that views are not purely yes or purely no, but definitely not neutral. Many think the digital world enhances social interactions, learning opportunities, business efficiency, innovation, convenience, and so on. However, many believe it’s become a nuisance because a) it’s dominated by self-interested major corporations who put their profits rather than users first, and b) it lessens person to person physical contact, encourages excessive screen time, distorts our sense of reality, erodes personal privacy, is an enormous source of mis and disinformation, and causes mental, health, and behavioural issues in young adults, children, and vulnerable groups.

Does the Badger think the digital world’s a public nuisance? No…but beginning to lean towards yes! No, because a lengthy career in the IT industry showed that in the right hands, with good laws, controls, and ethical and moral human behaviour within acceptable societal norms, the digital world produces enormous benefits and is a good servant to mankind. Why leaning towards yes? Because although the science relating to the digital world’s impact on humanity has been too slow over the last few decades, it’s now confirming that nuisances are real and often harmful. It’s thus reasonable to conclude that mankind is fast becoming a servant to the digital world when it should be the other way round, and that AI is destined to reinforce this in the coming years…

Want to be an ‘influencer’? Get educated first…

The Badger recently found himself sympathising with some parents who were stressed-out because their 12-year-old son was being disruptive and problematic at school. The boy has been problematic at school for some time, and none of the measures taken by his parents, or the school, has improved matters. It seems the boy’s issues began when, one way or another, they started using social media heavily. This seems to have significantly influenced his attitude, beliefs, and behaviour as his engagement with content intensified with the passage of time. The boy’s a problem at school because, to use his parents’ words, ‘he doesn’t see why he needs teachers or lessons, because he just wants to be a social media influencer. The parents are in despair. They think their son is another young victim of the dark side of the last two decades’ social media revolution.

While many families experience similar difficulties, and research (e.g. here) illustrates how digital media affects adolescents, it was the word ‘influencer’ that grabbed the Badger’s attention. The word is flourishing like never before, primarily as a descriptor for someone with a large social media following who earns a living from the content they post. Perhaps the Badger’s a dinosaur, but he’s lost track of the number of people popping up as celebrities on popular television shows because they are ‘an influencer’ with a large following on platforms like Instagram or TikTok. When social media enables anyone from any background, and with any level of education, to be an ‘influencer’ if they produce content that attracts views, then it seems reasonable to ask the question ‘Is being an ‘influencer’ a legitimate career path?’.

The answer’s ‘Yes’ if you are entrepreneurial, can produce engaging content, and can advertise and promote products and brands that generate financial income and profits. Having a successful career, however, depends on business and financial acumen, an aptitude for marketing, knowledge of the influencer market, digital competence, and the ability to stay relevant when technology and audience interests change under your feet. The answer to the question is ‘No’ if you have none of these attributes. The problematic child noted above is too young to have the attributes needed to make a sustainable living from being an influencer. Their compulsive consumption of online content has likely distorted their view of how the real-world works, and so they may be in for a rude awakening when they eventually finish school and join the workforce.

So, what advice would the Badger give this youngster today? Simply this: ‘if you want to be a credible and respected influencer, and earn a living from being one, then you need to get the best education you can under your belt first’. Would they listen? Probably not…which is a sad indictment of a fickle, ever-changing, digital-dominated world in which AI is set to revolutionize everything, including being an influencer…

The power of silence…

This week the Badger was asked a simple question: ‘What was one of the most powerful tools you used during your career?’ The answer was ‘Silence’ – a response that was not what the person asking expected. They thought the Badger’s answer would be either something like a browser, search engine, Excel, or ChatGPT, or a probing project review process. Rather taken aback, they asked the Badger to explain.

The Badger’s first real appreciation of the power of silence began when, as a young project manager, he and others attended a difficult client meeting with his boss. The client was arrogant, asserting wrongly that project delays were the reason for problems in their business, and making all kinds of threats and ‘what are you going to do about it’ demands. There were numerous points in the meeting where the client expected the Badger’s boss to respond, but they remained silent which was broken by the client continuing to express their opinions and assertions. The Badger found himself wanting to fill the silences himself, but he didn’t because his boss had told everyone to say nothing before the meeting started. When the meeting ended, the Badger felt nothing had been achieved. Intrigued, he asked his boss why they had stayed silent during the pauses where the client obviously anticipated a response. His boss smiled, and said they’d used ‘the power of silence’ to maximise his understanding of the client’s feelings and position without saying anything that might make the client’s own problems ours. Silence, they added, is one of the most potent forces in the human experience.

