I'm not a fan of this book, but my reasons differ. Some are not fans because they believe he's wrongly stated when the technologies were brought into existance. I'm less of a critique there as I think that's not his point. Others are upset with the formulation of his argument. Here I do have some similarities in my concerns. He's arguing that we are in the Fourth Industrial Wave of Revolution. He believes that something distinctive is happening and there is a change. This change, however is very loosely defined relative to specific machines which are more integrated into life. He then structures each paragraph as a discussion surrounding the potentiality of machines. Ultimately he argues that what must happen is greater governance and value integration in the machines themselves.
Early on in the book (I read on cell phone, so don't have page numbers) he talks about the idea that machines and systems need to go together.
"By systems, we mean the norms, rules, expectations, goals, institutions and incentives that guide our behavior every day as well as the infrastructure and flows of material and people that are fundamental to our economic and political lives." His point is that machines drive these together for progress.
This to me is a "kind of." He drops this understanding throughout the rest of the book in a meaningful way and, IMO misses the point. The machines don't drive this, they are complementary to it. I think he needs more thinking here. Relative to the work I'm doing for my research, I place systems as completely separate, define it more tightly and then talk about it relative to different types of innovation, not all of which are related to machines. I think because this book is so Industrial/machine based, the book fails to expand this point and therefore comes apart for a lot of people in its ability to argue cogently. So, right here, in the early chapters is the error in argument that then strings throughout the entire book.
For example, he then argues that the problems it that we:
1) Systems not technologies. Focus on the systems, not the technologies --- you mean, like we should focus on everything else? How so? Isn't that hte opposite of focus?
2) Empowering not determining - technology can be controlled and we need to value human decision making. We should design systems that give people more choices. hmmm... it's a little loosy goosey. I think we design stuff that solves a problem. If that's the case, how do you then force people to add choice in there if it's not a part of what matters. It's just awkward as an argument.
3) By Design, not default - The idea is that we should be thoughtful about the bigger picture with technology. I have no idea how he's thinking about this? Do you mean a corporation? I think most innovators are designing for a specific purpose. To then ask them to take the entire world into perspective is.... well, odd.
4) Value as a feature not as a bug. I have no idea where he's at? Is he thinking about a specific design issue? I mean, most design issues or innovations are to solve something and that solving is valuable.
It's just really hard to tell who he's speaking to that he's got a beef with. Is it specific innovators who are just trying to make stuff that improves stuff? And it is for this reason that by the end of the book, the conclusions are confusing?
"...Taking a stand on values and their relationship to technology is where conviction is put into action. Creating a creed for compliance with values set by an organization can be tremedously helpful. Developing a code of ethics or simply an organizational narrative, to reinforce a purposeful, values-based approach to technology can help determine the culture of a company or organization, or even an entire profession or sector."
It's not that it's totally off the board. There are many ways to think of governance of machines. For example, rules of the road are definitively one form of governance. My issue is more that it's a bit of a misleading sort of way to think about it.
We govern the cars use. We do not govern the actual creation of the innovation itself. There is no distinction here and if anything the Fourth Industrial Revolution might serve incorrectly to narrow who gets to participate and what types of innovation are allowed. So I hate it on principal.
Finally, what I gathered is that this book is written for big think tanks that wax philosophy about how technology should affect all of society. There might be very small nuggets to pull for an extremely large corporation. But even the I'm not sure that these thing are truly helpful. and also, I think they lead toward a narrowing of how you go about innovating, not a broadening or an improvement. The book comes to a conclusion, which the author doesn't appear to really appreciate is fear based. We must control or guide that which is happening. That's totally what you do if you are afraid that others just don't "know better." Dude... they are inventors creating AI, I think that's the l east of your concerns and certainly there's no panel that should tell them whats what.
I think it's a tough sell, but it turns out that the masses really like it, so 3 stars.