Diana Orero: "The digitally illiterate today are those who do not know how to leave the Internet"

• Newspaper library Read all the interviews on the back cover of EL MUNDO

Valencia, 1978. Specialist in digital relations and human behavior.

In Futurist (

) he analyzes the impact of new technologies on people and how to consume them in a humane way.

How did this book come about?

It is actually a victim of the pandemic.

It was born from a project, which in the end did not go ahead due to the pandemic, of reflection on what the new professions of the future will be.

And it occurred to us that just as there are people responsible for occupational risks, there should be experts who observe how technology affects people, some

that measure the humanity of technologies, if a technology can take away empathy or generate anxiety, for example.

And with everything I learned I decided to make this book. It says that we are the greatest experiment in history.

We are?

I think that fortunately each generation can say that, almost all generations have had very big changes, such as the railway or the printing press.

The big difference is that this is the first time that human beings have faced exponential change, and we don't even have the ability to understand what exponential is.

And that is the great danger.

It is as if suddenly we live the years as dogs do, for which one year is equivalent to seven of ours.

But what if instead of seven there are 14, and if instead of 14 there are 28?

This is going very, very fast.

the spindle,

symbol of the first industrial revolution, it took 120 years to spread throughout the world.

Internet, not even ten.

And this experiment in which we are protagonists, can it go wrong?

I don't know how it's going to turn out, but I do know how I want it to turn out.

I thought that you were born human, but no, humanity is learned by being with other humans, it is something that a machine cannot teach.

But if we spend more and more time with a machine, where is humanity?

Technology makes everything easier, but does it make us happier?

According to the data you offer in your book, no...That's right.

We spend the day on Instagram, on Twitter, on other social networks... We have very busy lives, but very little full.

How is a life filled?

Well, sometimes frustration leads to boredom, and boredom leads to creativity.

But we don't get bored, we are always busy, always distracted.

And distraction distracts you from what is really important.

We always talk about how technology changes things, but not how it changes us.

Today everything is so accessible that it is easier to have a new partner than to keep the one you already have.

Within 30 years a person may have had 30 partners, but what is built if every less than a year you change partners, change jobs, change everything?

We live in a state of perpetual novelty.

Like an addict who needs more and more alcohol or more cocaine, we need more and more novelty, more new things.

And that's because we're hyperstimulated.

He says, for example in his book, that when we secrete more dopamine it is not when we read the word happiness or love,

but when we read our own name.

Does that explain why there is so much

on social media?

Yes. Social networks are a space where you can talk about yourself all the time.

And that's a huge

of dopamine.

What's wrong with new technologies?

I think the big problem we have with technology is that we have a very old perception of it.

Until now, technology was vertical, I commanded and technology obeyed, and furthermore, technology was neutral, it did not have its own agenda.

Maybe he'll tell me, what difference does it make?

Well, it doesn't matter... for example, when I go to a department store, I know they want to sell me, and since I know they want to sell me, I go mentally prepared when I enter that space.

That is why the Internet must be understood as a space, because that changes everything.

One does not behave the same in a bar as when talking on the phone.

When you use the Internet, you think you are at home, but you are not at home.

Oh no? Let's take for example the case of Alexa, the virtual assistant created by Amazon, who has a woman's name,

a woman's voice and a design of a loudspeaker from the 80s, of an object that we are very used to.

Even when we don't say anything to Alexa, she listens to us all the time and not only what we say, but also in what tone, so she knows our mood.

And Alexa will start telling us things in no time.

"Hey Diana, I realized that you were missing ham, can I buy it for you?"

And maybe I don't want ham, but it's so easy... Now we relate to technology through voice, just as we relate to each other.

And whether or not I talk to technology, technology will start talking to me.

There are people who say that they don't care about cookies or everything they can know about them.

There are many women who have an app that notifies you when your period is about to come down, which is free and fantastic.

The problem is that if it's free, your data is sold to a company, and it's been shown that when women ovulate they are more likely to buy.

Selling is the art of listening.

And with technology we have artists listening all the time.

The important thing is to know, because that changes everything.

We have been taught to move around the city, we know that a red light means that we have to stop.

But no one has taught us how to use technology.

And when you don't make a decision, you run the risk of an algorithm making it for you.

And what needs to be done to properly use technology?

My father always said: "Life is a matter of priorities."

But technology constantly defers priorities.

We spend the day looking at emails, reading WhatsApp, looking at social media...

And that makes us exhausted and unable to concentrate.

We tell a person who won't stop making an annoying noise to stop, but we don't say anything to technology.

How do we tell technology to stop?

Removing, for example, alerts and notifications, putting the phone in airplane mode for a couple of hours to not receive anything during that time... Many things can be done.

They already know so much about us that electoral polls or opinion polls are less and less necessary, right?

In that sense, I like to talk about Sherlock Holmes.

When there is a murder, Sherlock Holmes goes back and finds a clue.

It's like a stimulus that leads to another, which in turn leads to another, and to others... With technology it's the other way around: a company or a political party can give us a stimulus,

and then another and then another to make us have an opinion.