Experienced managers and leaders know that silence often speaks louder than words. Silence conveys many things – for example, emotion, confidence, fear, resistance, control, acceptance, disagreement, trust or distrust – because its meaning depends entirely on the context in which it occurs. The best leaders don’t puff out their chests, raise their voices, bark out orders, demand to be the centre of attention and to always have the last word, they often use silence to achieve their objectives, whatever those may be, to great effect.

Being able to wield the power of silence is even more important in today’s digital-dominated work and private environments. These are the noisiest they’ve ever been, because we are constantly bombarded with, and thus stimulated by, huge amounts of daily digital input which weakens our desire to remain silent. It’s worth remembering that long before structured language existed our ancestors communicated with their bodies, breath, and stillness, and that evolution has taught us to read silent pauses as closely as speech. So, whatever your role, ensure you consciously have ‘the power of silence’ in your arsenal of tools for achieving your objectives. After all, sometimes the most important, powerful, and best thing to say… is nothing at all…

Consequences…

The UK’s recent announcement about banning social media for under-16s initiated many media interviews with younger teenagers. The Badger found one TV news interview with a teenage girl to be a great illustration of how social media has changed childhood. The interviewer asked how many hours the girl used social media at the weekend. The answer was ‘9 hours’. The interviewer then asked the girl what she would do without access to social media. The answer was ‘Stare at the walls’. These answers say a lot about the impact of social media on children, and about modern society as a whole.

When there are digital technology advances, there are always consequences. In fact, in life, to quote Robert Louis Stevenson, ‘everybody sooner or later sits down to a banquet of consequences’. Many years ago, one of the Badger’s peers, a forthright and polarising individual, was promoted to CEO. On chairing their first leadership team meeting, they delivered decisions and instructions that most attendees felt were seriously flawed. The new CEO, however, was adamant that they knew best and that they didn’t care about the consequences. The Badger recalls thinking that this was pure dictatorship rather than leadership! Over time, the consequences caught up with the CEO, and they were abruptly and rather predictably exited from the company. Thinking about the consequences of decisions before embarking on a course of action is always wise in any leadership role!

The Badger learned early in his IT career that there are always consequences from tech advancements, and that some consequences can be unwelcome from an economic, employment, and capability perspective. For example, a couple of decades ago tech advances enabled a drive to move software development and IT help desk and support services offshore to lower cost countries. As a result, on-time software delivery became less reliable, IT service quality for end users dipped, customer confidence and relationships wobbled, programming diminished as a career path for onshore software engineers, and onshore capabilities became diluted. Things have changed since because the consequences have had to be addressed.

Today, social media and AI are obvious examples of tech advances with unwelcome consequences. Over 40 years ago, Steve Jobs memorably said ‘There are downsides to everything; there are unintended consequences to everything. The most corrosive piece of technology that I’ve ever seen is called television – but then, again, television, at its best, is magnificent’. The Badger thinks if Jobs were alive today then he would say the same thing with the word television replaced by either social media or AI. The Badger thus thinks ‘Consequences’ is a good candidate for the 2026 word of the year covering both tech and the world more generally. After all, you don’t have to look far in today’s society to see that the world is having to deal with many, many unwelcome consequences of policies and actions…

June – A month of notable events…

June is proving to be a month of notable events. So far there’s been the 82nd anniversary of D-Day, a horrific incident in Northern Ireland, the UK Defence Secretary’s resignation over Defence funding, the announcement that the UK is banning social media for under 16s, the SpaceX IPO, President Trump’s 80th birthday, and the conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the US and Iran. Apart from the D-Day anniversary, however, none of these events is a great advert for the underlying dynamics of today’s world.

