BOOK REVIEW OF THE

GLASS CAGE -

AUTOMATION AND US
 BY

DEVI AHALYA K.R

In this book, The Glass Cage: Automation and Us, Carr keeps on pursuing this

line of thought, yet muddles his prior investigate in a twofold way. To begin

with, he sees the Googlers' yearning to "outsource" knowledge to nonhuman

brains as only one among numerous illustrations of mechanization; and

second, he arranges the automating drive in a long authentic setting. The

outcome is a book that stunningly broadens and extends the contention of

The Shallows. Carr has turned out to be among the shrewdest and most

thoughtful critics of our current technological administration; his essential

goal is to admonish us to create methodologies of resistance.

It can't be focused on too strongly that resistance does not involve rejection.

Carr makes this point more than once. "Computer automation makes our

lives less demanding, our chores less troublesome. We're frequently ready to
fulfill more in less time or to do things we essentially couldn't do some time

recently." And: "Automation and its precursor, mechanization, have been

walking forward for a considerable length of time, and overall our

circumstances have enhanced enormously therefore. Conveyed shrewdly,

automation can mitigate us of drudge work and spur us on to all the more

difficult and satisfying attempts." However, Carr trusts, our energy for what

automation can do tends to visually impaired us to what it can't, maybe still

more imperative, to what it does discreetly when we're not looking.

Automation has "shrouded impacts." Carr's employment here is to bring

them out of covering up and into the light.

Maybe the most emotional part in The Glass Cage concerns the increasingly

sophisticated automation of the complicated act of flying a plane. Carr

rushes to note that flying is presently more secure than it ever has been, and

not the slightest bit challenges the generally held perspective that

automation of large portions of the errands of flying has significantly

diminished "human error." But automation of flying has additionally had

different results. Drawing on an astonishingly huge assemblage of

examination, Carr singles out three of all which apply just as well an excess

of other computerized frameworks. The first is "automation complacency."

Precisely in light of the fact that automated flying regularly works so well,

pilots generally expect that it will dependably work that well, and their

attention flags. What in an un-automated environment would be a

reasonable indication of something turning out badly is not all that apparent
by pilots who are excessively trusting of their equipment and maybe is not

saw by any stretch of the imagination. The second is "automation bias."

Pilots tend to believe their automated systems more than they believe their

own training, experience and sensory evidence. They might have the

capacity to see obviously that the aircraft is lower than it should be, or feel

firmly that it's coming in for an arrival at too sharp a point or excessively

extraordinary a pace, however in the event that the instrument readings and

autopilot conduct demonstrate that everything is okay, then they will

normally concede to the automated systems. Furthermore, maybe this is,

more often than not, the best thing to do. In any case, here and there that

regard ends up being lost, and individuals pass on. Also, when pilots do take

control or are compelled to do as such by the disappointment of their

frameworks they regularly settle on awful choices since they are performing

poorly due to a lack of practice. This is the third outcome of dependence on

automation: exceptionally prepared specialists whose aptitudes decay since

they have few or no chances to keep them sharp until an emergency hits,

which is obviously the most exceedingly bad conceivable circumstance in

which to attempt to recover one's old capacities.

These three inclinations complacency, bias, and skill-atrophy have past any

inquiry taken a toll lives. Yet, it appears to be verging on sure that more lives

would be lost in the event that we disposed of robotized frameworks and

came back to full-time human steering. In addition, regardless of the fact

that we did choose to do a reversal, we would need to ask: How far back? All
things considered, in the beginning of flight pilots had no instruments by any

means: no altimeters (to quantify height), no disposition markers (to

demonstrate the point of the plane in connection to the earth), only the

pilots' own particular detects. Do we need our 747 chiefs to fly by the seat of

their pants as they did in past times worth remembering the days when they

could just kill themselves, not three hundred individuals sitting in lines

behind them without a doubt is impossible. Yet, in the event that not that far,

then how far back might we gainfully go?

