Dr. Andy Farnell on Technology That Harms People (and Lack of Regulation Which is Needed to Address This Problem)
"Love of goodness without love of learning degenerates into simple-mindedness. Love of strength without love of learning degenerates into recklessness" – Confucius
The latest article from Dr. Andy Farnell speaks of how we've come to accept bad technology or tolerate unreliable things because of the false assumption that it is inevitable ("come on, planes just fall!"). As a teacher he spoke a lot about this, but was ignored. As a teaser:
Asbestos is a fantastic insulator and fire retardant that's no longer used in construction. However, the time between its widespread deployment and compelling evidence of harm was many years. By comparison the evidence of harm from "AI" is almost immediate. We have no excuse.It seems though that each year the law gets weaker, more cumbersome and more corrupted. Regulators are captured. Scientific expert advisers are bought and sold. Our institutions are under attack from technofascism and from "AI" which many proponents hope will "replace lawyers". Moreover there is a general reluctance in people to question technology and its balance of benefits and harms.
Our slow response to the harms of smartphones and social media is a good example to reflect on. Today (January 2026) New York City commenced a statewide smartphone ban for children. Back in 2016, as a teacher in London. I expressed serious concerns that my undergrads were experiencing a huge impact on their focus, retention and attitudes due to smartphones. At the time I was not just ignored but rebuked for being a self-centred old-fashioned "dusty professor". I was 46 - not exactly ancient - but also pioneering technology as the head of research and development in two leading start-up companies based around interactive music on mobile devices. In my university classes I was teaching cutting-edge signal processing and data science (advanced convolution, wavelets, spectral feature identification and clustering).
I could hardly be called "a Luddite". Nonetheless, as a very experienced teacher and dedicated scientist I could not ignore the evidence before my eyes. Students were getting dumber every year - and it had something to do with these phones. Surely this was something really important that needed urgent investigation? Yet there I was, an expert in the field of mobile computing devices, encountering a stonewall opposition from friends and colleagues who could not hear even the mildest criticism of the values enshrined in that technology.
It still puzzles and haunts me. A very significant number of people are predisposed to believing in technology in a very unscientific, quite religious way. What is behind this myopic psychology?
Dr. Farnell's article is long but well worth reading. █