International investment law is designed to encourage the movement of capital toward optimally productive uses, thus generating economic gains and fostering development. At the same time, treaty-based protections of foreign investors can restrict host governments’ ability to pass rules that negatively impact on foreign investments even when such rules are for socially desirable goals such as poverty reduction. Applied to the question of new technologies, this framework theoretically leaves access to and utilization of new technologies between the technology-pulling impact of investment protections and the equity-hindering impacts of regulatory measures to reduce poverty in all its forms. Does the practice of international investment law dispute resolution indicate that this tension is resolved in favor of technology investors or in favor of equality-enhancing measures?

This chapter examines the various aspects of the digital divide and the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that contain states’ promises on the relationship to promote access to new technologies as a way of reducing poverty. It then looks at several early investment disputes that have arisen out of new technology investments in order to draw conclusions about whether investment protections help bridge the divide or exacerbate it. The result is more ambiguous than expected.

Experimental legal regimes, notably regulatory sandboxes, seek to promote technological innovation while at the same time ensuring consumer protection against unsafe or unsuitable products and services. But in doing so, they may not always be able to prevent harm to consumers. This chapter explores the relationship between regulatory sandboxes and private law. Given that within such sandboxes the participating firms may benefit from regulatory relief, it considers whether, and, if so, to what extent traditional private law nevertheless remains and should remain applicable to their activities during the experiment. It develops three models of the relationship between regulatory sandboxes and private law – separation, substitution, and complementarity – and considers their key characteristics, manifestations, and implications in the context of European private law. The chapter reveals the tension between, on the one hand, fostering technology-enabled innovation, legal certainty, and uniformity and, on the other hand, realising interpersonal justice and individual fairness while leaving room for diversity. It also assesses each model in terms of its potential to reconcile these competing considerations and draws lessons from this assessment for EU and national legislators and courts.

This chapter initiates a neo-Aristotelian theory of the firm by arguing that firms are not merely governance mechanisms to overcome market failures but sites of moral formation that foster the development of practical wisdom and the virtues. Building on critiques of the Market Failure Approach (MFA) and insights from the Knowledge-Based View (KBV) of the firm, we challenge the assumption, common in market morality literature, that internal firm norms can be evaluated independently of their effects on external stakeholders, arguing that virtuous relationships with external stakeholders play an important role in establishing and maintaining efficient internal norms. We also argue that, regardless of their efficacy in promoting organizational performance, hierarchical authority and cooperative norms are justified only insofar as they contribute to organization members’ flourishing. Drawing on McDowell’s notion of Bildung, we show how organizational life can “open employees’ eyes” to valid reasons for action, shaping their character in ways that contribute to their flourishing while also promoting organizational performance. This chapter thus reframes the firm as a moral community and provides the foundation for a virtue-based account of corporate purpose, to be extended in Chapters 5–9.

Chapter 6 looks at the failures of educational innovation during the Covid-19 crisis. As schools scrambled to adapt to remote learning, remote proctoring technologies rapidly expanded. They implemented surveillance systems that violated student privacy and disproportionately harmed vulnerable students. Despite claims of maintaining academic integrity, remote proctoring created a stressful, punitive environment that prioritized monitoring over genuine educational support while failing to do nearly enough to address the inequalities at the heart of accessing and using digital resources. Sadly, the rush to innovate missed crucial opportunities to upgrade core educational infrastructure and truly support students during a time of unprecedented challenge. As if this wasn’t bad enough, some schools continue to use remote proctoring software. A pandemic problem has thus become the new normal.

Chapter 2 shows how when the emperor of innovation isn’t wearing any clothes, upgraders can still see the naked truth of the situation. Zuckerberg promised a metaverse, a new digital reality, that would transform human connection, interaction, and commerce. But this handwavy conception of the future lacked any clear vision, let alone consumer demand. Upgraders were able to spot the folly long before it became one of the largest corporate boondoggles in modern commerce, a shorthand for corporate disfunction. In contrast to the unbridled enthusiasm of innovators, upgraders would have started with the question of why the public would ever want this product in the first place. Instead, Meta tried to sway public opinion with overly rosy futuristic promises, trying to move the market to meet their innovation, rather than solving problems that actually mattered to the public. Like other innovations, the metaverse shows how tech companies ignore the fundamentals of human behavior and social change, dooming their grand visions.

Chapter 5, “The Failed Promise of Covid Innovation,” presents the pandemic as a crucial case study of how innovative thinking let us down at a time of great vulnerability. Simply put, the early days of massive fatalities made COVID-19 a health crisis. But those days also can be seen as a powerful lens for understanding high-tech failure. From contact tracing apps to thermal imaging cameras and digital vaccine passports, there was a fever pitch of government and corporate enthusiasm for innovative solutionism that was predestined to be unreliable and, thus, in context, dangerous. While we acknowledge remarkable breakthroughs like the rapid development of mRNA vaccines, we also make the case that additional effective responses could have come from upgrading existing systems rather than trying to do things entirely new.

Chapter 8 explains why there has been so much enthusiasm for integrating AI into multiple dimensions of the hiring process, from resume screening to interview bots, despite these endeavors being marred by fundamental flaws, including, in some cases, integrating bias, unreliable pseudoscientific methods, and dehumanizing interactions. In addition to analyzing the incentives that have motivated companies to use flawed, innovative tools, we provide a road map for how to develop and use responsible AI upgrades in the hiring process.

