Comments for Beatriz and

 Comment for Beatriz-    

I          I think this fully describes the definition of being an introvert. I do not think that technology is causing people to become more aggressive towards each other. However, I do think that it helps keep people from being more interactive with each other. I too prefer to be around a smaller crowd of people, but it’s not because I prefer to be with technology. I think it’s because I am an introvert and need time to myself. Also, I think the person who won the “Most Human Human” award was not necessarily unlikable or moody. I believe that it was a tactic and method that robots don’t have the ability to do, since they are not generally programmed to show anger.

   Comment for Kelsey-

       

·         Kelsey, I agree that technology will be more prominent, accepted and operational for the future generations. As far as the hotel, I think it would be interesting to see how it actually operated. I also believe that within the next 50 to 75 years, robots will definitely consume more and more jobs. I know we don’t think of customer service answering machines or ATM’s to be fully robotic, but think about how many jobs were taken away because of them. The hotel is the first step to having many more.

What's up with Humanity?

Lots of people are jerks. And for the most part I don't like them. I only really talk to people if I have enough people around me that I know will help me out when I inevitably flounder. I can do it for a while, but I leave feeling incredibly drained. So I try to avoid it completely. And honestly, I think that a lot of people feel the same way. Why is it that so many people find communicating with people daunting.
A humane action is supposed to be pretty close to a benevolent action. It's interesting that as humans we find it difficult to put faith in other humans' humanity. I'm not sure if technological advances have made us more insensitive to people. I don't know if it's just made us more away of aggressive people. I do think that it's helped to change our minds about the way people are.

In The Most Human Human, we find out that the one of the previous winners of the title "Most Human Human" got that award for being a generally dislikable and moody individual. This did not surprise me, even though I did find it somewhat disturbing. Now I'm not sure if Humans are slowly becoming more rotten, or if just human's perception of humanity is becoming slowly more rotten. But either way if that's how's we judge these AI's I'm sure I don't wouldn't want to meet the winner of that Turing Test.

the good ole' switcharoo...no

I never thought about us as humans thinking robotic ally and not ourselves. Now that i think about it, i do it a lot. My mother use to get upset when I took things exactly as she said them and asked why didn't i use common sense. my response was that that's not what she asked for. I believe robots should stay at a level in which we can control them, and that we as humans should act more human. If we are to believe that our humanity is something special, then why remove that for faster workers, more money, and the like? I understand that the world we live in is faster and more technology based, but does that make us more or less productive as human agents? is technological advancement really advancement for mankind? that is up to you. personally, if Adam and Eve were in paradise without a laptop, then the heaven on earth we need has nothing to do with being more robotic and having things faster. I believe that robots should be the robots. what is the purpose of having A.I.? what good will it serve mankind? If one of the answers is to use them in war instead of human lives, we will have to take into consideration the "life" of a robot with "feelings". In the end, it would be the dominate race over the subordinate. Personally, I don't want a repeat of slavery, but hey, they would be just machines, right?

Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game

game ɡām/noun

             1. a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.


^^ from Google


I was curious about the definition of "game" after we discussed the Deep Blue victory over Kasparov. The beginning of chapter five tackles the infamous chess match and the defeat of the world champion. As we discussed in class last week, robots cannot "play," so how can a thing that cannot "play" participate in a game. When artificial intelligence competes, it looses the essence of "gaminess." Bobby Fischer, chess legend, declared chess “a dead game" in 2002 because of computer players. 


The Google definition leaves room for more leeway with the mention of "skill" because obviously skill is an important factor in games. Then I am tempted to decipher between gaming and play:

play
 plā/
verb


1. 
engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose.


 
Play has a more humanlike denotation: robots are goal-oriented, and constructed to win.  The concept of enjoyment or recreation are "foreign" to artificial intelligence. The connotation of play is different from game as we associate emotions and childlike bliss with it. My conclusions to gaming and play: robots can participate in games, but they cannot play. That being said, I agree with Fischer to some extent; games are in jeopardy because of AI’s; they lose human appeal. One factor of playing/games is friendly competition and the idea that one could win; if AI's become well versed in games to the point that they can beat world champions, much of the joy that initially brought people to games will disappear.  

