Technology Will Not Liberate Us | The Renegade Coder

Broadly, we see technology as a liberatory force. I don't know when this propaganda started, but perhaps we can even point back to the 1950s when little home gadgets were marketed to make chores easier. Why cook over the stove when you can microwave some slop? It seems to me that for the last 80 years or so, we've been fed a lie: modern convenience is simply better. Yet, everyone agrees that the microwave does a shittier job of cooking than a stove. We only use it to save time because we're always working. Hell, I've made this argument with robot vacuums: a regular vacuum is just better in just about every way. Yet, the supposed convenience of the robot vacuum is its main selling point. It frees up our time to run errands or do other labor. Isn't that nice? I share these examples to show you that I do not believe the future of technology exists to liberate us. Every small innovation is just another way to either get us to work more efficiently as producers or extract more money from us as consumers, often both at the same time. Why else would printing companies be charging subscriptions to use their cartridges? Therefore, in this article, I plan to make the argument that technology will not liberate us. Any dream of a future where technology serves us is dead so long as we live under neoliberal capitalism. But keep playing with your silly chat bot, I'm sure it's making you more productive—as if that even fucking matters. Tech Hater Status I spent much of the first half of this year really hating on recent technological advancements, and can you blame me? Seemingly everything coming out of Silicon Valley has been a scam in recent years, from crypto to the metaverse. Naturally, we're dying out here for some genuinely useful innovation. Perhaps that's why when some seemingly useful tech comes around with a fancy name like AI, everyone jumps on it like it's some massive innovation. Of course, my hate for the tech industry didn't come out of nowhere. It's been simmering for the better part of a decade as I've slowly become more disillusioned. Hell, I started this site by complaining about my time working at GE. Now, as a computer science educator, my frustrations with the tech industry have only gotten worse. Do you think I enjoy hearing about LeetCode every day? Do you think I like hearing about how my students have to submit hundreds of applications to get a single interview? Do you think I enjoy watching my students fail to produce code without the aid of an LLM? The field is in an incredibly broken state. To make matters worse, companies seem to be outsourcing (or at least hinting at outsourcing) junior developer roles to generative AI. Talk about being extremely shortsighted. Do these companies not understand where senior developers come from, or are they gambling on AI being able to replace them too? I just don't see how the future of tech is at all sustainable, and the tech industry does not seem to care (shocker). As I thought about it more, I realized that most of the tech we use today is bad for a very obvious reason: capitalism. Before you tab out because you're afraid to confront your beliefs about the system that barely works for you, hear me out. Technology Is Not Value-Neutral Technology is this interesting thing because people generally believe it to be morally neutral. In other words, it's all in how you use it. In fact, you'll see this argument like crazy with generative AI (e.g., it's just a tool). As described by Sam Brinson, this idea that technology is just a tool falls from the Value Neutrality Thesis, and it's how we come to accept phrases like, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Of course, as Sam points out, the counterargument to the Value Neutrality Thesis is that technology does not exist in a vacuum. In fact, it is our values that bring about the tech in the first place as all designs are intentioned. You can see this in an example like the history of pickup trucks where the beds shrink over time. What does that signal about the values of designers and consumers? In a more academic context, Boaz Miller also rejects the Value Neutrality Thesis. Specifically, Miller argues that the Value Neutrality Thesis is silly because technology can very much "nudge us." In one example, Miller talks about how smartphones do not force us to use them, but they do "lure" us by exploiting "psychological facts about humans." Similarly, Miller also counters the idea that "guns don't kill people" by stating that "technology does make you do things." For example, Miller references the idea of having toilets in the workplace be intentionally uncomfortable to make "employees spend less time" on them. Given some of these examples, it's really hard not to see the impact of technology in a new light. Surely, technology is not value-neutral, despite what folks might say to deflect blame from corporations (e.g., "social media is just a medium, man"). Most Modern Technology Is Morally Bankrupt Assuming you buy the argument that technology is not value-neutral (i.e., tech can be morally good or bad), then the question becomes: how much of modern technology is morally good? To start (and to be transparent, I got the inspiration for this clarifying paragraph from Thought Slime), I think it's obvious in my question that some tech is good and some is bad. We're not dealing in absolutes here. Despite being a modern technology hater, I believe there are still good technological advancements. For instance, I think pencils and paper are awesome. I like open-source software development, broadly. Of course, I like musical