21st century Luddites resist new technology due to fear of change, loss of control, and competence insecurities.

These concerns often stem from technology's potential impact on employment and its creation of a new philosophy.

The term "Luddite" originated from Ned Ludd and is now associated with caution on AI development.

Some people oppose new technology, viewing it as a cause of poverty and worker exploitation, and see the Luddite movement as resistance.

The Luddite movement is motivated by concerns about undemocratic tech development and disregard for workers.

Theodore Kaczynski's prediction and Maynard Keynes' concept of "technological unemployment" are relevant to the 21st century Luddite movement.

Yuval Harari's statement that most people are redundant due to modern technology also motivates the 21st century Luddite movement.

The 21st century Luddite movement is characterized by hyper-alienation, where technology destroys communal relationships, and some argue that technology harms the planet and the working class.

To build trust with a supervisor resistant to new technology, an intern should understand their concerns and establish friendly links with key personnel.

Identifying common goals and interests helps establish cooperation between an intern and their supervisor.

Adapting to a supervisor's working style can strengthen their relationship and improve communication.

Building relationships requires active listening, empathy, and effective communication.

Education and training are crucial for helping employees adapt to technological changes by developing necessary skills.

Effective communication is key when discussing technology with a resistant supervisor.

User training is necessary for the effective adoption of new tools and can alleviate concerns about new technology.

Active listening can relieve stress, improve communication, and facilitate constructive conversations about new technology.

21st century Luddites resist new technology due to fear of change, loss of control, and competence insecurities.

Title:

Content: BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Right Way To Evaluate A Technology Solution For Your Organization

Founder and CEO at Ludi, Inc., a healthcare technology company making it easy for hospitals to pay physicians.

Selecting a new technology for your company can be daunting. Organizations usually begin this process with a desire to either streamline or solve specific pain points. Regardless of your specific needs, implementing new technology will involve change. For your organization as an entity, change can be great. Change can reduce inefficiencies and errors, as well as usher in new opportunities. But for the people who work for your organization, change can trigger anxiety and ultimately resistance to the new technology. Here are six things to keep in mind when evaluating new technology:

1. Identify your problem. It sounds simple, but many organizations jump straight to the solutions they find appealing. If you focus on the true problem you’re trying to solve, you will stay goal-oriented while searching for a vendor.

2. Keep an open mind. You may have seen a solution you find appealing, but remember that you don’t know what you don’t know. The technology partner you choose should be an expert in the field and may offer you products that you didn’t even know existed. Stay open to new ideas and solutions. One of the things I’ve noticed is prospective clients saying, “We can’t buy this product unless it handles this exact case we’re trying to solve for.” That’s not always the most effective approach because it doesn’t take all the variables into consideration. For example, my company works with hospitals to streamline complex physician payment structures. The hospital may have had the doctor recording their time one way because they were using a paper system and approvals needed to be checked in a certain manner for that doctor to get paid. Once you eliminate paper, though, in that particular scenario, everything is up for discussion – not just the way doctors record their time, but the entire physician payment process at the hospital. Rigidity will not benefit you when evaluating new technology.

3. Get your people on the same page. Meet with department heads to pull together all the pain points that need to be solved. You must be comprehensive during your internal review because needs come out differently across different departments. You may not be able to solve everyone’s problem with the new technology, but it’s important to align your team before you bring in a vendor. Then prioritize your needs. Once your departments agree on the priorities, be clear with your team on who is making the final decision. Departmental input is important, but knowing who the purchaser is within your organization is equally important. Remember: Don’t lose sight of why you're buying this technology. Keep the ultimate purpose in mind.

4. Consider internal change management. Change is difficult for many of us, so it’s important to stop and consider the people who will be affected by this change. Resistance to change can originate from any of the following: loss of control, insecurities about competence, feeling defensive about past work, concern about more work and general uncertainty. Be proactive in preparing your staff for a change, because all of these responses tend to have a ripple effect in corporate cultures.

5. Focus on the future. If you’ve ever bought a house, you know that there are things you didn’t know you needed until you lived with your investment for a few years. Technology is no different. You may have a list of goals for your business, but there is no telling what you’ll need 10 years from now. The best technology partner will be flexible enough to support your organization as it grows. How can you find a partner with this type of future-focused outlook? See point number two.

6. Listen and be patient. The people delivering technology solutions in the market are experts and can offer you insights into the industry. I suggest finding a solution that can handle 90% of what you need out of the box. Work with your solution provider and try their out-of-the-box solutions for 90 days before you decide what you need next. Make sure the product you choose is flexible enough to grow with your business, but resist over-customizing the product because that can back you into a corner.

Technology solutions truly can help you streamline and standardize your business. Time spent organizing what problem you are trying to solve will make the search much more efficient. While there may not be a solution out there that does everything you hope to accomplish, keep an open mind and you'll find a solution that's right for your specific needs.

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out my website

These concerns often stem from technology's potential impact on employment and its creation of a new philosophy.

Title:

Content: We need philosophy.
Wahid Abdul Majeed
Posted in: Last Updated:
Reading mode
100% font size
It is not true that the world has entered a phase of intellectual and philosophical desertification.
The decline of major intellectual and philosophical narratives in recent decades is nothing more than a natural development resulting from the changing relationship between science and philosophy.
This is what those who disagree with the general trend in diligence (French or American desertification?) see.
To illustrate this meaning, which requires deep reflection and discussion, the arguments expressed can be combined in two directions that I formulate here in my own way and within the space available.
The fundamental argument in the first direction is that more advanced technology is beginning to create its own philosophy, different from what we have known in the history of thought.
This technology opened the doors to a cognitive revolution that proponents of this argument see as unprecedented, by providing unfettered access to information, communicating about it, and began to build what they believe to be utopia, but in their perception it is more real than all idealistic conceptions in the history of philosophy, which is full of ideas about utopia, in complete contradiction to human history, which has seen an almost continuous series of dystopia. Different forms and contents since the people were divided into arrogant and governed rulers who succumbed.
They argue that the problems of more advanced technology, including AI, are temporary rather than permanent, and that they will be solved gradually through competition that will increase and achieve what they consider to be good for humanity.
Advertising material
The basic argument in the second direction is that the rapidly advancing technology needs regulation that puts an end to the anxiety of fake news, misinformation, and generative AI.
Because the question of ethics was one of the first issues that philosophy was concerned with very early on, this means that the organization referred to needed to rationalize rapid technological development, and avoid its uncontrollable transformation into a monster.
Both arguments raise more questions than answers, and this is what is needed at a time of uncertainty when new, unconventional questions become increasingly important.
This is the task of philosophy in the first place.
Quote from "The Pyramids"
Disclaimer: All published articles represent the opinion of their authors only.
Most Read Common Topics
• Reading mode
100% font size

The term "Luddite" originated from Ned Ludd and is now associated with caution on AI development.