In Chapter 9, we argue that cybersecurity professionals embody the ideal of the careful, systematic upgrading that Move Slow and Upgrade has been advocating for. Unlike the flashy innovations that we’ve criticized in earlier chapters, cybersecurity professionals focus on making small, proven improvements through such practices as privacy by design and zero-trust architecture. Recognizing that no single change can solve complex problems, they layer multiple safeguards while acknowledging that human behavior – from falling for scams to knowingly taking risks – is often the main vulnerability. By discussing how cybersecurity teams do quality work, we aim to offer important lessons about how other industries might benefit from adopting an upgrading mindset.

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” welcomes you to day 1 of your new life as an upgrader. In this introduction we not only provide an overview of the book’s thesis for better problem solving and more effective technological advancement, we start to draw out the contours of what it means to be an Upgrader. This loosely nit cohort of changemakers has rejected both the inadequacy of the status quo and the destructiveness of innovation. Here, you’ll begin to learn what it means to solve some of the most urgent problems facing our society today through the lens of upgrades. We’ll also begin to provide examples of ways that innovations have fallen flat, or blown up completely, in the past. Crucially, upgraders aren’t just backseat drivers in the journey of social change, they are forward looking experts who are often able to see the dangers of pending innovations before they occur. In your life as an upgrader, you’ll not only be able to avoid these missteps yourself, but you’ll be able to see the innovation traps so many others are poised to fall into.

Chapter 3 dives deep into the beating heart of cryptocurrency, the paradoxical technology that has made early adherents billions, while adding nothing of real value to society. By any measure, crypto has failed at its stated goal: creating a better financial system. Looking to Bitcoin, we show how the core innovation – a distributed encrypted database – makes a terrible payment system, with slow, expensive, uncorrectable transactions. But crypto enthusiasts ignore more than a decade of failure, doubling down on grandiose claims about solving everything from financial inclusion to corporate governance while ignoring the far easier, low-tech solutions to these very real needs. We include an interview with an early supporter of the massive crypto currency Ethereum, who came to see how crypto became “just a tool for the wealthy to become wealthier” rather than fulfilling its promise of financial inclusion for the world’s 1.7 billion unbanked people.

Chapter 4 critically examines the fact that sometimes innovations not only fail to solve crucial problems, but are the problem itself. Specifically, it explains why Ring doorbell exemplifies the threat of home surveillance innovation. The billion-dollar Amazon subsidiary sold millions of Americans on the promise of security via surveillance without any credible evidence that its system works. But rather than encouraging people to adopt proven security upgrades, such as better locks and secure package drops, Ring wins customers by making its digital innovation seem essential amid a climate of rising fear. By fighting against boring yet effective alternatives, Ring’s anxiety-inducing features have further normalized intensive networked surveillance and helped turn innocuous neighborly interactions into potential threats.

In Chapter 10, we conclude with an overview of the broader themes seen throughout this work, showcasing the tell-tale signs of innovation failure. These patterns go to the core of our work, lessons learned from past innovations that can help us to avoid repeating similar mistakes in the future. No one, not even the cagiest upgrader, is going to be able to predict every new technology that will succeed or flop. But with this mindset, you can avoid some of the more obvious traps that investors, politicians, and the public continue to fall for, while valuing the evidence-based alternatives we so often neglect.

In Chapter 7, “Upgrades in the Age of Generative AI,” we consider the hype around generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, and explain how the razzle-dazzle has captured the public’s imagination, even as the technology hasn’t come close to being artificial general intelligence—the goal companies like OpenAI aspire for. While tech giants race to develop generative AI products, we emphasize that they currently are sophisticated pattern-matching systems that simulate intelligence without truly understanding it. Analyzing both negative (political campaigns) and positive (the possibility of helping doctors communicate more empathetically over patient portals) examples, we offer recommendations for spotting uses of generative AI to avoid and how technological upgrades can be carefully and ethically integrated into communication systems to improve human welfare.

With innovations in medicine, ethicists are consulted on cases without sufficient clinical knowledge or ethical precedent to call upon. Under pressure from a distraught care team, the ethicist in this case tries to justify a unilateral withdrawal of an advanced form of cardiac life support – VA-ECMO. She shares how her sense of obligation to relieve the team’s moral distress blinded her from appreciating that the patient was not "really, most sincerely dead." In consultation with the hospital’s legal counsel, the ethicist agreed that the patient did not meet strict criteria under the definition of death by circulatory criteria/cardiac death.

The patient’s family, in shock by his rapid decline following a complicated aortic dissection repair, were holding out for a miracle. Because they could see the ECMO machine pumping blood throughout his body, they struggled to believe he would never recover. The ethicist used a different strategy to resolve the conflict: She coached the team to present the medical facts in lay-person’s terms, using a commonly recognized sign of cardiac death, the flat-line. The family then accepted that patient’s native organ was gone. Since he was not a candidate for transplant, they agreed to disconnect the ECMO machine.

Over the course of seven years, the Tata center recruited and trained more than 200 graduate students from 18 different MIT departments to design and implement energy solutions that are practical and reliable in the developing world. Their work produced 45 patents, 12 commercial licenses, and over a dozen startups. This chapter demonstrates the method for implementing similar programs, with a focus on energy-related research projects. The program leaders describe their project as “CPR for Engineers,” with a three-axis model focusing on developing Compassion, Practice, and Research.