Carr does not give point by point answers to such inquiries, however he

suggests that "striking a balance" in the middle of automation and human

obligation won't not be as hard the same number of expect. Case in point, a

flight automation framework or whatever other sort of automation system

that may in a few circumstances require human activity "can be modified to

move control over basic capacities from the computer back to the

administrator at incessant however unpredictable interims. Realizing that

they might need to take order at any minute keeps individuals mindful and

connected with, advancing situational mindfulness and learning." Carr

likewise conceives that computer games are unreasonably insulted,

particularly in this setting: "notwithstanding their impressive creativity and

intermittent excellence, the best recreations demonstrate how

applications can energize the advancement of aptitudes as opposed to their

decay."
"As we mechanize more components, where do new white collar class

occupations originate from?" Carr said. "We've seen computers assume

control work, yet not the landing of new sorts of occupations. There will be a

difference in the economy between the have and the less wealthy." On the

brighter side, gifted learning laborers can separate themselves in light of the

fact that while "bland information can be effectively duplicated with PC

programs, specialization is much harder." Companies still need

innovativeness and system in their advisement, Carr clarified, so experts

that keep away from what he called computerization lack of concern and

predisposition and figure out how to hold their aptitudes will have an upper

hand.

Carr contends that we are now excessively excited, making it impossible to

grasp innovations that supplant as opposed to just supplement our exercises

and excessively eager, making it impossible to work through the frequently

untidy procedure of taking care of human issues. In spite of the fact that Carr

doesn't ever come right out and say it, he's pondering an existential inquiry:

Does our visually impaired confidence in automated technology recommend

a developing doubt of human judgment? A significant part of the energy for

our undeniably algorithmic presence originates from the tensions and

obligations it permits us to exchange to as far as anyone knows unyielding

and unprejudiced machines. (I won't give that laborer an advancement on

the grounds that my choice bolster programming predicts he will do

ineffectively in the employment.) There is much false trust in this

furthermore much denial of individual obligation.

As for employment misfortune, for instance, you might need to consider

whether instruction can be an answer and cure. Numerous employments,

large portions of them key, don't require advanced education, however that

makes those occupations no less crucial for the smooth working of our

general public. Also, not everybody can profit by advanced education, but

rather despite everything we have to bolster conditions that empowers them

to be gainful and to live fruitful lives. Also, Carr's exchange of "stream" and

the compositions of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (for instance, his book "Stream")

is all that much on focus here, both as far as how we have gained ground far

from extend periods of time of drudgery and long, 10 to 12 hour work days

and as far as how we have off-stacked a percentage of the additionally

exhausting work to PCs and automation, in spite of the fact that, Carr has a

tendency to underline the samples where computerization has taken away a

portion of the all the more remunerating work. I have seen Carr called a

Luddite (obviously), a paranoiac, and even a "scaredy-cat." And among the

main messengers of automation, Carr has recognized an Orwellian tendency

to depict costs as advantages. He takes note of that "Peter Thiel, a

successful entrepreneur and speculator who has gotten to be one of Silicon

Valley's most conspicuous scholars, grants that a robotics revolution would

fundamentally have the impact of individuals losing their employments.' But,

he rushes to include, 'it would have the advantage of liberating individuals

up to do numerous different things.'" Ah, that is better. As Carr wryly notes,

"Being authorized sounds significantly more wonderful than being let go."

Thiel's remark, and the peculiarly out of kilter early reactions to Carr's book,

give adequate proof to Carr's case that "the confidence in innovation as a

kind, self-mending, independent power is tempting" so enchanting that

"we're bad at considering automation or comprehension its suggestions."

The outcome is that "the deck is stacked, financially and inwardly, to support

computerization." The immense estimation of The Glass Cage is that it does

a little to unstack that deck. In the event that you are searching for a solution

for Carr's perspectives (a touch of a stimulant) investigate "The second

machine age", by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. They're supporters

for the same patterns that Carr cautions us about. Brynjolfsson and McAfee

endeavor to let you know how to flourish in and how to profit by the same

changes and environment that Carr says will make us idiotic and corrupt us

in different ways, as well. Brynjolfsson and McAfee likewise examine the

negative effects of computerization and development, yet they're somewhat

more adjusted than Carr. Be that as it may, but distrust is essential given our

short memory for innovation's unintended outcomes. In September,

Washington, D.C's. Metro framework reported that by March all Metro trains

on its Red Line would at the end of the day be computerized, with an

objective of fully automating the remaining train lines by fall 2017. Nearby

authorities applauded the productivity and security of a rail framework based

on such advanced innovation. Gotten some information about the arrival to

computer driven trains, the aunt of the youngest victim of the 2009 Metro

crash told The Washington Post, "[Y]ou can't chance individuals to some

computer. It's not justified, despite any potential benefits."

References:

http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/35/automation-for-the-people/

http://www.accountingtoday.com/accounting-technology/news/staying-ahead-

of-the-next-big-waves-in-tech-72969-1.html

http://www.davekuhlman.org/blog/?p=661

http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2015/janfeb/view-from-glass-
cage.html?paging=off