Barbie Girl in a Robot World

In class we have shared opinions on the ideas of robots taking the place of humans in certain service jobs. The idea did not sit well with most of us. However , saying that the concept of robotic service is relatively foreign to us I understand why we are so reluctant to the idea. Well , in March of this year Japan opened the doors to the world's first fully robot operated hotel. Literally everything is operated by robots. Everything from a humanoid robot front desk receptionist to a robot carrying your luggage to your room. When I saw the idea played out in real life it is not as scary as I thought it would be. In my head anything run by robots would most definitely eventually brainwash us all for total robot world domination. I feel like there are going to be more places that are going to be fully ran by robots in the near future. They will never call in sick to work, or have a bad attitude when exhibiting customer service , and you don't even have to tip them! So from a business standpoint they seem to be the next best thing to have! Trying to imagine what our world would be like if all our hotels, resturants, and daycares were fully operated by robots is becoming less of a science fiction novel and more of our reality. Since it is not what we are used to it will be harder for us to understand , and get used to. However , we have millions of people in later generations who will be perfectly fine functioning this way. As mentioned in class this past week, in recent years humans have been taught to act in more robotic ways , as far as school and the work place, it will be less and less of a big deal to the generations to come.

AI "ifs" & "maybes"

All of this talk about the future and artificially-intelligent robots taking over, frankly, exhausts me. It's tiring to sit and think about the "ifs" and "maybes" all the time. But I understand why we are all so fascinated by the idea of artificially-intelligent robots; I mean, who doesn't want a robot servant one day that'll do all the boring things in life that humans never want to do? Our imagination lets us visualize this and inspires us to strive to create robots that serve our every whim. But an abstract idea can't possibly replace the reality of a real, concrete robot that is fully and completely self-aware and truly artificially-intelligent.

When I actually sit down and imagine the different responses and questions people would have to a robot becoming a sentient being, obviously a plethora of them come to mind. But they're not big questions like "Who are you?" and such. I just want to know what combination of human logic and imagination and our world's resources (such as metals, etc.) would we have to have in order to have a fully self-aware robot. I'd like to imagine such a robot would look like a human, but this is probably because 1) I'm a human and 2) I don't have another being as intelligent as humans to compare them too and. And once we can answer the question of how an artificially-intelligent robot could even feasibly exist would I then ask other bigger questions.

Maybe this is my natural resistance to thinking about the impossible. With today's current technology, unless the government really just IS that good at keeping secrets from the rest of humanity, artificial-intelligence the way we've been talking about in class is impossible. And until our technology and understanding of humanity GREATLY improves, it will continue to be nearly impossible for me to really, fully imagine what an artificially-intelligent robot would look like, act like, etc. I just can't do it.

But if and (hopefully) when that happens, maybe then we can begin the discovery of a new type of intelligent "creature" and everything that comes with that. Of course, how we should treat such a being will only be known once such a "creature" exists and then, and only then, can we come up with "definitelys" and "absolutelys" that will replace the overbearing and annoying presence of the "ifs" and "maybes" of today. Especially the ones we have in class. o_o

Where does the "soul" train end?

Today in class, we discussed chapter 25 and we stopped on the subject of "the soul." Who has a soul? Can a soul be created? Are we morally responsible for our creations that only have souls? These are all questions that came up in class today. I personally believe that.....

1.  Souls exist
2.  Souls cannot be man-made (I.e. Cannot be constructed physically)
3.  Humans and animals have souls

While I believe this is true, I also believe that we are responsible for our creations that have a soul and those that do not have a soul. For example, our technological developments that have both or either positive and negative impacts on the world. I made emphasis on our creations that have souls and those that do not because parents are legally responsible for their "creations" (children). So if we were to create some soulless, non-living, inanimate object I am/should be equally responsible for my soulful or soul-less creation. So no, whether soulful or soul less we cannot turn a blind eye to our creations.

This conclusion brine me to my next point. We as human beings cannot create a machine/robot that can operate fully as a human would/could. Now, humans have created machines/robots that have what some would call a conscious but my question to you would be "Are we really creating a conscious if we are only programming the machine to think as we would/should. Artificial intelligence lacks the "pureness" so does this take away from its credibility? For me, this is where the soul train ends. I place the end here because we can only measure that which we can understand. What do you think? Where would you place the end?

Abusive Robot Caregivers!

This week in class we have been focused solely on the topic of robots. Questions have been thrown around in class such as, "If we use robots, do we treat them like humans?" and "In the very near future of robotics technology, will robots have rights similar to those held by humans?" Robots can be programmed to deliver numerous different responses to users.  The issue of using robots as "care givers" has been brought to light. Robots most likely will be used to help the elderly or people who struggle to take care of their children. If this is the case, what happens when children go against their robot caregiver? Will the robots be able to handle such a situation? Personally speaking, I do not think I would be comfortable with the idea of a robot disciplining my children. On the other hand I would be as equally uncomfortable if my children were abusing their robot caregiver. In the reading, Wallach brings up the topic of "operational morality". Wallach states that sensors detecting abusive treatment could be built into the system. More questions arise from this possibility.With this internal system, what would happen to a child if the robot responded to such abusive treatment? It's possible that the robot could inflict harm on a child as some sort of form of defense mechanism. If a child were self-harming, and the robot was programmed to protect at all costs, wouldn't that mean that the robot would register the child as a threat it should eliminate? Harm could definitely come to a child in this situation. Similarly, if robots were placed into nursing homes where they were required to administer medications and other things of this nature, what would happen if their patients refused to accept the robot's help? What if a patient refused to take medication from the robot? Would the robot force the medication onto the patient? At what point would the robot accept "No" and leave the patient alone?

