Why We Apologize To Our Devices

Why we apologize to, or curse, our devices leads us to asking a deeper question about our relationship with technologies.

Photo by Javier Allegue Barros on Unsplash

I’d lay odds if you’re reading this article that you’ve apologised to Siri, Alexa, Google, whatever voice agent you’ve used, perhaps even to an AI agent you’ve connected with? Maybe thanked it, or said please? Or cursed loudly when the command you’ve long used no longer works? Even though we know we’re just talking to a machine.

Interestingly, is that we’ve been doing this for thousands of years. In some cultures, like the Japanese and the African Yoruba peoples, who imbue inanimate objects with the concept of having spirits.

Considering why we apologise to our devices leads to, perhaps, a more interesting exploration of how we might better understand our relationship with digital technologies and how this might actually lead to better UX/UI and improve technological advancement.Especially with considering how other cultures engage with technologies.

The digital technologies of today aren’t just changing what we can do, they’re also reshaping our collective consciousness as a species. Our technological future isn’t just about what we create, it’s also about how we relate to what we create.

It may well be that understanding how various cultures think about and have evolved relationships with inanimate objects, could provide both frameworks and concepts of how we might better develop our approaches to working with Artificial Intelligence tools like Claude or ChatGPT and even robots. And increasingly, our cars.

In thinking about this subject and doing my research, I wanted to explore which cultures around the world have created concepts of how they view and engage with inanimate objects, including technologies. I think this is more valuable than the Western Cartesian dualism philosophy which separates humans from inanimate objects and places no value in the non-human.

Typically, Western technology development, be it through the UI/UX in software and hardware, often unconsciously reproduces existing power structures. Other cultural frameworks applied to technologies could result in more collaborative or symbiotic relationships.

When the Japanese began developing robots they drew from the ancient Shinto tradition, which sees consciousness in all things, be it a rock or a TV. This isn’t superstition, it’s a philosophy and approach to life. It is small wonder that the Japanese have developed some of the most advanced and human accepted robots in the world.

A purely Western-centric approach to technologies, especially AI, is akin to trying to write a global story for all cultures using one alphabet. We’d miss vast libraries of the human experience, knowledge and wisdom that could create far better technological futures.

The cultures I was drawn to the most in considering this challenge are the Japanese, several African tribes and Nordic cultures, specifically the Norse views through “fylgia”.

In Norse mythology, the fylgia is a spirit that follows someone, often taking the form of an animal that represented certain aspects of a persons character or their potential. This could be a way of thinking about our relationships with AI agents, seeing them as externalised aspects of our potential and capabilities. We know already that we form parasocial relationships with AI bots.

The Dogon people’s concept of “nommo” is a way of looking at the power of words and how they can be transformative in how we see and understand reality. This approach might help us in programming software and our intentional interaction with AI.

The Yoruba people in Africa can provide us with a sophisticated model to understand how we can manage multiple forms of consciousness within ourselves and thus with AI agents. This concept is “ori-inu” (our inner head) and “ori-ode” (outer head). It’s the idea that if you’re possessed by a spirit, you can gain access to greater knowledge and capabilities. Such as having a personal AI agent or assistant.

How These Approaches Can Help Us Build A Better Technological Future

In terms of ethics, Japanese concepts of harmony and the Shinto approach could inform AI safety protocols, while the African concept of “ubuntu” (community or collectivism), can provide effective models for collaborative AI development.

Nordic concepts of fate and free will might inform how we think about and approach AI agency in human societies and cultures. These may uncover novel ways of integrating AI and other technologies into our daily lives and societies.

We may evolve richer, more contextually based interfaces that grow, adapt and morph with the people who use them. We may finally drop the alienating word “user” in how we approach design and software development.

As we look to the future of humans and how we relate to, develop and evolve technologically, we face a critical choice. Viewing it only in the Western lens of command-and-control or drawing from the rich traditions and cultural practices around the world that result in truly human-centric technologies.

When we ignore these incredible, sophisticated and nuanced cultural frameworks, we risk creating technologies that alienate rather than integrate. We will continue to bring bias into AI and software and we develop narrow interfaces and products, missing huge opportunities.

Maybe we’ll say thank-you to our devices more than we apologise. Or curse at them.