Title:

Content: The new is the old well forgotten.
Where in the Network there was a fashionable insult to the opponents of AI
In the Internet discourse, deep in the study of sarcastic comments of anonymous persons, you can find the term "Luddite".
This label is often referred to as people who dare to express the slightest inclination to inhibit the constant development of artificial intelligence (AI).
Related video
Interestingly, such prominent figures as Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates have been awarded the Luddite Award, which is recognition of their cautionary position regarding the potential dangers associated with artificial intelligence.
During the ceremony, Robert D. Atkinson, the organizer of the award, noted: “Unfortunately, luminaries such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have contributed to the feverish refraction of hands about the impending apocalypse of artificial intelligence, ” writes IFLScience.
In Focus.Technology appeared its own Telegram-channel.
Subscribe not to miss the latest and exciting news from the world of science!
Atkinson also explained: "Do we consider any of them personally Luddites?
No, of course not.
They are pioneers of science and technology.
But they and others have done a disservice to the public — and undoubtedly have helped and comforted the increasingly common neo-Luddist impulse in modern society — by demonizing AI in the popular imagination.
But how did the term come about?
Its roots can be traced back to the early 1800s in England.
Before the industrial revolution, skilled craftsmen who knew a lot about textile production made clothes using their own machines and specialized tools.
However, a situation arose when new technologies and methods of mass production appeared, as a result of which artisans were unable to compete.
The result was a movement whose purpose was the destruction of the textile industry and the destruction of new machines.
Although there is some truth to this story, it does not reflect the whole essence of the Luddite movement.
Their actions were not driven solely by a reaction to new technologies; rather, they were a response to the profound transformations taking place in their professional activities.
While it is true that they often attacked a knitting machine known as a stocking frame, as well as other mechanized fixtures, their main concern was the labor practices associated with these machines.
Kevin Binfield, editor of the Luddite and Compassionate Works, explained their motives: "They simply wanted machines to produce high-quality goods, and that these machines employed workers who had been trained and received fair wages.
It was their only concern. ”
The nickname "Luddites" comes from the nickname "Ned Ludd", an apocryphal figure who allegedly sabotaged a textile factory in 1779, although historical evidence suggests that this man was most likely a fictional one.
In a 2007 paper, researcher David Linton explained: “Some say that a young man, possibly with cognitive impairment, named Ned Ludd once misunderstood an order and accidentally broke his frame machine.
Others argue that this was done deliberately, in a fit of anger.
Whatever the motive, it seems to have become a joke phrase that whenever the machine breaks, for whatever reason, you can say something like, "Ludd must have been here."
From this construction, it is a short step to the ironic application of the name Ludd to vandalism for political purposes. "
Between 1811 and 1816, the Luddite movement held sporadic and somewhat unorganized protests, characterized by the destruction of cars and the burning of factories.
In response, the mill owners resorted to extreme measures, using deadly force against the Luddites.
In April 1812, there was a grim turning point in Huddersfield, where at least four people died at the hands of the mill owners.
In retaliation, the Luddites killed the owner of the mill, William Horsfall, who boldly declared his intention to "smear himself with Luddite blood to the saddles."
Horsfall was shot while sitting on his horse.
Faced with these uprisings, the government immediately sent thousands of soldiers to quell the protests.
Moreover, they adopted a law according to which the breakdown of cars was subject to the death penalty or sending to colonies.
Subsequently, the movement dissipated, but the stable expression "Luddite" could not accurately convey the ideals and goals of the Luddites.
Previously, Focus wrote about the first IPSO in the history of mankind.
It turns out that it was invented in Babylon and it concerns the Flood.

Some people oppose new technology, viewing it as a cause of poverty and worker exploitation, and see the Luddite movement as resistance.

Title:

Content: Brian Merchant, author: “Luddites are more dangerous to the rich than Robin Hood”

The Luddites have been a great historical resource. Any showy enemy of anything that looked like technological progress has been called a Luddite. Today with generative artificial intelligence and its critics, the word has been revived. The author and journalist Brian Merchant (Iowa City, USA, 1983) saw it coming and has written a book that reviews the Luddite revolt in England at the beginning of the 19th century and its similarities with current technologies: Blood in the Machine (Blood in the Machine, currently without a planned edition in Spanish) thus explores the origins of the current revolt against big technology.

Although the book has appeared in the midst of the AI hype, Merchant began his research a decade ago: “Uber was growing and it was beginning to be seen that it was having a hard impact on taxi drivers, I heard the term Luddite from the pro-Uber sector and wrote an article titled You don't understand anything about Luddites”. Now in his book he remembers that the Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, at a time when unions were prohibited. In a conversation with EL PAÍS from his residence in Los Angeles, Merchant clarifies the historical impact of the Luddites and the possible similar struggles that are being played today in Silicon Valley.

1. The Luddites were not against progress

The labor revolt over the loss of rights was more important than the destruction of textile machines: “The biggest mistake about the Luddites is to say that they were against technology and progress,” says Merchant. “They were against certain technologies because they recognized the way in which they were going to be used in their context against them as workers. It was a labor movement, against poverty, not anti-technology. The British Government began to mold them in this way almost immediately, it was keen to mock the Luddites and present the argument that they were against progress. It is very similar to how today people in positions of power in technology companies accuse those who complain about poor working conditions. It's the same story for 200 years.”

The book quotes a phrase from historian Eric Hobsbawm that explains this stage: “It was collective bargaining through riots.” According to Merchant, this tactic in a workers' struggle was very powerful for two reasons: “First, it was symbolic because everyone understood that what they were destroying was not just a machine. It was also the specific machine used to transfer wealth from the workers to the employer. Second, it was useful because they destroyed the equipment that businessmen needed.”

2. Why Robin Hood is better accepted than Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd was a legendary character. No one knows for sure if he existed. It was the legend of a teenager who would have broken the first machines at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In 1811, rebellious workers used his legendary name to sign letters and further scare: “Ludd probably never existed. But the incarnation of it would become a mascot, an organizational tool, a wink: a powerful 19th-century meme,” Merchant writes.

See also  The Commander of the Land Forces meets in Muscat a number of Omani military leaders

Ludd lived near Nottingham (United Kingdom), like another legendary figure who has been better treated by history. There must be a reason, says Merchant: “The Luddites organized a popular and powerful rebellion. People wrote popular songs about them. They were like Robin Hood. But it is interesting that Robin Hood has endured as a positive light, while the Luddites have not. He suggests that the myth of Ned Ludd is in some ways more dangerous to the elites and the wealthy than that of Robin Hood, which is a little more nebulous and open. The Luddites say: go ahead and break the machines of your oppression. Robin Hood says: steal from the rich and give to the poor. “I think that’s a little more tolerable.”

3. How are they similar to today's problems?

The background of the book is that the history of the Luddites is similar to what happens today in Silicon Valley, where a small group of corporations dominate new technologies. “The way technologies are developed has basically not changed. You have a handful of people with access to enough capital or political influence to be able to build a factory and use automation technologies. “Back then, the most aggressive owners didn’t ask anyone how to find a way to make this a win-win.”

Merchant has received criticism for equating the great businessmen of 19th century England with 21st century America. But there are details that he does not see that far away: “The technology development process is in some ways even more undemocratic today than then. There is this immense pool of capital available to Silicon Valley innovators through venture capital. Uber wasn't profitable for 10 years, but they had access to that capital. Did anyone really like that? Did it work for workers and delivery people? Nothing mattered, they just had more money and moved on.”

See also  Just the mystery

The Luddite movement is motivated by concerns about undemocratic tech development and disregard for workers.

Theodore Kaczynski's prediction and Maynard Keynes' concept of "technological unemployment" are relevant to the 21st century Luddite movement.

