Johns from PX→

The Innovation Paradox Undermining the Digital Revolution: How Magical Technology Isn't Translating into Miraculous Economic Progress, by @ajkeen open.substack.com/pub/keenon… @carlbenediktfr1 It’s the most curious paradox of today’s digital revolution. While the computers, the internet, smartphones and AI all appear magical, they haven’t actually translated into equally magical economic progress. That, at least, is the counter-intuitive argument of the Oxford economist Carl Benedikt Frey whose new book, How Progress Ends, suggests that the digital revolution isn’t resulting in an equivalent revolution of productivity. History is repeating itself in an equally paradoxical way, Frey warns. We may, indeed, be repeating the productivity stagnation of the 1970s, in spite of our technological marvels. Unlike the 19th-century industrial revolution that radically transformed how we work, today's digital tools—however impressive—are primarily automating existing processes rather than creating fundamentally new types of economic activity that drive broad-based growth. And AI, by making existing work easier rather than creating new industries, will only compound this paradox. It might be the fate of not just the United States and Europe, but China as well. That, Frey warns, is how all progress will end.

From Luther to Zuckerberg: Who killed Privacy?, by @ajkeen open.substack.com/pub/keenon… @tiffanyjenkins So who killed privacy? It's the central question of Tiffany Jenkins' provocative new history of private life, Strangers and Intimates. The answer, according to Jenkins, is that we are all complicit—having gradually and often accidentally contributed to privacy's demise from the 16th century onwards. Luther started it by challenging Papal religious authority and the public sacraments, thereby creating the necessity of private conscience. Then came Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Hobbes who carved out bounded private political and economic spheres establishing the foundations for modern capitalism and democracy. Counter-enlightenment romantics like Rousseau reacted against this by fetishizing individual innocence and authenticity, while the Victorians elevated the domestic realm as sacred. Last but not least, there's Mark Zuckerberg's socially networked age, in which we voluntarily broadcast our private lives to a worldwide audience. But why, I ask Jenkins, should we care about the death of private life in our current hyper-individualistic age? Can it be saved by more or less obsession with the self? Or might it require us to return to the world before Martin Luther, a place Thomas More half satiricizes Utopia, where “private life” was a dangerously foreign idea.