instruments and art. Hell, I think we all like living in housing. With that said, I think recent technology is more on the bad side than the good side. After all, I had a pretty deep breakdown of how I've watched tech get worse over time. There's literally a word for it: enshittification. Don't believe me? Just look at video games. For a brief time, video games were a physical medium involving a console and a cartridge or disc. You could buy a game, and it would be yours for life. Now, you can buy the license to a game, which later may be revoked at the whims of a corporation. That license generally doesn't include downloadable content (i.e., DLC), which incentivizes companies to release incomplete games. That license also doesn't include in-game cosmetics or powerups, which are only attainable through microtransactions. Not to mention that live service games can just stop hosting their servers at any time, rendering your game not even worth the bits written to disk. Of course, technology becoming a worse product for consumers doesn't necessary make it morally bad. Would I say that video games are morally bad? That's a tough one. My gut says no as I fall for the Value Neutrality Thesis, but it does seem bad to support gaming companies that exploit their workers while producing less enjoyable, more parasitic, and more generic games. It's mostly why I really only enjoy indie games these days. Now, extrapolate that innocent example across the entirely of the tech industry, and suddenly things start to look grotesque. Are cars a morally good technology? What about guns? How about generative AI? Side note: in the previously mentioned Thought Slime video, there's a section where they argue that technology doesn't cause problems, but it does exacerbate them. Specifically, they state around 25:45 that only "fringe primitivist groups" would argue that technology causes problems like taking people's jobs, reducing people's wages, increasing inequality, and more. When I initially heard Thought Slime say this, I wanted to push back a bit. After all, causes are generally not singular (even though I sort of make that case here around capitalism) and are often intertwined. Like, if you get cancer as a smoker, are cigarettes not at least somewhat at fault? If people are senselessly murdered by a shooter, are guns not at least somewhat the cause? If workers are displaced by chat bots, is generative AI not at least partially to blame? This idea is interesting to me because a lot of problems only exist because the technology exists to make the problem possible. For instance, prior to the plethora of advancements coming out of the industrial revolution, we didn't have climate change. Likewise, I suspect that the invention of napalm and other weapons of war like the nuclear bomb created quite a few problems that hadn't existed prior. Of course, I'm certain if you peel back the layers on the previous examples, you could point to other more direct causes. For example, ICE's ability to identify migrants is directly tied to surveillance technology. However, the presence of surveillance technology did not cause ICE to exist or cause bigotry to manifest, so perhaps technology only does have the capacity to exacerbate issues in society. Though, maybe I am once again falling for the Value Neutrality Thesis.On that note, while it may be that tech cannot create issues, I might argue that it cannot solve them either. This is my general issue with engineering more broadly as engineers tend to think they they can just "engineer" every problem away. In the process, they end up creating new problems, sometimes even more problems than originally existed. Therefore, effort has to be made to mitigate risk, especially with current and upcoming "AI" technologies, and I'm not sure we're going to do that. After all, corporations will externalize any problem they can onto society, and our obsession with innovation at any cost means we'll never regulate them in time. Perhaps that's why folks say regulations are written in blood. Thanks, Capitalism If you're at least somewhat in agreement with me that modern technology is morally bankrupt, then there has to be a cause. As I've suggested before, the answer really is simple. It's capitalism. To illustrate why, I want to give you just one more enshittification example, but this time it will be by Northernlion. The video is quite long, but the bit I care about starts at 16:40, and I've manually transcribed it below: Listen. Here's my thing. I think. I'm really trying hard not to become just like a doomer and like you know capitalism is the root of all problems in society. Okay? Cuz in the same way that you guys are like, "I use the self checkout all the time, and it works for me, so it must be a problem on your end." Capitalism's been working out okay for me, but the more I go out into the world, I see the promise of new technology and new features and I'm like, "woah, that's amazing. If you kept everything exactly the same and just added the technology, then it would be a dream come true." The problem is they add the self checkout and for two years they've got the same amount of staff and they've got the self checkouts, and it's... you're feasting. It's like Netflix before every company made their own streaming service. But now, over this last several years, they go, "oh, 40% of the people at the grocery store are using self checkout. We're going to downsize. We're only going to have two cashiers operating eight lanes. 