Title:

Content: You will not miss us!
8,008 followers
Why robots will take your job, and what to do - panic or rejoice
Why robots will take away your profession.
Increasingly, you can hear about the challenges posed by automation and cybernization to existing professions today.
And we are talking not only about unmanned vehicles and chatbots replacing call center operators, but also about programs that can calculate bank loans and insurance rates, depriving analysts and, moreover, neural networks that claim to compete with highly qualified and creative employees.
Exemption from routine or danger of unemployment?
A cause for concern or long-awaited freedom?
History of the problem
Mechanisms of ancient times.
Competition has always existed – professions disappeared and arose, people fought for jobs with each other and with technology, philosophers and economists built forecasts and tried to predict the prospects and are still doing it.
For example, you can assess how much automation threatens your profession and how quickly robots will replace you by using Will Robots Take My Job.
Aristotle was the first to think about the possibility of transferring “work ” to machines.
In the first book of his Politics, he suggested that they could evolve to such an extent that the need for human labor would disappear.
For him, quite in line with the views of work at the time, as something distracting from participation in public life and personal development, this was an extremely optimistic forecast.
“Work ” in ancient Greece was considered to be the lot of the lower classes, and the mechanisms would only liberate slaves, considered nothing but“ machines of flesh and blood. ”
The reorientation of the economy to the export of wool led to the introduction of a policy of “enclosures ”.
The real competition of a sufficiently large mass of people technology for the first time was only more than a millennium and a half later in England.
At first, the reorientation of the economy to wool exports led to the introduction of a policy of “fencing ”, in which landlords expelled farmers from the fields in order to free the territory for sheep grazing, which led to the first massive surge of“ unemployment ” – albeit not in the current sense.
The then arising vagrancy and poverty contemporary of these events, the Chancellor of England and philosopher Thomas More described the famous "sheep ate people."
However, after a few decades it became clear that no – not eaten.
The former peasants were absorbed by the growing cities, where they found a new job in textile manufactures, processing the same wool obtained from shearing sheep.
This was the first example of how, by taking away one thing, “technology ” is able to offer something different.
But we must admit: the process of urbanization was painful, the work that replaced the cultivation of land turned out to be hard and dirty, the gap with the traditional way of life was very traumatic, and the population of England as a result of hunger and the fight against vagrancy, which was conducted, including the use of gallows, decreased, according to some estimates by 30% (to understand the scale - the Soviet Union during the Second World War lost "only" 15% of the population).
Workers in a textile factory, late 18th century.
The next episode of the confrontation between people and technology occurred a century later in the same field of light industry - the invention in 1785 by Edmund Cartwright of a mechanical loom increased labor productivity forty times.
Jobs that had just been lost were once again lost.
But again temporarily – after spinning machines, others appeared and all of them demanded new resources, and their extraction – new types of labor.
Manufactures were replaced by factories, and muscle strength by the power of steam obtained from coal.
Machine Destroyers
The Luddite movement.
This time, the changes that occurred were met with bayonets - there was a movement of Luddites.
Sabotage of work and direct action: attacks on factories and the destruction of machines caused a harsh reaction of the state, which sent troops to suppress the “army of Ned Ludd ”.
It is characteristic that no one at the top bothered to convey to the workers the idea that there will still be work for them, even if not the one to which they had time to get used.
The fact is that the “top ” themselves at that time did not think too much about how all this was arranged, and people were perceived as expendable material, while the inertia of consciousness of ordinary workers who had just recovered from the transition from the agrarian to the urban way of life was also very high.
The First Industrial Revolution at the beginning of the 18th century.
The theoretical basis for the interaction of technological innovations and the masses of labor began to be summed up only by economists and philosophers of the middle of the XIX century.
They were the first to suggest that the disappearance of certain types of work in the process of technological development entails the emergence of new ones, and “work ” as a whole is not something final, which may be“ not enough ”.
The First Industrial Revolution was in full swing and the optimism of its apologists only grew stronger over time.
By the end of the century, it seemed that progress would eliminate not only social problems and contradictions, but could also rid humanity of wars.
However, while some spoke of the "Luddite delusion", others spoke of the "enslavement of the masses" and the need to hand over to the "factory workers", predicting that as long as the instruments of production are in the hands of the big proprietors, their employees will remain disenfranchised, and the lack of social security will cause explosions of unemployment at any moment.
Second wave
The Second Industrial Revolution.
The word “unemployment ” came into being at that time.
The fact is that a peasant working in the fields or a craftsman who provides for the needs of himself and the small surrounding community could not face something like this - he himself formed his employment.
When the scheme of selling labor on a strict schedule became mass within the framework of fulfilling a strictly regulated set of duties, the challenge arose to lose such an opportunity.
The Second Industrial Revolution was on the way.
The basics of streaming production were laid at the end of the 19th century, and by the beginning of the 20th century, the combination of Ford ’ s marketing strategy (he invented that the car was not an attribute of the elites, but a mass need) and the conveyor he introduced led to new changes that went beyond factories and factories.
On January 18, 1886, the first car invented by Karl Benz was released.
It was the emergence of technology on the streets of cities that brought a new wave of competition.
Look at the photos of the streets of the beginning of the last century: here they are dammed with carts, among which a lonely clumsy car is trying to maneuver, but ten years later, the only horse frightened by the roar of engines and sobbing of klaxons is clutching to the sidewalks.
Here it will be important to note how unpredictable this jump became: “At the beginning of the 20th century, the French Academy warned about an environmental disaster, which inevitably should lead to the accumulation of horse manure associated with the development of horse-drawn transport in Paris, ” recalls, reasoning about the prediction of the future Stanislav Lem.
However, note: in those regions where human labor is cheaper, technology can not replace it, as we are shown, for example, rickshaws, until recently used their own muscle power and only with a sharp drop in the cost of small vehicles motorized.
A more modern example is “computer rickshaws ” – hundreds of thousands of low-skilled Chinese, hacked captchas all day, because their work costs less than the introduction of scripts.
Technological unemployment
The line of the American unemployed during the Great Depression.
In the 1930s, Maynard Keynes, who gave the world the theory of the “social state ”, from the attempts of which many economies have not recovered so far, introduced the term“ technological unemployment ” into mass circulation.
Since then, the debate about whether the introduction of new technological solutions and opportunities can create a long-term job crisis or whether everything is limited to repurposing, when obsolete professions are replaced by new ones, and it is enough for people to change or improve their skills.
Until the end of the last decade, most experts were inclined to believe that “technological unemployment ” is always a temporary phenomenon, leading to the renewal and improvement of the professionalism of workers.
Mechanical labor was replaced by physical labor, the operator - a profession more status and highly paid than the worker, the reduction of costs leads to the release of time - these are the main theses sounded then.
Pessimistic views remained largely the domain of marginals, such as Theodore Kaczynski, famous for his terrorist struggle against progress under the name of Unabomber and primitive philosophers.
Pessimism
The first full-fledged computer in the USSR BESM-1.
Cautious voices expressing doubts about the correctness of this approach sounded even then.
And if in one of his speeches in 1962, President Kennedy said that “if people are able to invent new machines that take away their jobs, even more so are able to invent new jobs, ” then two years later, a letter from scientists and activists concerned with the problem of technological unemployment, sent to his successor, Lyndon Johnson, stated that“ a revolution in cybernetics will create a separate nation of poor, unskilled unemployed. ”.
Theorists disputed the impossibility of long-term unemployment, as did Martin Ford in the book “Light in the Tunnel: Automation, Acceleration of Technology and the Economy of the Future ” or Marshall Brains in“ Robotic Nation ”.
Gasne-Peter Martin and Harald Schumann, in their Global Trap, describe a society in which the labor of twenty percent of the population is enough for the world economy to continue to develop.
There are those who see it as a threat and a danger, like Paul Krugmann in his article “Sympathy for the Luddites ” or Frey and Osborne in“ The Future of Work. ”
In addition, in practice, it turned out that technology is not so freeing up time – for example, representatives of professions requiring high qualifications, at least in the United States today work more than 30 years ago, and technologies that provide remote access to working tools allow them not to break away from professional tasks and in their “free time ”.
It is also important that new jobs, as it was noticed at the beginning of the XXI century, are created not so much by technology as by the change in the way of life that they entail.
So in the mid-2010s, nine out of ten working people are employed in professions that did not exist a century earlier, but only 5% of the jobs that appeared from 1993 to 2013 are in high-tech areas, such as IT or telecom.
However, the question is whether this does not mean that indirectly they still arise due to technologies that provide an opportunity for development for the service sector.
Is it bad?
A shot from the film "I, Robot" (2004).
Harvard economics professor Lawrence Summers, who previously served as U.S. Treasury Secretary, said in 2014 that he no longer believes that automation will always create new jobs and that it is not some hypothetical possibility in the future; it is something that is emerging now.
In his opinion, the changes will be very global and will lead to mass unemployment not only among low-skilled employees, but also for “blue ” and“ white ” collar workers, because “there are many reasons to think that the software revolution will be even more significant than the agrarian one. ”
The robot prepares food.
However, this is what allows us to look to the future with optimism.
Summers ’ s thought of the meaning of the digital revolution echoes the position of futurologist Alvin Toffler.
As early as 1970, in his book Future Shock, he wrote that by comparing the Digital Revolution with the Industrial Revolution, we downplay its significance and it would be more correct to draw a parallel with the exit of mankind from caves and the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and cattle breeding.
Potentially, this means that humanity is on the verge of an unprecedented, unknown written history civilizational leap of colossal proportions.
And, due to the fact that the speed of changes in the world has increased many times and now, the fact that in the case of the end of the Stone Age, took millennia, is being carried out in front of one, a maximum of a couple or three generations, this breakthrough, of course, will be painful.
However, having reviewed the usual way of life, the attitude to it and their values, will not humanity be able to break through to the conditions of life, previously even unimaginable.
"Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991).
We are easily accustomed to such changes in “work ” as freelancing and remote work, quite calmly came to a repeated change of professions, instead of a continuous, decades-long“ career ” and even were able to include them in your life, saying that this is the way to find yourself.
So is it not time to begin to accustom ourselves to the idea that, as economic historian Robert Skidelsky said, “Sooner or later we will run out of work ”?
After all, freelancing and remote employment are about freedom, about leaving the “office slavery ” and searching for the way of life that is convenient for us.
Yes, to get used to the idea that the traditional “work ” is over and now we will have to independently invent what to occupy ourselves will not be easy.
It will require responsibility, but it is freedom.
Isn ’ t it time for us, joyfully exclaiming “Glory to the robots! ”, to go in search of our place in the new world?
Why robots will take away your profession.
The fact that it is not only about robots, but also about the “work ” itself and the possibility of life without it, about the risks associated with negative scenarios of confrontation between people and machines and the possibilities of overcoming them, we will talk in the next parts of the cycle.
source
If you liked this post, please share it with your friends:
And don't forget:
Subscribe to my Instagram
Link to the original source
Picture of the day
top