It’s been obvious for years that UK Defence is behind the curve given modern threats, and that parents want action on social media. Many people think that an IPO which makes Elon Musk the planet’s first trillionaire is a cause for worry rather than celebration, and that the limits to US global dominance have been exposed by the conflict with Iran. A concluded MOU is not a comprehensive resolution. President Trump is now 80 and it looks as if his age and modus operandi may become his, and his country’s, Achilles heel. Others may have a different perspective, but all of these events have fed the sense of dislike in the way the world’s going that’s widespread amongst the general public.

Technology, one way or another, pervades all these events, and the UK Defence Secretary’s resignation and the ban on social media for under 16s are particular home turf items. The nature of warfare has changed, as is demonstrated daily in Ukraine and the Middle East, and more funding is needed to adapt and ensure UK readiness to address modern threats. The Defence Secretary resigned on realising there wasn’t going to be funding to an adequate level. Consequently, the government is now scrambling to demonstrate to the electorate that it takes defence of the realm seriously. Regardless of the availability of the right military equipment, our military seems ‘light’ for a country with 70 million people when all its personnel can fit into Wembley Stadium plus the Twickenham Rugby stadium with ~20,000 seats to spare.

The social media ban is a dramatic change in the government’s position. Why? Probably because its reluctance to upset President Trump and the US tech giants has been usurped by the Prime Minister’s need of a legacy as he is on an exit path! An unkind point, perhaps, but one likely veined with truth. Most people see the ban for under 16s as good news and they don’t care what President Trump, or the US tech giants, think because they are savvier about, and becoming more resistant to, the surveillance capitalism of social media giants and their unconstrained role in the AI race.

There’s plenty of opportunity for more notable events in the rest of June. Perhaps one will be Iran doing better than the USA in the World Cup. Time, as always, will tell…

Digital slop…

Over the years, the Badger’s been involved in company acquisitions, and he’s also been on the receiving end when his employer was itself acquired by another company. Experiencing both sides of the equation has been valuable and educational. Acquisitions normally follow standard processes. When the transaction is finally agreed and completed, the subsequent integration activities also follow fairly standard processes. This week the Badger was asked about his view on ‘digital slop’, and – oddly – this triggered a memory from way back in 1997 when the Badger attended a post-acquisition leaders conference following the purchase of a Dublin-based company in the telecommunications software market. This company had products in the short messaging services (SMS) sector, and the conference took place in a rural hotel in the Irish countryside some distance from the city.

Why did ‘digital slop’ trigger this particular memory? Probably because a memorable element of the conference was a presentation by a leader from the acquired company on their vision of the future for mobile phones and telecommunication software products. They described a vision of the future in which everyone had an internet-connected mobile phone which enticed them to enter a shop every time they walked past one in a shopping mall or on the High Street! It was an interesting presentation which occurred during the year of Amazon’s IPO, before Facebook existed, and shortly before Google was founded. Most conference attendees could see its technological feasibility, but most questioned why people would want to be bombarded with ‘marketing and adverts’ as they walked through a mall or along a High Street. Most, including the Badger, thought members of the public would say ‘I don’t need this, I don’t want this, and I don’t trust this’.

It was these 1997 words that underpinned the Badger’s answer about today’s ‘digital slop’, a phrase that’s emerged in recent years to describe the huge growing volume of dubious online content produced using AI tools. Digital technology has changed the world since 1997, AI continues to change it under our feet, and AI-enabled ‘digital slop’ does little for humanity except add to the mass digital exploitation of people. People have come to learn with social media over the years that dubious content, online misinformation, and addictive scrolling are not bugs but features of the system, and that they are becoming ever-more slaves to algorithms that don’t have their best interests at heart. Countering this requires an iron will and some disciplined personal behaviour. In relation to AI produced ‘digital slop’, perhaps ‘I don’t need this, I don’t want this, I don’t trust this, and I don’t consume this’ is a better mantra for today than the 1997 words. AI is a powerful technology that cannot be ignored, but the general public probably need more attitude and behavioural alignment with these words if humanity is to resist its mounting digital slavery…

AI and deciding to go to University…

What do you say when a youngster comments that it’s pointless taking on a Student Loan to attend university when AI will deliver knowledge faster, cheaper, and on demand? The Badger faced this dilemma a few days ago when his nephew, an intelligent, motivated, tech-savvy youngster striving for good exam results to study a STEM subject at his first-choice university, said exactly this. He’s starting to doubt if university is the right path given the expense, the ever-developing and impressive capabilities of AI, and the potential struggle of finding a graduate-level job after graduating. Many youngsters in the same position probably have similar bursts of doubt, but what did the Badger say in response to his nephew’s comment?

