The course I'm currently taking is focused on exploring the impact of disruptive technologies and what it takes to lead innovation and change in educational institutions and organizations. This week, we've been studying the Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers, 2003) which divides society into 5 groups in relation to their speed and willingness to adopt new technology: Innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.
As someone that leans towards innovator/early adopter most of the time, I've found myself wondering why others take so much longer to get on board with new technology and why most don't trust innovators. I've also wondered if there is anything innovators and early adopters can do to get more buy in from others, or at least maneuver more gracefully through the barriers they erect.
While I was pondering all this, I found myself listening to Lex Fridman's (2024) podcast with Roman Yampolskiy on superintelligent AI. In the episode, Yampolskiy argues that artificial general intelligence (AGI) is going to destroy humanity so it's best for us to ban its development rather than attempt to co-develop regulated safeguards.
Here was a perfect example of laggard-erected barriers being placed. This individual was attempting to sway others to call for the complete halting of the development of a technology because he feared its impact. So, I listened with skepticism to his claims.
The difficulty for innovators in the land of laggards is that sometimes the laggards' reluctance is not from a fear or dislike of change. Sometimes it's from experience or knowledge of a bigger picture. And sometimes its from legitimate fear of the ramifications of an unguarded, uncontrolled technology. As much as I hoped Yampolskiy was just a misinformed anti-tech acolyte, I realized he had some genuine concerns.
Tech tools can be misused. They can create incredible dependencies that leave everyone at the mercy of its suppliers. Just look at cell phones and computers. In the early 90s, they were a convenience, but far from necessary. Now, there are activities it is difficult to do without one. We are addicts, depending on the constant supply from our internet service provider and phone carriers.
But they can also change the world for the better. Cell phones and computers have brought education and employment opportunities to people and places once isolated. They have connected all parts of the globe. They have saved lives and helped people find meaning. So, while the laggards may have legitimate concerns, the innovator must weigh the benefits they envision.
The socially responsible innovator should consider the laggard's concerns.
The wise innovator should know when to press on.
There's the difficulty for us innovators, though. As I listened to Yampolskiy's concerns, I didn't get swayed to his side of the argument, but I do think we'd be fools to ignore them.
As an innovator, it's easy to think of laggards as antiquated luddites that are simply behind the times. But the reality is that some innovators are thoughtless, impetuous, or even greedy, while some laggards care more about the social and economic health of our world. Rather than looking to dismiss one or the other, both sides of the innovation diffusion bell curve would do well to seriously consider the intentions of the other.
References
Fridman, L. (2024, June 2). Roman Yampolskiy: Dangers of superintelligent AI | Lex Fridman podcast #431 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNr6gPelJ3E
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). United Kingdom: Free Press.
Interesting subject. It gave me new thoughts to ponder.