1_cerveauPorductif
π Digital π Society
The digital revolution: at humanity's expense?

Digital economy : “our attention during free time has value for business”

On June 8th, 2021 |
4min reading time
Avatar
Yann Moulier Boutang
Professor of Economics at Université de Technologie de Compiègne
Key takeaways
  • For Yann Moulier Boutang, we are currently entering a new capitalist model, which he calls “cognitive” – no longer based on physical work, but on brain activity.
  • He says that a parallel can be drawn between the positive externalities generated by digital technology (creativity, cooperation, etc.) and pollination: for a long time, humans have focused on selling honey (the finished product), whereas the most productive activity of bees was pollination, which generates between 500 and 5,000 times more value.
  • This model of massive data capture and processing has brought about a real revolution in science, with a return to the inductive method based on collective intelligence, which has made it possible to solve problems as complex as that of the “translation machine”.
  • But it also raises the question of the commodification of our leisure time, and of intellectual property.

What is “cog­ni­tive capi­ta­lism”? Why do you think we are ente­ring a third phase of capitalism ?

We’ve alrea­dy had two models of capi­ta­lism : mer­chant and indus­trial. In the indus­trial sys­tem, labour became the main good. That sys­tem was much more effi­cient at pro­du­cing value than the mer­chant capi­ta­lism that had pre­ce­ded it. The indus­trial model was based on labour of the work­force, which is sold, then reple­ni­shed to be sold again the fol­lo­wing day. It wor­ked very well for phy­si­cal strength – muscles are ener­gi­sed and burn a cer­tain amount of sugar per hour, until they’re fati­gued and seize up, pre­ven­ting work from conti­nuing. It was very easy to unders­tand how labour power was exploi­ted, as it was bina­ry – dai­ly acti­vi­ty then rest.

The pro­blem is that this clas­sic ana­ly­sis no lon­ger applies to the cur­rent sys­tem, which is based on intel­lec­tual work. What’s spe­cial about cog­ni­tive capi­ta­lism is that it includes more and more imma­te­rial know­ledge and ser­vices in its eco­no­mic model. To func­tion, it doesn’t need phy­si­cal strength, but rather cere­bral acti­vi­ty. Howe­ver, the brain never stops wor­king, even at night. In fact, many people have alrea­dy expe­rien­ced this with remote wor­king. Unlike muscles, the brain never res­ts – if your brain moni­tor is flat­li­ning, you’re dead !

What’s more, cere­bral acti­vi­ty can­not be res­tric­ted. You can phy­si­cal­ly force people to fol­low a cer­tain pace and coor­di­nate with each other in a work­flow, but you can­not force brains to coope­rate. Atten­tion (like trust, love and all the emo­tions that cha­rac­te­rise inter­per­so­nal inter­ac­tions) can­not be defi­ned by an orga­ni­sa­tio­nal chart or a contract. It’s the clas­sic pro­blem of tea­chers, who are power­less wit­nesses to their stu­dents’ loss of moti­va­tion – how can you stop their atten­tion from straying ?

For brains to pro­duce conti­nuous­ly, without wan­de­ring off track, cog­ni­tive capi­ta­lism has deve­lo­ped means to cap­ture and hold onto atten­tion. For this, it has tools that are far more refi­ned than contracts. Social media, for example, uses extre­me­ly insi­dious desi­gn aspects to engage our herd ins­tinct, cog­ni­tive biases and our taste for unpre­dic­ta­bi­li­ty1, to make us stay on their apps for as long as possible.

So, is cog­ni­tive capi­ta­lism based on har­ves­ting posi­tive externalities ?

Yes. And this is exact­ly what hap­pe­ned with bees – for many years, we were focu­sed on sales of honey or bees­wax (end pro­ducts) before we rea­li­sed that the most pro­duc­tive acti­vi­ty of bees was actual­ly pol­li­na­tion, which gene­rates bet­ween 500 and 5,000 times more value than honey !