It seemed essential to respond with something objective, balanced, and relevant to the fast-changing world of today and the foreseeable future. The youngster is completely digital native and already dealing with the day-to-day reality of AI. He’s finding this makes decisions like going to university more difficult, but the Badger thinks deciding to go to university is something that should not be influenced by advancing AI capabilities. The gist, therefore, of the Badger’s response to his nephew’s comment was as follows.

Youngsters would be nuts to go to university if the only thing they wanted was to accrue expert knowledge/information, because AI will deliver that faster, cheaper, and conveniently on a device in their bedroom at home! The real value of university is in the accrual of knowledge/information with everything that’s wrapped around this. AI can tell you facts and help you learn, but university teaches you how to argue, critique, question, navigate institutions, defend a position, collaborate with strangers, work with those who disagree with you, and to handle stress, deadlines, and ambiguity. It’s the dealing with pressure at university that gives you identity and self-discipline. These aspects are very important because graduating with a degree signals to others, especially employers, that you can operate in a structured system, work with others, and apply yourself to achieve deadlines and good results. Furthermore, you don’t become a mature adult by sitting in your bedroom with a chatbot! You become a mature adult by leaving home, negotiating shared living, budgeting, dealing with conflict, failing and then recovering, gaining exposure to ideas that you didn’t choose, and discovering who you really are. AI gives you answers, but university provides answers and an environment that shapes your identity.

The Badger’s nephew was thoughtful for a moment before admitting that their main worry was how long it takes to find a graduate-level job after graduation (see here and here). He’s especially worried that AI means dire employment prospects when he graduates. The Badger’s advice? If university is your dream, then follow it and become an educated, disciplined adult with the strength of character to face the challenges ahead, if and when they arise…

It’s not wrong to be rewarded for working hard…

Over the years, the Badger’s been an independent observer in numerous formal meetings dealing with an employee performance or disciplinary issue, or employee complaint. There were robust procedures for these, and HR always ensured that a record was kept of what was said at the meeting. Many of those the Badger attended were memorable, not because of the particular issue, but because they provided an insight to the character and attitude of the employee concerned.

With elections in the UK imminent, the Badger recalls one employee complaint meeting which highlighted that people not only make different life choices, but they also have different reasons for why they work. The Badger was asked to be the company’s independent observer at the meeting which involved HR, the complainant’s boss, the complainant, and a friend supporting them. The Badger didn’t know any of them; they were all from a different part of the company. The complaint seemed straightforward. The complainant had asserted that they were being unfairly treated because another colleague of the same age and length of service working on the same project had a higher salary. There’d been a previous meeting, but the issue was unresolved because the interactions between the individual and their boss became antagonistic.

The Badger quickly tuned into the complainant’s attitude to work and life. They were intelligent, articulate, likeable, and passionate about their many costly interests and hobbies outside of work. They always arrived for work on time and always left on time. They never worked extended hours even when incentivised financially to do so. It was obvious that their hobbies and interests outside of work were their priority and that work was simply the vehicle to fund them. Also, they had no interest going the extra mile at work to earn a higher salary because they believed that salary progression came primarily with length of service. Their project colleague with a higher salary was the opposite and motivated to do what needed to be done to build a career and accumulate the benefits that come from going the extra mile.

The meeting concluded with the HR person pointing out that the complainant and their higher-paid colleague had made different lifestyle choices, and that a complaint about someone else’s choices had no validity. They added ‘It’s not wrong for your colleague to be rewarded for going the extra mile. This country and this company were built by people who did just that’. The complaint was closed with no further action. For the Badger, it was memorable because it highlighted that people make different choices and have different motivations, attitudes, and views about working hard to build wealth. As the UK goes to the polls, the Badger senses that the HR person’s words capture a sentiment which the country needs to revive in order to be great again…  

AI in the dock?

