Heidegger thinks about tools like so: a tool is something (a thing that has being in the Heideggerian sense, not necessarily an object) that represents an extension of human capabilities in some way. A tool is thus any kind of thing that *lets you do something you wouldn't otherwise have been able to*. The important (for us) conceptual leap here is that when a tool works well, or isn't broken, it develops what Heidegger describes as a "ready-to-hand" quality: the tool fades into the background as a kind of human-tool gestalt of a human with the additional capability afforded by a tool forms. As a simple example of this, consider eating with a fork. When the fork is well-designed and not broken, *you don't explicitly have "I am using a fork" in your conscious mind while eating dinner*.
Really good read. Making the car comparison and all its effects hammers (pun intended) down that “just a tool” can be an incredibly complex thing that needs a lot of variables to work properly. A hammer is a simple tool, a computer is not simple - there’s a global logistics chain that allows their existence - and neither is AI.
We need to fight back against design that flattens our humanity at the benefit of efficiency and productivity. We need to question how our tools have created infrastructures and landscapes that are hostile to human existence.
Emphasis mine. I’ve been thinking about that a lot. Everything is about being more efficient, more productive. Fuck that shit, I wanna enjoy life.
Really good read. Making the car comparison and all its effects hammers (pun intended) down that “just a tool” can be an incredibly complex thing that needs a lot of variables to work properly. A hammer is a simple tool, a computer is not simple - there’s a global logistics chain that allows their existence - and neither is AI.
Emphasis mine. I’ve been thinking about that a lot. Everything is about being more efficient, more productive. Fuck that shit, I wanna enjoy life.