Yuval Harari's statement that most people are redundant due to modern technology also motivates the 21st century Luddite movement.

Title:

Content: WEF Adviser Yuval Harari: ‘We Just Don’t Need the Vast Majority of the Population’ in Today’s World

Breitbart – by Robert Kraychik

Yuval Noah Harari, historian, futurist, and World Economic Forum (WEF) adviser, said, “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population” in the early 21st century given modern technologies’ rendering human labor economically and militarily “redundant.”

Harari’s remarks were made in an interview with Chris Anderson, the head of TED, published on Tuesday. He assessed widespread contemporary disillusionment among “common people” as being rooted in a fear of being “left behind” in a future run by “smart people.” Such fears are justified, he added, given his projection that emerging technologies will displace economic needs to many categories of existing work:

A lot of people sense that they are being left behind and left out of the story, even if their material conditions are still relatively good. In the 20th century, what was common to all the stories — the liberal, the fascist, the communist — is that the big heroes of the story were the common people, not necessarily all people, but if you lived, say, in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, life was very grim, but when you looked at the propaganda posters on the walls that depicted the glorious future, you were there. You looked at the posters which showed steel workers and farmers in heroic poses, and it was obvious that this is the future.

Now, when people look at the posters on the walls, or listen to TED talks, they hear a lot of these these big ideas and big words about machine learning and genetic engineering and blockchain and globalization, and they are not there. They are no longer part of the story of the future, and I think that — again, this is a hypothesis — if I try to understand and to connect to the deep resentment of people, in many places around the world, part of what might be going there is people realize — and they’re correct in thinking that — that, ‘The future doesn’t need me. You have all these smart people in California and in New York and in Beijing, and they are planning this amazing future with artificial intelligence and bio-engineering and in global connectivity and whatnot, and they don’t need me. Maybe if they are nice, they will throw some crumbs my way like universal basic income,’ but it’s much worse psychologically to feel that you are useless than to feel that you are exploited.

Harari contrasted the 20th century with the 21st while forecasting what he said is the current century’s and future economies progressively diminishing need for human beings. He said:

If you go back to the middle of the 20th century — and it doesn’t matter if you’re in the United States with Roosevelt, or if you’re in Germany with Hitler, or even in the USSR with Stalin — and you think about building the future, then your building materials are those millions of people who are working hard in the factories, in the farms, the soldiers. You need them. You don’t have any kind of future without them.

“Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population,” he concluded, “because because the future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence [and] bioengineering, Most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing which is useful, these technologies increasingly will make redundant and will make it possible to replace the people.”

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/08/10/wef-adviser-yuval-harari-we-just-dont-need-the-vast-majority-of-the-population-in-todays-world/

The 21st century Luddite movement is characterized by hyper-alienation, where technology destroys communal relationships, and some argue that technology harms the planet and the working class.

Title:

Content: Artificial Intelligence and the Curse of the Machine Gods

Image by Gertrūda Valasevičiūtė.

Sometime back in 2008 I was having a conversation with an FBI agent. This is not something I would normally care to do, but in this case it was a family member—my half-brother, who is fourteen years older than me. We didn’t grow up together and have never particularly liked each other, and his wife and I share an intense mutual loathing, but at the time I was making an effort to be more present in the lives of their two young daughters, my nieces.

We were sitting in the living room of their home in Simi Valley, where cops move so they don’t have to live in L.A. with real people. The tedious babble of a televised football game was droning in the background. Following a thread of conversation I’ve long since forgotten, we somehow got onto to the topic of theft and morality. My brother said to me—and this is an exact quote—Are you one of those people who thinks it’s wrong to steal from a mom & pop store, but it’s okay to steal from Wal-Mart because it’s a big corporation?

Sensing my time to shine, I replied as follows: in order for me to believe that it would be “stealing” to take something from Wal-Mart without paying for it, I would first have to believe that Wal-Mart is capable of owning something. I don’t.

He was immediately confused. I continued.

In my view, you must have consciousness and will in order to own something. Wal-Mart has neither of those things; it is a construct. It may have stores and employees, managers and board members, but essentially it’s a legal fiction—a synthetic entity. Wal-Mart really only exists on paper, and it’s only because of consensus social agreement—and fear of law enforcement—that it can be said to have any claim at all to its warehouses of tacky furniture and sweatshop clothing.

The “synthetic entity” part really got him; he froze like an old computer. I could almost hear the cogs of his mind grinding as he tried to process an idea that was completely alien to his worldview.

Thanks to certain rulings of the good ol’ Supreme Court, these synthetic entities have all of the “rights” of individual citizens, yet none of the liabilities… like mortality. There is not a single human servitor of Wal-Mart who is not replaceable, from the CEO to the door greeters. Like all employees of giant corporations, they’re basically wetware, serving the needs of a more or less immortal construct.

You may have figured out where I’m going with this: corporations are a form of artificial intelligence. I hate to be the one to break it to y’all, but our society was conquered by A.I. generations ago.