Work, Sex . . . and Robots!!!!

Is robot slavery possible? Yes, because they will just be doing the same thing that slaves have always done which is work and perform sexual acts. There has always been an issue with people working in horrid and dangerous conditions such as in sweatshops, factories and mines. If there were robot slaves, they can be programed to perform the tasks that would be considered inhumane for actual humans to do. Since robots are not human, then it only makes sense that they do inhumane things. Right? Robots cannot feel pain so if they get hurt, what happens? Would they get shipped away to get repaired, stop and ask for help like a human would or be thrown away like last week's trash? In addition, they do not have to eat and they do not get tired so when is enough finally enough? Who determines the work day of a robot? Can it even be considered a work day since they are not human?




In Erica's post, she mentioned how there are now robots that have been built for sex. Is this really okay? Cause I think this can open a big can of worms in society. If it is okay to have sex with robots, then would it be okay to have sex with robots modeled after children? If people can make machines that look like human adults then it is possible to make robots that look like children. All the pedophiles will have a field day. I know that the robots would have to be programed to perform sexual acts, but what if there is this random evil master mind that decides to create child robots that perform sexual acts. They know there is a market for that because there are a lot of child predators in the world. I think having sex robots just opens up the world to something that should not exist. It will just do more harm than good.

Playing God Ain't Fair

Think about the time when humans  first stepped foot on this very Earth many years ago. If you know anything about the history of mankind whether it is biblical or scientifically we know for a fact that the technology has advanced greatly. These technological aspects have become some sort of adaption device and our daily way of life. But the question truly is What happens when technology goes too far?

Robot. Best defined by Google as "a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically." But is it really a human? We have all seen movies in where a scientist has tried to duplicate human life into a robot form and almost every outcome was something disastrous. Even if the scientist created the robot to do what is "morally good," what happens if something goes wrong within the robot. What happens if the robot uses all of its resources against the creator and it can not be shut off? Unlike humans would they have a brain? Or would it just be full of a computer software? These robots now have the capability to research anything their robot minds desire faster than any human ever could.

If our judgements fail... We have created a monster that is far move powerful than us.

We are very aware that humans are sexual and fertile creatures meaning we have the ability to "Be Fruitful and Multiply" and as a result of this more humans are born. Will robots have that option? What if the robot turns evil and kills off all humans? Then how will any life form be continued? Whether it is human or robot? This is a genocide with in itself when you actually think about it.

"Life is a gift from a creator that we cannot see." What happens when we try to play the role of God and try to create a life that is not even natural? There is a difference between a human and a robot. Especially if you believe that humans have souls. How can someone create a soul? (other than reproducing). Especially with their bare hands. Will they have a heart? Will they be able to feel emotions? How will they determine what is good and bad?

Becoming Human

One thing I believe about science fiction focused on artificial intelligence is that some parts, no matter how small, are most likely possible even if it takes centuries for the technology to develop. One example of this is a recent remake of a show called Humans. The debate in this show is essentially what we discussed in class, but on a larger scale. In this future, robots have already been made that are impossible to distinguish from humans based on appearance alone save for their green eyes. A small group of these robots, called "synths" for short, were programmed with the very essence that makes humans human. These special synths have their own opinions, genuine emotions, they form familial and romantic attachments just as humans do, and they're capable of significant emotional acts such as sacrificing their "life" in order to save someone they care about even if they aren't programmed to do so. I understand the dilemma that we discussed is focused on the question of whether or not we should recognize technology with artificial intelligence as moral agents, our equals. But I think the bigger question is, if we have artificial beings that think, feel, have morality, and a true sense of self-awareness, then why shouldn't we recognize them as human? If they can think like us, feel like us, go through life the same as us, don't pose a threat to us that's greater than any other human being, then what do we have to gain from denying them their humanity? I understand that artificial intelligence was created (or is in the process of being created) primarily as a tool for humans, but there would have to be some way to use that tool without oppressing a potential new race of beings. Also, if we were to create artificially intelligent beings that gained self-awareness, and then denied them their own freedoms and rights, wouldn't that create a bigger problem for us than whether or not we should recognize them as moral agents?