Culture is a set of shared beliefs.

But who places those beliefs in us?

Who tells me that something is expensive or cheap?

That something is expensive or cheap depending on the information one has.

We are made of cells, but also of information.

And what is the information we receive, how does it reach us and who chooses what I read?

Our biggest source of information now is the Internet.

And on the internet there are many

How does it reach us and who chooses what I read?

Our biggest source of information now is the Internet.

And on the internet there are many

How does it reach us and who chooses what I read?

Our biggest source of information now is the Internet.

And on the internet there are many

... Yes. But the stories themselves have no credibility.

Credibility is something that we grant.

And most of the news that circulates on the internet has not passed through the filter of a journalist, so we are the ones who give them credibility or not.

The problem is not that there is

, but are consumed.

The only vaccine to prevent them from becoming viral is that one does not consume them.

He says that we obey algorithms more than law... That's right.

Do we put on our seat belts because the law says so or because of the irritating beep that the car produces if we don't?

A software can make a car not go more than 120 km / hour.

For example, I don't download any app, not even the one for the driver's license, because they will know how fast I drive.

Yes, using technology for these purposes is supposed to be prohibited, but just because it's prohibited doesn't mean it's not done.

Look what has happened with Pegasus... More and more voices are being heard in favor of putting healthcare in the hands of algorithms: after all, they have much more information to collate a diagnosis than a normal doctor.

There are even robots that operate,

and with more precision than a surgeon.

What do you think?

Technology can be a wonderful instrument.

There is a lot of software that can see what a radiologist cannot see.

But what that software doesn't have is the ability to empathize, to take a person by the hand and explain what he has.

What I wish is that technology helps us to be more human, not less.

I wish that that doctor who now spends 20 hours looking at a screen only spends three minutes and then dedicates the rest of the time to humanizing.

That is my dream.

Will the algorithms manage to dispense justice?

There are those who assure that they would be more neutral and fair... More than a technology that replaces the judges, I would prefer that it support them in their work.

Cases have been seen in which the same judge receives the same person twice with the same crime at different times and dictates different sentences.

That's probably not fair, but we are human.

That would not happen to an algorithm, but it would not perceive other things either, it would not be empathic.

There are many judges who have seen something in the person they were judging that you don't see on paper, and that the algorithm wouldn't see either.

And I think that what it is about is that we do not become more machines but more human, and in that sense it is fantastic that machines take away a lot of mechanical work from us.

I want technology to free up time for us, and for that time to help us be more human, not to be distracted.

And how is that achieved? Becoming aware.

When you become aware, you put technology in its place.

Technology can be a crutch to lean on and go further or it can be a baton, you decide.

The digitally illiterate today are those who do not know how to get off the internet.

As an experiment, he has created a political party, the Futurist Party, based on technology and data.

What does it consist of?

It is about using artificial intelligence to create an electoral program based on the answers offered to a questionnaire, and the result makes very clear the danger of leaving our decisions in the hands of algorithms.

If someone wants to know more, they can go to Partidopoliticofuturista.com. You propose a new index, the

the Futurist Party, based on technology and data.

What does it consist of?

It is about using artificial intelligence to create an electoral program based on the answers offered to a questionnaire, and the result makes very clear the danger of leaving our decisions in the hands of algorithms.

If someone wants to know more, they can go to Partidopoliticofuturista.com. You propose a new index, the

the Futurist Party, based on technology and data.

What does it consist of?

It is about using artificial intelligence to create an electoral program based on the answers offered to a questionnaire, and the result makes very clear the danger of leaving our decisions in the hands of algorithms.

If someone wants to know more, they can go to Partidopoliticofuturista.com. You propose a new index, the

, to know if a technology is humanized, right?

Yes. Until now, the standard for technology was efficiency, a technology was considered good if it was efficient.

But I think that scale no longer works for us, that we should change efficiency for contribution, ask ourselves what it contributes to using a technology.

It has been shown, for example, that one of the most sustainable things we can do for the planet is to have children who are no taller than a meter and a half, the smaller a person is, the less they consume and the less impact they have on the planet.

Today, with genetic manipulation, that can be done.

Is it effective to do that?

Yes. But what does it contribute to?

If you start by manipulating height, what will be manipulated next?

The intelligence?

And who can pay it?

I think we have to start changing the way we measure things,

.

Is there a risk that we become dependent on technology?

Freedom is the most important value we have as a society.

In fact, the greatest punishment is to be put in jail and deprived of your liberty.

And yet, we are increasingly dependent on technology.

There are, for example, some Nike shoes that can only be used with an application, and if one day the application does not work, you cannot wear them.

Please, some lace-up sneakers!

Have we become fools?

There is a danger that we are getting used to relying more and more on technology.

The GPS today tells us how to get to a place, but the day will come when it will also tell us where we have to go.

Also, we have the right to make mistakes.

The time may come when, if you like Pepe and you like Juan, an algorithm tells you that the one who suits you best is Juan,

even if you like Pepe better.

But we have the right to make mistakes and learn from our mistakes.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

• Final Interview

• Internet