I call them machine gods; “gods,” because they’re fundamentally disembodied—they are primarily conceptual, like, say, Hermes. “Machines,” because they don’t have any actual will or consciousness—what they have is programming; they take objects and convert them into money, which is essentially the same thing as saying they convert objects into power. The objects themselves are created by transforming the living—trees, livestock, landscapes, sweatshop workers—into the dead.

A fun, old-fashioned occult word for such an entity is egregore.

Taking things from a mom & pop store would directly harm the livelihood of actual human beings, who have will and consciousness. That is simply not the case with Wal-Mart, or Target, or Dollar General. These companies make billions of dollars in profit, most of which goes into the pockets of a handful of corporate executives who are already wealthy. If I could do so with impunity, I would take absolutely everything I ever wanted or needed from Wal-Mart—or any other chain store—without paying for any of it.

You know, sort of like European invaders did to Turtle Island.

That I refrain from shoplifting is not a moral stance at all, but a practical one based on fear of legal punishment. Also, my finances are solid enough that I don’t need to take stuff from the machine gods without paying; unlike many people in this country, I can afford the basics of life. There’s no good reason for me to risk a larceny case. But if my situation were to change, I certainly wouldn’t feel any pangs of fucking guilt for helping myself to the shit at Wal-Mart.

And so, my brother’s attempt to trap me with his simplistic, pseudo-Christian moral conundrum failed utterly. After wearing out his cop-mind for a few minutes trying to find an angle from whence to undermine my argument, he finally landed on this: Well, where does the transition happen between a mom & pop store and Wal-Mart?

He really thought he got me with that one, but it’s clearly absurd; once it’s possible to purchase shares of a company on the stock market, we’re pretty well into machine god territory. Although technically they are both corporations, a tremendous gulf separates my local corner store from Wal-Mart. It’s like comparing a marble to Jupiter.

***

I would argue that the state, with its penchant not only for reproducing itself, but also for manufacturing humans who require a state, is also a form of artificial intelligence.

***

Since the industrial revolution, or at least since the advent of advertising and P.R. firms, every time some fancy new technology comes around there are always True Believers—the people who can’t wait to tell you How Much Better Life Will Be Now. This fable is still popular after two centuries of revealing itself as a lie—the most significant accomplishments of most new technology are: killing more of the planet, impoverishing the working class, and consolidating wealth & control.

If you were connected to the last smoldering remnants of the counterculture in the mid ‘90s, then you might remember how everyone was convinced that the internet was going to Liberate Democracy or whatever. Anyone who’d studied Marx for two seconds should have easily predicted that the ability to buy everything online was just going to put a lot of moms & pops out of business. But could they have predicted QAnon? Hmm…

A few of the early dick-riders of cybertech, like Douglas Rushkoff, have repented of their foolish technophilia… now that it’s too late. Who knows what world we might now live in if liberals and leftists would have immediately recognized the internet as a force of evil? Actually, nevermind; they probably couldn’t have stopped it. By that point the beast was coming whether we wanted it or not.

However, I do not believe that our techno-dystopia was historically inevitable.

Back in May, author Thomas Knapp made a statement in a piece for Counterpunch that I feel is worth quoting at length before I carve it up with the Wu Tang sword:

We’ve been hurtling toward the “singularity” for at least 3.3 million years, ever since one of our ancestor hominins (probably Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus) started using tools to make their work easier.

Over those millions of years, we’ve continuously improved our tools … and our tools have continuously improved us. We’re not really the same animal we were before the automobile, let alone before the wheel. We can do things our grandparents, and those hominins, never dreamed of.

Once we started developing tools that could crack nuts better than us, speak across greater distances than us, travel faster than us, etc., it was inevitable that we’d eventually develop tools which could think better than us.”

With as much respect as is due to anyone who has just insulted their entire species, I have to say this is a gold-medal contender for the stupidest shit I’ve heard all year. I have an appreciation for healthy cynicism, but damn; this kind of Original Sin nonsense chafes my chonies.

First of all, the industrial foundation that made computer tech possible is only a couple of centuries old; go ahead and take a second to boot up your calculator, then divide 200 by 3.3 million and see what kind of ratio you get. I’d hardly describe the speed of that species-journey as “hurtling.” It looks more to me like being healthy for a hundred years, then getting total-body cancer for a fraction of a second before dropping dead.

Second, there was never anything “inevitable” about A.I., the internet, computers, industry, or even civilization. Civilization has only been around for about 5,000 years (divide that by 3.3 million; you’ll get a bigger number but not by much), and as James C. Scott examined in Against the Grain, the earliest hierarchical states were extremely fragile for any number of reasons. There was no guarantee that this way of organizing society would last as long as it has… and it probably won’t last much longer.

The industrial revolution was not the inevitable result of humans being “tool users”—a lot of other species make and use tools—it was the specific product of a specific culture in a specific region under specific circumstances. If the cosmic criminal Christopher Columbus had met a righteous end by drowning at sea before reaching Turtle Island—or, as in the short story I’m currently writing, been murdered by a coalition of time-traveling queers—it’s likely that the industrial revolution would never have happened. That means no capitalism, no planet-devouring corporations, and no motherfucking A.I.

Third, Knapp’s passage is really just a re-framing of the European “Enlightenment” myth of Progress™. The idea that factories and Skynet are part of the “natural evolution” of the human species is not only ridiculous, but it’s also a clandestine form of diet white supremacism—if the industrial revolution was a natural part of “our” evolution, and Europeans did it first, then clearly they must be more “advanced” than other people. Ergo, manifest some destiny, etc.

To commit what’s actually an enormous fuck-up and then claim it’s “natural” to the species is a phenomenal level of hubris… hubris that is basic to the social construction of whiteness. I’ve endured this crypto-racist horseshit in some form or another for my entire life, and I’m tired of it. I feel the same way about the “progress” myth that I feel about the Bering Strait Theory and White Jesus—I keep hoping it’ll retire to Debunked Land, but it never does. Since we can’t get rid of it, my only option for spiritual well-being is to mercilessly clown it.

These last few months, there have been a lot of people gnashing their teeth about the Dangers of A.I. Most of these folks have been enthusiastically feeding all of their personal data to tech companies for the last twenty years, and don’t see the relationship between the two things, but nevermind that.

I don’t see that there is any new danger from A.I. that isn’t already inherent in our cybernetic dystopia. Banal and soulless popular culture? Already got that. People relying on computers to do their thinking for them? Been common for years. Machines taking people’s jobs, or murdering them? Check. Planetary extinction? Well on our way. The “singularity” is just a secular repackaging of Judgment Day. It’s all hype.

That said, is resistance even possible?

I believe resistance is always possible… but only if you understand the threat. Over the years I’ve studied many social movements, particularly the more radical ones—labor rights, religious rebellions, anarchist insurrections, Black Power, Indigenous sovereignty, etc. One of the things all these movements have in common is that they grew from a world in which there was still such a thing as communities.

Many of the Black Panthers were organizing with neighbors whose families they’d known for two or three generations, sometimes longer. When was the last time you were in a neighborhood where everyone had known each other for that long? Gentrification is a helluva drug.

The gospels of Marxism and anarchism were spread in cafes. Nowadays, I’m ready to shed tears when I see strangers so much as strike up a conversation with each other at a cafe. Most people prefer interacting with a screen.

Our current state of hyper-alienation and total cybernetic mediation has effectively destroyed our communal relationships. Nobody like Malcolm X or Fred Hampton could ever have emerged from the world of smartphones and zuckerbook. Tech is the problem, and has been for a long time… yet people act like uncensored access to Twitter is the key to a functioning democracy.

What is to be done?

I don’t know. But I have an extra sledgehammer if you wanna play Luddite with me.

Malik Diamond is a hip hop artist, cartoonist, author, educator, and martial arts instructor. Born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, he is the descendant of kidnapped Africans, conquered Natives, and rural laborers of the Scots-Irish, Swiss, and German varieties. He currently lives in Oakland, California, with two brown humans and a white cat. E-mail: malikdiamond (at) hotmail (dot) com

To build trust with a supervisor resistant to new technology, an intern should understand their concerns and establish friendly links with key personnel.

Title:

Content: New Workplace Environment Using Mind-reading Technique to Be Low-key and Work Highly ｜ Zhiwei
Author: Zhiwei
Published: Updated:
Friend KK got a very ideal job, the only difference is that this is a temporary contract.
KK has made up its mind to perform well, compete for renewal and one day turn.
It ’ s only two or three weeks since he returned to work, and his boss has reminded him that “this is a temporary contract for several months. It ’ s necessary to sort and store the documents in order to facilitate the future handover. ”
Asked the basic information, learned that the boss in the industry did not have a negative reputation, and the position is new, Zhiwei assistant KK analysis: the probability that he met a good boss who is honest and responsible.
First of all, the entry time is still short, not enough to determine whether the contract can be renewed, the boss does not speak for the PUA employees but reminds the nature of temporary workers: secondly, in order to smoothly connect the work, and repeatedly remind to do a good job of filing, is responsible for the bottom to top. KK relaxed, but also feel reasonable, you can rest assured and concentrate on the work.
Zhiwei found that just transferred to a new workplace environment, the first 3-6 months is a very sensitive and important period, after the "honeymoon period" of hello I am good to nodding my head, employers (bosses) and employees are going to see the real chapter.
At this time, if the staff member "mind reading", know from what aspects to get familiar with
The new environment, with the understanding of the boss's heart, is bound to achieve twice the results with half the effort, and obtain the expectation of changing jobs and exceeding the expectations.
In this regard, Zhiwei has three elements of the bottom of the pressure box to share with the readers.
First, build trust with your boss, deepen understanding, and become a community of interests.
The boss who invites you in is your first sponsor in this unfamiliar environment, and is the person you most need to buy and unite, otherwise it is difficult to establish your own strength and name. Familiar with the joy and sorrow of the boss as soon as possible, and heartily assist the boss, both new and old employees, are extremely important, unless you intend to replace them (outside the scope of today's discussion).
Second, establish friendly links and good cooperative relations with key personnel.
Identify the most important departments in your workflow and the people who help you (including the small heads, colleagues and subordinates in your department), and make friends with them if they can, and friendly colleagues if they can ’ t.
In this way, your work will progress like God help, more hands to help you and support your voice, and your boss will be happy that you can do things with less worry and hindrances.
Third, establish short-term or long-term relationships with key intelligence sources.
This includes the upper echelons, older employees, and leavers of the company, with a focus on getting familiar with your department and your boss, as well as moving up and down key departments and their supervisors.
These people have experienced long-term or significant events in the company, department, and decision maker. It can be helpful to familiarize yourself with the environment and to help you avoid harm.
Top people not only have experience, they have the current successful experience, worthy of you to learn; old employees have witnessed the wind and rain and rainbow, but because of the lack of something can not be effectively upstream, worthy of you to understand; leavers see a kind of irreconcilable problem to choose to quit, they are usually in the two extremes of excellence and scarcity, are worth your reference and reference.
In the face of new employees, the pressure of the boss is not small, and I hope that the subordinates can smoothly integrate and produce, and I am worried that the new person is not working well and easy to get into trouble.
If you are restrained, people will feel that you are not active enough and difficult to achieve results; if you are high, people will feel that you are aggressive and difficult to manage.
Zhiwei found that low-key people, high-key work, for the principle of feasible
First, understand the environment and the rules of the game, and key people (including the boss) to deal with the relationship.
When you need to calmly cooperate, more observation, more support, more questions you do not understand, less challenges; when you need to achieve results, put out your skills and do things well.
But so.
Zhiwei ’ s new book, “Zhiwei ” and“ Zhiwei ” are available in three United, commercial and Chinese bookstores, one app, and Amazon online.
All major bookstores have been increasing their orders, and I thank the readers for their support!
[Financial Column] Meet Wei and Know Wei ｜ Senior Financial Insider
See the spring and autumn of the capital city, experience the wind and rain in England, and live in the port of Xiangjiang.
Think about financial phenomena, analyze workplace trends, and explore health secrets.
Disclaimer: The above content only represents the author ’ s personal position and views, does not represent any position of Hong Kong 01, and Hong Kong 01 cannot verify the authenticity, accuracy and originality of the above content.
In addition, the above is a personal research sharing and does not represent the position of any third party, nor is it any investment advice or persuasion. Readers should use their independent thinking skills to make their own investment decisions.

Identifying common goals and interests helps establish cooperation between an intern and their supervisor.

Title:

Content: Gazeta.ru on desktop
for quick access
Install
Not now
Business psychologist told how to find a common language with colleagues in the new workplace
To find a language with colleagues in a new workplace, it is worth taking the initiative, listening more and asking, as well as protecting the team from potentially annoying factors in itself.
About this "Gazeta.Ru" told the business psychologist and clinical psychologist "Clinic Dr. Anikina" Stanislav Sambursky.
According to the expert, the first step in finding a common language with colleagues is a personal acquaintance.
“Take the time to introduce yourself and learn more about the interests, hobbies and biographies of colleagues.
This will help you to find a common language and establish mutual understanding with colleagues.
For example, do not go to drink coffee alone: a break is a great way to establish informal relationships that will become a strong foundation of professional relationships.
And don ’ t be afraid to take the initiative: whether it ’ s casual conversations or inviting colleagues to lunch, ” the business psychologist recommended.
It will help to find a common language with the new team and understand the working styles of each of its members.
Some people prefer to work independently, while others can excel in teamwork.
Such observation will allow you to adapt to fit into the culture of the team.
It will help to find a common language with colleagues, according to the expert, and the approach of “listening more and asking more ”.
This will help to understand the point of view of colleagues and build trust.
In the same way, expressing gratitude and appreciation to colleagues for their help will work.
It will also be useful to try to find common working goals and interests with someone from the team - working on their achievements will be a great way to establish cooperation and teamwork.
“Finally, it is important to approach your new colleagues with respect and impartiality.
Recognize that everyone has their own unique views and experiences, and try to be open to new ideas and ways of doing things.
Avoid making assumptions and judgments based on stereotypes or biased opinions, try to be inclusive and respectful to all team members, ” advised Stanislav Sambursky.
The psychologist noted that it is necessary when entering a new team and eliminate potentially irritating factors in themselves, for example, a strong smell.
“Halve the amount of perfume and twice closely monitor your own hygiene and cleanliness of clothes.
In the first days you will be studied especially carefully, ” the expert stated.
He added that if it is difficult for an employee to find a common language with colleagues, one should not be afraid to ask for help.
This can be an appeal to a mentor or a consultation with a colleague to whom trust has already been formed.
Asking for help will help overcome obstacles and build stronger relationships in the workplace.
Previously, a business coach explained how to understand that the boss is manipulating you.
Share:
Downloading
Found a bug?
Close

Adapting to a supervisor's working style can strengthen their relationship and improve communication.

Building relationships requires active listening, empathy, and effective communication.