Our lei­sure time has become pro­duc­tive. The sys­tem is capable of exploi­ting the many posi­tive exter­na­li­ties gene­ra­ted by even the most insi­gni­fi­cant acti­vi­ties – our atten­tion, inge­nui­ty, inter­ac­tions and even simple Google searches are now ways to pro­duce value. This is also how we can access these ultra-sophis­ti­ca­ted ser­vices for free.

This new form of capi­ta­lism also consi­de­ra­bly expands the group of people consi­de­red active, as social media acti­vi­ty (non-mer­can­tile and often non-paying) pro­duces extre­me­ly valuable data for com­pa­nies. This data is used to create AI that can solve pro­blems as com­plex as machine trans­la­tion, for example. It’s quite sim­ply a scien­ti­fic revo­lu­tion ! Reliable infor­ma­tion is extrac­ted from big data, which is infi­ni­te­ly fas­ter and chea­per than pre­vious methods. These methods rejec­ted induc­tive rea­so­ning to the sole bene­fit of a “hypo­the­ti­co-deduc­tive” approach. Many people had been stum­ped by machine trans­la­tion, but col­lec­tive intel­li­gence pro­vi­ded a way to do it without using linguistics.

Of course, this raises the pro­blem of fake news – now, the truth is wha­te­ver has the most search results. And, in the case of machine trans­la­tion, this can mean com­mon lan­guage mis­takes are being dis­se­mi­na­ted wide­ly. But, gene­ral­ly spea­king, it’s extre­me­ly efficient.

This form of pro­duc­tion through social media raises the issue of intel­lec­tual pro­per­ty. How can pro­per­ty title be assi­gned in a world where know­ledge is co-pro­du­ced and easi­ly repro­du­ced digitally ?

In the ana­logue world, it was always pos­sible to tell a copy from the ori­gi­nal. Intel­lec­tual pro­per­ty was the­re­fore based on the fact that the owner of the ori­gi­nal would a share sale of copies. Howe­ver, nowa­days, there are no more tech­ni­cal obs­tacles for copies, and this model is no lon­ger viable. There will almost cer­tain­ly be huge legal shifts over the next 15 years.

There are also debates around which alter­na­tive model is best. Open source, which is based on com­ple­te­ly free and open data (which the­re­by becomes a public good) raises fun­ding issues. The copy­left model (inven­ted by Richard Stall­man) is an inter­es­ting option, out of which the Crea­tive Com­mons (CC) sys­tem emer­ged, as an alter­na­tive to copy­right. We tend to think that all pro­per­ty is consti­tu­ted of usus (the right to use the good), fruc­tus (the right to lease it) and abu­sus (the right to defi­ni­ti­ve­ly alie­nate it, i.e. to sell it). But this clas­sic legal model is very dif­fi­cult to apply to imma­te­rial goods. The CC (Crea­tive Com­mons) pro­ject has pro­vi­ded a way to adapt it, by allo­wing infor­ma­tion or work to be sha­red under the same condi­tions as those defi­ned by the author (“share alike”). This helps to create a space that faci­li­tates the cir­cu­la­tion of infor­ma­tion, while avoi­ding the limi­ta­tions of clas­sic pro­per­ty law, which are often an obs­tacle to sha­ring knowledge.

Digi­tal public goods are the very foun­da­tion of cog­ni­tive capi­ta­lism, in that they sti­mu­late inter­ac­tion and crea­tion. But plat­forms do not always want to play the game. The ques­tion of royal­ties, for example, can raise pro­blems on some social net­works. Accep­ting cookies or user condi­tions actual­ly means you have ceded your rights. The pri­vate sec­tor is the­re­fore pro­fi­ting from the public sector’s posi­tive exter­na­li­ties ! So, it’s jus­ti­fied to ask the pri­vate sec­tor to contri­bute to fun­ding public acti­vi­ties that will increase its pro­duc­ti­vi­ty. This restruc­tu­ring of the sys­tem around digi­tal public goods – that was par­ti­cu­lar­ly high­ligh­ted during the eco­no­mic slow­down of the pan­de­mic – is, in my view, part of a new chal­lenge facing neo-libe­ra­lism that has been in place since the That­cher years.

Interview by Juliette Parmentier
1https://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​p​m​c​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​P​M​C​1​4​7​3025/

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate