Technology should bring out the best in humanity, not the worst—a manifesto for resonant computing built on five principles that reject hyper-scale extraction for human flourishing.
I’ll be honest with you, I understand very little of what you are saying as I truly am not a techie, but my issue is with the manifesto itself, because it seems fully based on idealism and very big words with very little around them. Like resonance as a quality, what does this mean exactly and if its something that can’t be measured how is an AI system of any kind supposed to be resonant and how do they know this (whatever it is) can be achieved by taking these steps?
It reads:
resonance. It’s the experience of encountering something that speaks to our deeper values. It’s a spark of recognition, a sense that we’re being invited to lean in, to participate. Unlike the digital junk food of the day, the more we engage with what resonates, the more we’re left feeling nourished, grateful, alive. As individuals, following the breadcrumbs of resonance helps us build meaningful lives. As communities, companies, and societies, cultivating shared resonance helps us break away from perverse incentives, and play positive-sum infinite games together.
This is a lot of words that remind of the manifestos or such that the big tech bros like Musk promoted at the start of AI to get people to buy into the democratizing value of AI or whatever. Many fell for it, but we know now how absolutely not true this was. This smells like the sort of tech manifesto to me that is so up in the air that it’s just farming for a type of disappointment.
Ultimately, these things aren’t concrete plans, it’s just a conversation starter. The people who published it aren’t building anything, but it does provide a starting point for things to think of those of us who do build things. The parts I thought were meaningful were in the list at the end:
Private: In the era of AI, whoever controls the context holds the power. While data often involves multiple stakeholders, people must serve as primary stewards of their own context, determining how it’s used.
Dedicated: Software should work exclusively for you, ensuring contextual integrity where data use aligns with your expectations. You must be able to trust there are no hidden agendas or conflicting interests.
Plural: No single entity should control the digital spaces we inhabit. Healthy ecosystems require distributed power, interoperability, and meaningful choice for participants.
Adaptable: Software should be open-ended, able to meet the specific, context-dependent needs of each person who uses it.
Prosocial: Technology should enable connection and coordination, helping us become better neighbors, collaborators, and stewards of shared spaces, both online and off.
I’ll be honest with you, I understand very little of what you are saying as I truly am not a techie, but my issue is with the manifesto itself, because it seems fully based on idealism and very big words with very little around them. Like resonance as a quality, what does this mean exactly and if its something that can’t be measured how is an AI system of any kind supposed to be resonant and how do they know this (whatever it is) can be achieved by taking these steps?
It reads:
This is a lot of words that remind of the manifestos or such that the big tech bros like Musk promoted at the start of AI to get people to buy into the democratizing value of AI or whatever. Many fell for it, but we know now how absolutely not true this was. This smells like the sort of tech manifesto to me that is so up in the air that it’s just farming for a
type of disappointment.
Ultimately, these things aren’t concrete plans, it’s just a conversation starter. The people who published it aren’t building anything, but it does provide a starting point for things to think of those of us who do build things. The parts I thought were meaningful were in the list at the end:
I think these are all good things to strive for.
I agree, but struggle to get behind these sorts of manifestos that provide nothing concrete on how this will be achieved.
But it’s nice to see that in tech there might still be alternative ways to think about things, this just doesn’t yet seem all that convincing.