Title:

Content: Here are 10 effective tips for dealing with difficult coworkers
Published: 26 July 2023 - 08: 09
Source: Shutterstock
Every workplace will necessarily encounter difficult co-workers who will test our patience and see how well we can keep our cool under pressure.
Dealing with these people can be annoying and even counterproductive.
However, developing the skill of coping with difficult co-workers is key to having a productive work environment.
To help you deal with these difficult situations elegantly and efficiently, this article will review ten proven and reliable strategies.
Here are 10 effective tips for dealing with difficult coworkers
1.
Compassion and understanding
Compassion and understanding are two of the most important skills for dealing with difficult coworkers.
Try to put yourself in their position and think about their views.
Acknowledge that they may face challenges in their personal or professional lives, leading to their unwanted behavior.
Empathy can help build a good relationship and foster positive communication.
Source: Shutterstock
2.
Active Listening
Active listening is a vital skill when dealing with difficult co-workers.
Give them your full attention when they voice their concerns or complaints.
Believe their feelings and opinions, even if you disagree with them.
Often people just want to be heard, and attentive listening can relieve stress and improve communication.
3.
Maintaining Professionalism
It is essential to show professionalism at all times when dealing with difficult situations.
Avoid getting into heated discussions or letting your feelings govern your reactions.
Instead, respond calmly and specifically and focus on finding a constructive solution to the problem.
4.
Search for common points
Find common points with your difficult colleagues.
Identifying common goals or interests contributes to building a foundation for cooperation and understanding.
Discovering similarities may lead to more productive and collaborative discussions.
5.
Setting boundaries
It ’ s important to set and clarify your personal boundaries if your difficult colleague regularly crosses them.
Kindly let them know that certain behaviors are unacceptable and how they affect your ability to function effectively.
Stay consistent on these boundaries to maintain a positive working relationship.
6.
Avoid chatter and grumbling
Refrain from gossiping or complaining to other colleagues when you have difficulties because of your difficult colleagues.
This behavior can damage your professional reputation and increase negative energy.
Instead, talk directly with the person concerned and if necessary, seek advice from the HR department or supervisor.
7.
Collaborating on solutions
Shift your attention from problems caused by your difficult colleagues to collaborating on solutions.
Discuss issues openly and collaboratively to identify a solution that improves your relationship at work and overall team dynamics.
8. Be prepared to receive feedback
Being prepared to receive constructive nutrition is vital for personal and professional growth.
Gently accept your colleague ’ s criticism and use it as an opportunity to better understand their point of view and make improvements if necessary.
9.
Recognition of achievements
When appropriate, appreciate and thank your difficult colleague for his or her achievements and contributions.
Giving thanks for their efforts can contribute to creating a positive atmosphere and strengthening practical relationships.
10.
Know when to ask for help.
Some situations may be beyond your ability to resolve, and despite doing your best, problems may persist or worsen.
If difficulties persist, consider involving a supervisor, department, or HR representative to mediate the situation impartially.
Dealing with difficult co-workers is an unavoidable part of professional life.
However, with the right application of the right technologies you can turn these retrofit interactions into opportunities for growth and improved working relationships.
You can create a happy and productive work environment even among the most challenging coworkers if you practice empathy, active listening, and professionalism.
Remember that how you handle these situations reflects your personality and professionalism, so it ’ s worth investing the time and effort to develop good communication and collaboration with your colleagues.
Read also.
Topics you might like.

Education and training are crucial for helping employees adapt to technological changes by developing necessary skills.

Title:

Content: There are no doubt that there are challenges facing us in life, in various aspects, including the practical aspect (job) where we face continuous developments, it is a very changing and constantly changing field of technology that continues to evolve, and the entry of new and modern technologies, at every stage of time, and this undoubtedly affects many aspects of life, from business, tasks and jobs, to trade, whether limited and emerging, or at the level of institutions and large companies.
Although we strive to be familiar with modern technologies, learn them, and even increase knowledge in various aspects, but their continuous nature, and the entry of continuous updates make what you have learned limited, and your knowledge of the management of this technology needs to be developed, it is not enough, or that dealing with those applications is flawed, which means that the technologies have changed completely, and this is a cumbersome process in the long term.
On the other hand, we find that modern technologies, and continuous updates, have a positive impact in the work environment, which is urgent developments keep pace with progress, and any delay or stop or lax to keep pace with them means that the train of development exceeds you, or that the new technology becomes more complex, and the lack of skill in harnessing and use, all of which means failure, or decline of your work, or low skill.
Therefore, the talk about the power of technology, and the entry of the digital world, is unacceptable, or words outdated, because we live in the digital age, and amid modern technologies, and seek to keep pace with technology, but we have reached the stage of artificial intelligence, mobility between information systems, cloud systems technology, and many others, techniques that must be learned and know their uses.
In our time, we have moved beyond email and instant chat, and we have new technologies that are constantly evolving.
Failure, regression, or slow understanding of modern technologies, or unfamiliarity with them, will affect your career, and soon it becomes clear what you suffer from, because tasks and work are not done efficiently or effectively, and you always suffer from a defect in achievement.
What is required is a quest for knowledge that does not stop, and ran towards enhancing and developing your information, keeping up with updates, and familiarity with new applications, hence the importance of attending courses held by employers, and entering workshops aimed at education, and training on modern technologies.
Although there are difficulties, professional and cognitive development can be continued to increase personal abilities and individual potential, and this is a personal investment that increases your abilities and your value in the labor market.
www.shaimaalmarzooqi.com

Effective communication is key when discussing technology with a resistant supervisor.

Title:

Content: Procurement and digital banking in the UAE

Banking is changing.

As the world continues to embrace more and more technologies and innovation, this creates an ever growing and ever demanding customer base. With the rise of smart payments, shifting towards a completely digital experience, the financial sector has to change and evolve with this shifting world.

For Dr Arafat El Mourad, Author and Acting Head of Procurement and Contracts, Xbank, this evolution should be a process that avoids the somewhat cliché term of “digital transformation” that is bandied around the industry so frequently.

“It’s not just technology. You can have the best technology in the world but if you don’t have the right mindset, the right people driving that innovation, it simply will not work,” he says.

As per his published book (Innovation in Procurement and its added value to United Arab Emirates Banking Sector, Islamic & Conventional) El Mourad says that in procurement you need the right people and you need communication, transparency, reliability, skilled and competent staff, quality innovation and, most importantly from a stakeholder viewpoint, cost optimisation and added value.”

Over the course of more than 20 years working in IT and procurement, studying in Zurich and working in the UAE at Xbank, he has seen first-hand how the industry has changed and must continue to change in order to provide the best possible services and solutions for its customers.

“Throughout my career I have become much more strategically driven, as opposed to focusing solely on the process,” he says. “I’ve spent the best part of it looking at how technology can be deployed to add value, not only in terms of cost optimisation but also how it we can add value to the customer that does not compromise on quality.”

El Mourad is a firm believer that for any push for technology and innovation to be successful, it must be built on three main pillars.

People, technology and process.

The people element is key to all of this, as without the right people with the right mindsets and possessing an open mind to embracing technology and striving for innovation then nothing else will work.

As El Mourad says himself, people represent the first pillar of change.

“You have to be innovative in the way you approach technology and approach process,” he says. “You need those three pillars to make it work and you need to be innovative in the process, and the communication.”

Of course, working with people and attempting to change mindsets and approaches to the industry, mindsets that have been built up over years of working in a consistent and reliable way. The financial industry, despite its upswings and downturns over the years, remains a hugely profitable and ultimately successful sector so why try to fix what isn’t broken?

“It takes time [for people to get on board with technology transformation]” says El Mourad. “But the key is how you communicate what will happen, the benefits we can reap and translating the added value that it will bring to the organisation.”

El Mourad points to a time where he planned to introduce a new technology system into Xbank, a process that took three years to fully implement. The first two years of this journey were spent trying to convince people and stakeholders to embrace this change.

