#28 Society and Technology

Smartwatches have become widely adopted as wearable technology in recent years. As we have discussed in earlier bulletins, they function like extended minds. As a result, we have delegated many tasks to our watches.

From one perspective, wearable devices and smart accessories simplify our daily lives and make our routines more predictable. This idea is also popular among technology manufacturers.

On the other hand, the views of those who are pessimistic about technological progress or adopt a cautious stance offer nuanced insights. If we limit our analysis to smartwatches alone, it becomes easier to understand what they are taking away from us. Of course, this text does not directly condemn the use of smartwatches. As we have noted in many bulletins, using a device allows us to adopt a holistic approach.

As embodied beings, all our experiences find meaning through the mediation of our bodies. Consider the adrenaline and excitement you feel when running to catch a bus. You know that a layered memory and experience will form in your mind around that moment. When you examine how this experience arises—its physical process—you immediately see that it passes through the body. Moreover, we are directly aware of this entire process. We feel our pulse quicken, our feet may tremble slightly, and we are out of breath. Our awareness of our own body reveals itself.

There are countless examples of bodily awareness. Shivering, sensing that you are about to fall ill, or the fatigue we label as low blood sugar are all such examples. This entire awareness arises from listening to our bodies, observing them, and, so to speak, understanding their language. One of the most important things wearable technologies appear to take from us is precisely this ability to interpret the language of our bodies.

At the same time, New York Times writer and marathon runner Lindsay Crouse describes in her personal experience how smartwatch use can easily become addictive.She explains that the watch she initially bought to improve her marathon performance soon became a device that kept her constantly focused on numbers, replacing bodily sensation with reliance on app feedback.

With smartwatches, everything from heart rate to sleep patterns is measured. But according to Crouse, this “quantification culture” damages our connection with our own bodies, creates dependency on external validation, and can even increase stress. Experts also warn that these devices carry the same risk of addiction as other digital technologies. In the end, Crouse, who decided to remove her watch, emphasizes that relearning to listen to her body is a healthier path.

As Crouse notes, if we suspend our direct physical awareness of our bodies and instead interpret it solely through the watch’s pulse readings and its inferences about us, we risk losing that awareness. Of course, recommending that we stop using watches altogether is not a sensible solution, since some subtle cues can only be detected through precise measurements.

Apple, for example, has moved beyond mere awareness and measurement. The new model of the Apple watch can alert users to potential blood pressure issues without directly measuring it, by tracking other indicators. Apple developed an algorithm through its Heart and Movement Study, launched in 2019, which analyzed data from 100,000 participants to identify correlations between signals from the watch and traditional blood pressure measurements. The algorithm was tested on a private group of 2,000 individuals and received FDA approval. The results of this study are now implemented as a feature in the app.

The new system does not perform direct measurements; it only alerts users to a “possible high blood pressure” condition and directs them to consult a doctor for a cuff-based measurement. Apple plans to roll out this feature in over 150 countries.

Here, alternative lines of argument are possible. The growing importance of preventive healthcare and the potential to calculate health risks from data collected by watch users offer an unprecedented dataset for public health assessment. Of course, this debate also appears linked to privacy concerns.

Thus, this example makes it clear that embedding an AI-based prediction of blood pressure risk into a smartwatch has implications far beyond the code itself. It involves multiple dimensions: the loss of bodily awareness, potential misdirection, privacy risks, and even the risk of transferring public health data. Yet, at the same time, it offers the possibility of detecting potential health problems long before they manifest, thereby improving lives and promoting healthier living. For these reasons, the issue deserves careful reflection. Sometimes, the needs we do not yet recognize arise precisely from the abilities and awareness we already possess.

At a recent panel hosted by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, renowned psychologist Howard Gardner (developer of the theory of multiple intelligences) and law professor Anthea Roberts discussed the new forms education might take by 2050.The panel, titled “Thinking in a World Augmented by Artificial Intelligence,” took place in Longfellow Hall.

According to Gardner, artificial intelligence is confronting education with the most profound transformation in the past thousand years. By 2050, he predicts, children will receive basic education in only a few years, focusing on core skills such as reading, writing, arithmetic, and some coding. Afterward, teachers will primarily act as coaches guiding students toward diverse activities.

“Spending 10 to 15 years in school no longer makes sense,” Gardner argues, emphasizing the need to guide students toward career fields they are passionate about at an early age.

Of course, the most significant factor driving this reduction in schooling duration appears to be the rapid pace of AI development. Yet this is not yet a settled issue with a definitive conclusion. The idea that teachers can be replaced remains controversial. As we have discussed in earlier bulletins, we can say that technological advances cannot replace teachers—but this applies to the current educational model. Gardner is proposing a fundamental transformation.

Roberts, meanwhile, argues that in the future we will not be the “producers” of knowledge but rather the orchestra conductors of AI systems: “You will take on the role of the director, not the actor; the coach, not the athlete; the editor, not the writer.”

For this reason, she argues, students must develop strong cognitive and managerial skills when interacting with AI. Indeed, to become an editor rather than a writer, one must be able to guide writers and evaluate their work.

Gardner reflects on his own theory of Multiple Intelligences. “I believe that most of the cognitive aspects of the mind—the disciplined mind, the synthesizing mind, and the creative mind—will be so effectively performed by large language models and mechanical systems that whether humans do them or not will become a matter of choice,” he said.

“On the other hand, I do not for a moment believe that the aspect of the mind concerned with respect—how we communicate with others and whether ethical behavior can be entrusted even to the most articulate, versatile, and intelligent machines—can or should be delegated,” he added.

The panel also warned that fully offloading cognitive tasks to AI could weaken students’ critical thinking abilities. Roberts said, “Yes, you can delegate mental labor. But the real question is whether we are using this delegation as an extension or as a replacement.” There is a significant difference between using AI as a tool and using it as a substitute for the mind.

Roberts also shared her personal experience with AI-powered assistants. “I now spend nearly all my time in continuous dialogue with LLMs,” she said. “I keep Gemini, GPT, and Claude open during all my academic work and engage in dialogue with them... I relay their responses to each other. There is a constant dialogue among the four of us.”