In the last few years, technological advancement has brought fame and enormous money to people like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos. They are the people behind the technology and advertising that so many of us rely on, and they are frequently hailed as giants.
They can be contentious at times. The extent of their impact is occasionally questioned.
However, they also gain from a widespread folklore that improves their standing. This myth holds that executive “visionaries” in charge of enormous corporations are the forces behind crucial innovations that are too ambitious or contemporary for weak people institutions.
Because some people believe that the private sector is much better equipped than the common market to address significant issues. For an ideology is embodied in businesses like OpenAI. While synthetic intelligence is very important to be left to corporations only, the public sector is just unable to keep up, according to the premise of this prosperous company.
The strategy is connected to a social philosophy that supports the notion of trailblazing businessmen as role models who advance culture through individual talent and tenacity.
However, the majority of contemporary scientific foundations—like car batteries, place rockets, online, smartphones, and GPS—came about as a result of publicly funded research. They were not the universe’s business master ‘ original ideas.
And my research raises a further disconnect: the profit motive that permeates Silicon Valley ( and elsewhere ) often hinders development rather than advancing it.
For instance, attempts to make money off of the Covid vaccine had a negative effect on exposure to the medication globally. Or think about how new space tourism initiatives appear to place a higher value on experiences for extremely wealthy people than on less profitable but more beneficial missions.
More generally, restrictions on intellectual property tend to limit collaboration between ( and even within ) companies due to the desire for profit. There is also proof that short-term investor demands distort genuine creativity in favor of financial gain.
Allowing executives who are only interested in making money to set industrial agendas can also cost the government money. Dealing with the dangerous low-earth circle dust brought on by space commerce or the intricate regulation negotiations involved in defending individual rights around AI is expensive.
Therefore, there is a definite conflict between the demands of income and long-term technological advancement.
And this helps to partially explain why significant historic inventions came from public sector organizations that are largely immune to immediate economic pressures. Seldom do marketplace forces only produce revolutionary innovations like place programs or the internet.
Business dominance that is excessive has different dimming effects. Researchers appear to spend a lot of time looking for funding that is influenced by company objectives. Additionally, they are being encouraged more and more to enter the lucrative personal business.
Here, the skills of those scientists and engineers may be used to assist advertisers in much retaining our attention. Or they might be tasked with figuring out how to use our private data to generate more revenue for businesses.
Less likely to become the target are initiatives that could solve global inequality, public health, or climate change. Additionally, research suggests that through business partnerships, college laboratories are transitioning to a “science for income” model.
Digital fate
Real technological innovation, however, requires organizations and individuals who adhere to values that transcend economic opportunities. Luckily, there are locations where they can find help.
Software cooperatives and “open understanding institutions” place a stronger emphasis on innovation for the good of the group than for personal glory. Governments could help and engage in these kinds of businesses significantly more.
If so, healthier technology ecosystems that transcend corporations and their executive branch may emerge in the ensuing decades. For true cultural gain, they would foster an environment of assistance rather than competitors.
The eccentric “genius” of Musk, Zuckerberg, and their brother Silicon Valley entrepreneurs will still have a place. But it’s a mistake to design and control technological advancement using their swollen companies.
Genuine discovery and advancement may be based on the ideas and motivations of a select group of well-known men. It entails investing in organizations with a strong foundation in politics and sustainability, not just because it is more honest but also because, over time, it will be much more successful.
Peter Bloom teaches control at the University of Essex.
Under a Creative Commons license, this article is republished from The Conversation. Read the original publication.