Post

Setting aside the specifics of this story, I’m pretty generally opposed to the popularity of “friction” as the thing to be recovered from technological life (AI or not). It’s not “friction” you’re really after—as if making something harder makes it better. It’s the experience of doing something.

This post is unavailable.

0 reposts15 likes

Yes, although doing something (anything) as opposed to having it done for you involves some degree of friction or difficulty (and therein lies the pleasure and value!)

No, it doesn’t. This is a pathology of a very contemporary type of technological anxiety. Doing things involves engagement with the physical world, but most of the time that is not difficulty, or shouldn’t be. William Morris called art “resistance in the materials,” but not all encounters are that.

Only the best ones (I guess I’m with Morris on this). Too many technological advances lately are trivial at best - solutions seeking problems - and leave us (me) feeling lazy and unsatisfied.

The primary benefit of friction isn’t the satisfaction of overcoming it. It’s the space it can create in the system. Or, to put it another way, I’m a big fan of friction for other people. If we do away with the friction we need to do the work of making systems work without it.

If you mean using the world, being in and of it, connected to it, then sure. That is not friction. This is an error.

This passage does seem to use "friction" as synonymous with "difficulty." To me, "friction" can also evoke the idea that you *feel something* while engaged in the activity instead of just sliding by it--the sense in which "friction" overlaps with "texture."

M-W's 1st def of "friction" doesn't refer to resistance or difficulty so much as contact with the world outside yourself: 1. a. the rubbing of 1 body against another b. the force that resists relative motion between 2 bodies in contact 2. the clashing btwn 2 persons or parties of opposed views