80% of people are using self checkout. Now, we're going to have one cashier manning twelve lanes." You know, like, and it just... it's now at the point where I'm like, "I fucking wish we just didn't have the self checkouts, and they just opened all twelve lanes of assisted checkouts." Now, I'm like, "it's a luxury checkout experiences to just be able to pull my card up, load the stuff on, and not have to worry about scanning." And the fucking area where you can actually put the shit on the scale is so small, you got to play like Lego and Jenga just to try to get it all to stand there. And if something ever falls over, uh, "unexpected item in bagging area." The alarm goes off. There's no like... the two staff that are working at the grocery store, one of them is trying to check out seven people simultaneously, the other one is manning the deli, the olive bar, the bakery section, the cheese section... like they're trying to run the entire 800,000 square foot grocery store all by themselves. we just... we... the problem is they give us the technology, and they go, "isn't this sick technology?" And you go, "oh yeah, that's awesome." And then they put it in, and they offload the work onto us, and then they fire like half the staff, and I'm like, "this is way worse!" Northernlion yearns for simpler times, The Library of Letourneau, February 22nd, 2024 In this clip, Northernlion does a wonderful job of describing a feeling we've all had at the grocery store: why do they always feel understaffed? He also captures a really clear example of how advancements in technology have only made our day-to-day experiences worse. And, he even points out capitalism pretty explicitly. After all, the self checkout technology has obviously been used to replace workers. The reason why I wanted to show you that clip was because Hasan actually had a really nice reaction to it. The bit I care about happens fairly early. Again, I'll quote it out here: It's so funny that he's just describing how all matter of technological advancements under a capitalist organization of the economy is used as a mechanism to displace the existing labor force and drive up profits for the companies, which end up creating a worse consumer experience overall. And, it's obviously horrible for the economy in general because now you've actually kicked off a bunch of people off their health care. You've kicked off a bunch of people off their gainful employment. All so that the grocery store could have a higher return year-over-year. Northernlion is Going to Steal Hasanabi's Job, Hasjapan IRL, July 4th, 2025 In other words, technological advancements never really seem to be about the consumer. Right now, the only real advancements we see are meant to displace workers, so companies can make more money. That's partially why I've been harping on generative AI so much because it's not a replacement for the labor of real workers, but it's going to be used as one anyway. Need an artist? Nah, AI "art" is good enough. Need a junior developer? Nah, Cursor is good enough (and technical debt never really mattered anyway). Need a cashier? Nah, self checkouts are good enough. When Labor Value Goes to Zero The truly scary scenario is when corporations determine that real labor is no longer needed (i.e., their labor value is zero). Again, it's not that labor is not needed; it's that the "market value" of human labor is lower than the value of machine labor. If companies can continue to make a profit without human labor, they will gladly do it (even if only for short term gain). This is ultimately why I say that technology will not liberate us. There seems to be this idea that technology is created for the good of the public, but that's simply not the case. Hopefully, that's obvious from the idea that consumer goods keep getting worse vis enshittification, but I find that folks still hold out hope for some future where we all have robot butlers. And, it's not just in the hypothetical either. Think about all the technological advancement you take for granted. Did the cell phone liberate us? No, it made us more connected to work than ever. How about Zoom? Try asking kids these days if they ever get a snow day. The dream of a technological utopia is not coming. Under capitalism, the only purpose for technological advancement is to enrich capital owners. Of course, I'm sure it sounds more interesting coming out of Northernlion's mouth: "How do you feel about the inevitable end of capitalism due to labor value dropping to zero?" I'm actually... it might surprise you, I'm with you man. Not to pander, but like doing shit seems like it's not in an advantageous position versus like having shit right now. Like capital is OP compared to labor right now. It's all bullshit man. The first leftist streamer, @bigrobbiesbbq, 06-26-2025 Later in that same video, Northernlion further describes how powerful capital is by showing that you can simply make more money without working through investments. Though, he phrases it in a more depressing way: "I've just traded none of my time for some of your time." To me, this perfectly captures the idea that capital has no off ramp. It will continue to accumulate until there is nothing left, even if that means replacing all workers who have no means of even purchasing the fruits of their labor. All of that is to say that the age of generative AI is upon us. It works okay enough to replace workers, and companies are doing it. As people are stripped from their means of survival, they will die, and technological advancement will be the catalyst. Technology will not liberate us. Once we are no longer useful to capital, we will simply be replaced. What do you think a society like that will look like? The ending to this story is not a Star Trek utopia but a Cyberpunk dystopia.