The Tartan

By Shannon Horning

On Tuesday, Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology opened its new Scientists and Strategists Speaker Series, featuring Sarah Kreps as its first speaker. Kreps, a political scientist and professor of government at Cornell University, captivated the audience with a discussion of her upcoming book: “Boomers, Doomers and the Politics of Technology.”

At the event, Kreps spoke about the debate over the impact of influential technologies like social media and AI. The presentation opened with an analysis of ChatGPT, an OpenAI chatbot that rose to 100 million monthly active users two months after its launch. However, in November, OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, was ousted by his board of directors. What caused Altman’s firing? Kreps explained the answer to this question, as well as the general debate surrounding impactful technological trends, through the concept of Boomers vs. Doomers.

As described by Kreps, the Boomer vs. Doomer discourse revolves around the ongoing argument between rapid innovation versus the imperative for AI safety and responsible development. While Sam Altman and similar entrepreneurs strive for an explosion of progress, others emphasize the principles and ethics of invention. These conflicting ideals are what ultimately led to the dismissal of the OpenAI CEO. 

This trend extends beyond just AI. Social media is a prime example of what Kreps terms “boomer technology” and its disruptive effects on the social, political, and economic landscapes. In her interviews with the engineers responsible for various social media platforms, Kreps notes their emphasis on simply “getting the tech right,” expressing the sentiment that if “we don’t do it, someone else will,” and getting to market as a priority. Thoughts regarding the political, psychological, and regulatory aspects are left behind.

When it comes to social media, nothing embodies this concept more than the infinite scroll. The infinite scroll was created by Center for Humane Technology co-founder, Aza Raskin, after he became frustrated with Google’s interface design. The feature was born and now we can endlessly scroll through content with just a flick of a finger. However, Raskin expressed regret after watching the effects the infinite scroll has on the attention spans and mental health of millions of users. Kreps cites this example as a sort of “buyer’s remorse” in the “tech boomer” mindset. Innovators, driven by scientific curiosity, dive headlong into intellectual pursuits without asking if what they are doing should be done. And, when the fog finally clears from their heads, they are sunken by a feeling of regret similar to that felt by Raskin. 

The solution is not as easy as waking up to smell the roses. As Kreps describes it, scientists are stuck in their own prisoner’s dilemma. “We the scientists may think this particular innovation has ethical concerns or might be a problem,” Kreps said, “but there is the belief that if we don’t do it, someone else will.”

To put this into perspective, consider Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt in 1939, one of the catalysts of the Manhattan Project. In the letter, Einstein warned the president about Germany potentially amassing uranium in an attempt to create a nuclear bomb. Worried, Roosevelt initiated the first tentative nuclear program in the U.S., setting into motion the trajectory toward the contemporary nuclear arms race.

If Einstein knew what would have resulted from the creation of the atomic bomb, would he still have sent that letter? If Roosevelt knew, would he have convened with the Advisory Committee on Uranium? Despite the horrifying impacts of nuclear weapons, the actions of these historical figures likely would not have changed. After all, Kreps argues, if you cannot guarantee your opponent will stop innovating, then you must continue no matter the consequence. 

This was the ideology that motivated the nuclear arms race and that continues to dominate the tech world today. With so much market competition and the idea that whoever rules AI rules the world, it is only natural for innovators to perpetuate this scientific “boom” without consideration for policies and regulations. Additionally, the question of how to constrain technology becomes increasingly difficult for policymakers who do not have the expertise needed to understand it. 

So, how does one balance rapid technological advancement with restraint? This, as Kreps describes it, is where the role of the Doomers comes in. Unlike Boomers, Doomers often fear that technology, when left unchecked, could pose an existential threat to the fate of humanity. They are in opposition to Boomers, who prioritize expansion over safety. This opposing relationship results in what Kreps calls “Doomer feedback mechanisms.”

Doomer Feedback mechanisms make up for policymakers where they fail to deal with governance challenges. These mechanisms host a range of entities: the public, the media, tech companies themselves, and employees. Kreps provided Project Maven, a Pentagon pilot program, as an example. When Google employees were asked to build an AI that differentiates combatants from civilians, they refused and protested the company’s involvement. Scenarios such as these help regulate the growth of technology and force large corporations to take accountability. 

Kreps concluded her speech with a reflection on the ideas she presented and the interpersonal feedback dynamic between Boomers and Doomers when it comes to tech. She said, “These technologies are not static, but they are very responsive to these feedback mechanisms that in sum, create an optimistic story.” 

This insightful speaker session marks only the beginning of the new series, Scientists and Strategists. In the upcoming months, Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology will welcome additional speakers to deliver presentations on topics addressing technology, security, and science.