Consider this scenario. Someone approaches an individual and asks them to provide answers to some questions. The individual performs some Google searches of the internet, consults books in a local library, and then pieces together the answers to the questions. These are then communicated to the requestor face to face, or by phone or video call. The requestor uses the answers to commit a wicked crime for which they are prosecuted. The person providing the answers to the requestor’s questions is deemed by law to have some culpability for the crime and so they are prosecuted too. Now consider the same scenario but with the perpetrator directly asking ChatGPT (or similar) the same questions. The AI’s answers are used to commit the same wicked crime for which the perpetrator is prosecuted. The AI, however, does not have the same legal culpability for the crime as the individual noted above.

Reports that Florida’s attorney general has opened a criminal investigation into whether ChatGPT provided advice to a murdering gunman last year, see here for example, made the Badger wonder about the following question: ‘Are people using AI professionally or personally really aware of where the boundaries of responsibility sit?’ Probably not, was the conclusion after musing in the Spring sunshine. If a doctor follows a wrong diagnosis delivered by an AI, is the doctor responsible or the hospital, the engineers who built the AI model, or some other organisation in the chain? Some who build and deploy AI models appear to think such responsibility questions can be sorted out later when something goes awry and causes a crisis. This is never a sensible approach.

The more AI develops, the more it impacts important aspects of everyone’s life. However, it isn’t obvious, at least to the Badger, that professionals or the public understand much about how AI arrives at its answers. The Badger, who’s not a lawyer, thus spent a little time exploring how the law deals with the question of responsibility when someone takes action guided by AI’s output. It appears that you – not the AI vendor nor the algorithm – but you the user are legally responsible. This means that anyone – organisations, professionals, or members of the general public – using AI is always responsible and liable for the actions taken on guidance from AI. Organisations and humans can be sued, but AI cannot. When AI makes a mistake, liability flows to the humans and organisations that deployed it and used it,

That’s not really a surprise, but it’s a reminder for all users that they are more likely to find themselves in the dock than AI. It’s also a reminder that proper human consideration and diligence is imperative before acting on AI’s outputs. The Badger also thinks it’s a reminder that we must never allow AI to autonomously rule the world…

Digital backlash…

The Artemis mission around the dark side of the moon, the sight of humanoid robots running a half marathon (here and here), Anthropic’s Claude Mythos AI model and comments by ex-PM Rishi Sunak, all illustrate the power and relentless advance of digital technology. Having a decades-long career in the IT industry, it’s been routine for the Badger to deal with perpetual change in digital technology. The rapidity of that change kept the Badger and his colleagues motivated, challenged, learning and eager for new skills, and greatly satisfied when systems were delivered to clients and put into operational use. With this background you might think the Badger is an ardent digital technophile today, but he’s not. He’s ‘neutral’ with no strong affinity for, or aversion to, digital technology. He’s not overly enthusiastic about digital technology’s constant impact on our lives, but not overly critical of it either. Why is that?

The answer lies in three points: there’s no putting digital advances back in the box once they exist, not all digital technology is good for society, and digital technology dominated by a handful of individuals, corporations, or countries does not lead to a focus on benefiting humanity as a whole. Regarding the first point, innovation is a human attribute that will always produce advances, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the second and third points which have moved the Badger to ‘neutral’ over the last decade, because digital technology has taken over our lives by stealth, driven ostensibly by agendas set by giant US and Chinese corporations controlled by a handful of individuals. Regulators have been slow, and tech giants have strongly resisted the introduction of sensible new laws that benefit wider society at every turn because of the threat to their own agendas. Digital advances have infiltrated society by default and diffusion without too much regard for the impact on the public. AI simply illustrates the point. Philosophical objectivity is thus at the heart of why the Badger’s become a neutral rather than ardent technophile.

Everyone today is more aware than ever before of digital technology’s downsides. There’s a growing willingness for the public to push back on the digital world. The UK government backtracked on Digital ID ambitions after a backlash, there’s a growing backlash against AI in the US (see here, here, and here), Swedish schools are cutting back on digital learning and returning to books, pen, and paper, numerous countries are  moving to ban social media for under 16s, a ban on children using smartphones at school has just been announced in the UK, and big tech has just lost a landmark social media addiction case. Society’s pushing back and questioning an unrestrained digital world more and more, and this backlash seems likely to grow with time. Indeed, with the world as it is today, the Badger’s unlikely to move from a neutral affinity any time soon…