“It’s all in the language,” he says. “I cannot present this technology to the CEO in the same way that I could present it to my peers on procurement. I have to translate it into a business case.”

“I approach the communication in a way that can be understood by every stakeholder because I communicate it in a different way to every stakeholder, or CEO, or CIO. There is no one size fits all to this.”

With technology and transformation there is an unavoidable element of risk involved. Risk of failure, risk of losing customers and perhaps most importantly, particularly from an operational standpoint, risk of significant costs associated with that failure.

This is a fact of life when it comes to implementing technology and it has developed a mindset that is somewhat consistent across the banking industry the world over and not simply within the UAE.

“There is a risk and a concern. I’d argue that risk is actually up there as an important discussion with the working out the added value,” says El Mourad.

“The question becomes more about what are we actually doing to measure the risk and most importantly mitigate the risk.”

This calls back to El Mourad’s strive for clear and open communication. With regular meetings with top tier management and stakeholders, El Mourad ensures that from top to bottom all levels of the company understand the technology implications but also the risk implications in any new venture.

He attributes this to a cost ownership mentality. After all, cost is often king.

“It’s about cost ownership,” he says. “How much you’re spending on technology? How much on security?  It’s important to show that while technology costs, it saves you money – technology is all about reducing those costs and saving money, not incurring more costs.”

The banking industry in the UAE is changing at a rapid rate and this is driven by the customer. The banking customer of 2018 wants a digital experience. El Mourad himself points to a conversation he had with board members; upon asking them when was the last time they visited a branch in person over the course of the last 12 months between a group of six, there was only three visits.

This is a perfect encapsulation of where banking stands right now in the USE and Xbank, along with all banks, must continue to innovate to continue to serve this growing demand.

This turn towards digital not only affects the bank’s external operations. Over the last few years Xbank has continued to invest more into machine learning, automation and AI wherever possible as it looks to streamline its internal operations to enable its external operations to grow.

“I was involved in discussions about how the bank was moving towards digital.” Says El Mourad. “They want to become more AI focused. It’s a trend in the UAE. More banks are moving to AI, instead of just automation. This helped me build my case and the added value that procurement can bring on this front.”

A key example that El Mourad notes is the implementation of an automated procurement system that will see what he describes as the end of emails. Through this one centralised system, the procurement team can access all documentation from approvals to supplier lists at the click of a button.

Over time, this function will begin to utilise AI and for El Mourad this is crucial in growing as a business.

“This makes it easier to learn,” he says. “AI will help us mitigate risk, learn from where we could potentially improve, and continue to understand the customer requirements and ultimately meet them. Therefore, procurement should transform and shift their focus from internal customers to internal and external customers.”

As the banking sector continues to grow, banks and financial organisations must continue to push the innovation boundaries in order to grow with it and ultimately survive.

For El Mourad, the key has always been the people.

“The banking sector right now is rigid,” he says. “It needs to embrace innovation. People fear change and it needs a leader to inspire.”

“For me, it is all about inspiration, not transformation. Through inspiration, we can unlick the innovative mindset that will allow the sector to reach new heights.”

Share
Share
Author

User training is necessary for the effective adoption of new tools and can alleviate concerns about new technology.

Title:

Content: No Jitter is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

5 Mistakes To Avoid When Replacing Your Communications Technology

After working on projects replacing hundreds of phone systems over my years as a consultant, I have noticed some common trends in the projects that are the most challenging.

Here are the top 5 most common mistakes we see when replacing a telephony system:

  1. Skipping the needs assessment. Often a move to a new telephony solution occurs when the existing system reaches end of life. In these cases, it’s easy to think that your goal in replacing your existing solution is to simply duplicate what you have. But you are missing a big opportunity for improvement.

Communication technology has changed considerably in the last few years. New solutions go beyond telephony to include collaboration tools and support multiple forms of communication. Users can move seamlessly between devices and incorporate SMS text messaging and IM in addition to voice. There are usually opportunities to improve outdated workflows caused by limitations of the old technology.

If you are looking at a replacement due to inadequacies of the existing technology, a thorough needs assessment is still a good idea. Most organizations have some percentage of power users who will benefit from higher-level “tools,” and the most successful implementations recognize these users and provide the tools to make them more effective. Standard users can benefit from enhancements such as voice mail messages in their email, and the ability to work remotely, if they don’t already have these capabilities.

It's useful to document your common user requirements in addition to the more complex special requirements. When you understand the workflows of your users and how they utilize the features in your current telephone system, it will help you select a better replacement technology.

  1. Not involving business users in the decision. When a system is selected only by the IT team, it often does not fully meet the needs of the wider group of end users. We once saw a solution selected based primarily on what would be best for enhancing the IT team’s resumes.

Including end users in your needs assessment will help to uncover both business and technical requirements. This has multiple benefits:

  1. Reveals productivity enhancements offered by mobility and collaboration capabilities not available in the current system.
  2. Uncovers communications issues. Often, we find that many user complaints can be resolved through changes in business processes.
  3. Improves system acceptance. When business users have had input into the process, they are less likely to resist adoption of the new system.

Involving business users in the selection process results in a better decision in the end, although a larger group can slow the process. Business users often help to clarify what is truly needed versus what is nice to have. They typically aren’t swayed by the coolest new toys, and offer insight into areas where true productivity gains can be achieved.

  1. No end-user communications plan. End users are much more likely to accept and adopt a new technology tool when they understand how it can benefit them. A good communication plan can go a long way in reducing resistance to the change. The best communications plans take a custom approach and target messages to specific groups of users, explaining the benefits of the new tool that are most relevant to each group.

You can download an eBook that explains the adoption and change management process in greater detail

  1. Skimping on user training. UCaaS providers typically don’t offer “classroom” training on live phones. They offer virtual classes with live instructors, recorded sessions, and train-the-trainer options. While these methods save a lot of labor for the vendors, they can be insufficient for the users. On the surface it seems OK. After all, how hard can it be to use a new phone?

But new telephony solutions bring many new capabilities that users may have never been exposed to previously. They may not know how to manage calls and features using a computer instead of the hard phone.

And there are cell phone apps, collaboration tools, and presence and status information. There may be multiple tools that offer the same capabilities. Your new tool may offer chat, or video conferencing. Which tool should they be using?

All of this complexity creates confusion for your users. If your new solution has any feature depth, then there will be complexity. In order to get full use of the new capabilities, users must be trained on them, and given guidelines on which tools are to be used.

  1. Underestimating the difficulty of porting numbers. This process can be quite dysfunctional, especially if you have been with your carrier for several years. Records can be inaccurate, and the entire process is based on this information. At times, this can be a headache (or worse). For a breakdown of common problems, check out this article

Often the process takes longer than expected, so build extra time into your process to allow for that.

For more tips and advice from people who have gone through this process, check out these sessions at Enterprise Connect:

Tuesday, March 26 | 2:00pm - 2:45pm

UCAAS CASE STUDIES: HOW YOUR PEERS MADE THE MIGRATION

Moderator: Melissa Swartz(Swartz Consulting)

Panelists: Steve Panton (Gannett Fleming), Brian Harrison (Broward College), Karen Gordon (King & Spalding)

Wednesday, March 27 | 2:00pm - 2:45pm

ENTERPRISE LEADERS SPEAK OUT: VOICE MIGRATION--CRITICAL ISSUES FOR A (STILL) CRITICAL CAPABILITY

Moderator: Melissa Swartz (Swartz Consulting)

Panelists: Scott Johnson (Cargill), Georges Habalian (HCA Healthcare), Eric Zweigbaum (Conair)

Active listening can relieve stress, improve communication, and facilitate constructive conversations about new technology.