P.S. I've included a link to the trailer of the show just because I feel like it really tries to address the issues with artificial intelligence that we've discussed, as well as the issues that deal more with everyday life, such as how these robots impact those around them by being self-aware (And it's just a great show).

Manifesto

As technology is progressing and continuing to progress, Robots will inevitably take over everything around us. Whether for good or bad, someone will make a use out of them. I don't necessarily agree with the world being taken over by robots but there are some uses that I think would actually be beneficial to society.

One of the beneficial uses would be Robot Police. These robots could be programmed uniformly and made to only follow and enforce strict laws. Nothing human would be necessary for them. They should be equipped with non lethal weapons and made from heavy duty materials. This would eliminate police violence against and by police officers. 

This model could be taken even further, and used as security guards for various places like; banks, schools, and airports. Robot security could cruise around and be able to detect things humans would not be able to detect. This would not stop criminals from offending but at least would make the criminals think harder about their crimes because if a robot cop is in the area the criminal would be caught. Robots would not make human mistakes, they would not kill people, they would just make sure that in safety there would be no human error. 

Take for instance, a kid brings a gun to school and a robo security guard is in the building. The robot would detect the gun and the appropriate action would be taken to keep the school safe. The robot would use high end X-ray technology to scan and figure out the kid has a gun instead of relying on a human to inefficiently pat down every student and be too late to find the gun.

Can computers teach my child or are we prepping them for government brainwash?

In today's society, we have become more accustomed to having technology in the classrooms. From online pre-school computer programs to college level online and even hybrid courses teachers are beginning to feel the repercussions of technology introduction. But are all the effects of technology and education bad? Are we heading to the era of the science fiction theory of government brainwashing and use us for some crazy experiment?
As a strong believer of human interactions specially in early age, I strongly believe that we should limit the amount of technology that we are exposing in children's classrooms. As represented in the video, the technologies in classroom should be an extra aid to the teacher and not the educator itself. As stated by their research, the amount of exposure to the technology should be monitored in order to increase the benefits and decrease the harms. We have all seen the television commercials that advertise and guarantee rapid and efficient early childhood development in the areas of math and science reasoning. But exactly how effective are these programs and how much should children be allowed to interact with these technologies.
If robots and other sources of technology were to overtake the educator's role in a child's education, what exactly are we creating? If a child does not interact with humans can they truly develop individuality and independence? If a child is exposed from very early on to a robot or computer program how can they teach him or her the interpersonal skills needed to develop efficiently in this society? A child that only stares at a glass screen can not process and develop the skill of interacting with other classmates and adults. Any human interactions will begin to seen foreign and confusing since they have not yet been exposed to it.
Another risk I see if that we might become too accustomed to technology as teachers that whomever controls the programming of them controls what our children will learn. Thus, being able to shape their opinions and way of thinking to their convenience. With a whole generation thinking a certain way, we will begin to see things as normal that might in reality be hurtful and immoral.

Can We Determine When Artificial Intelligence has a Consciousness? Also I May Lose My Job?!

A large portion of humanity struggles with the dilemma of judging artificial intelligence as having a moral consciousness or as just being a machine.  At what point do we feel as if we have a moral responsibility to them?  Is it when they begin looking and acting like us?  Most likely not, because most robots will simply be programmed to act as human as possible, similar to Siri.  So we must determine when robots gain a consciousness; but how can we determine this stage?  We can not understand robotic consciousness according to the problem of the other mind.  How is it possible for us to comprehend the consciousness of robots if we can not experience the world as they do, just as we can not experience life in the exact same way as a dog does.  Another problematic aspect of  judging consciousness comes with the fact that we do not know that robotic consciousness operates in the same way as ours.  Should we be worried that we may create technology that has a consciousness that which we do not understand and thus unintentionally act immorally as a result?  I believe that this could very easily happen; we need to research more about consciousness to understand the inner workings of our robotics systems before we go to the next step of creating artificial intelligence.  But what about souls?  Do robots have actual souls?  Assuming that I have a soul, I do not believe that artificially intelligent robots have a soul.  Humanity does not have the capability of creating an inanimate object (which a robot is at first) and then gifting it with a soul; we are not powerful enough to engineer by hand living beings who are on the same moral ground as ourselves.  But then again, how do we decide who and what has souls?  Do bugs and plants have souls?  What about dogs and cats?  What gets me the most is the fact that, obviously, viruses do not have souls, so at what level of creation do things stop having souls?  What about the people who do not believe that souls even exist?  They are still able to determine who and what they owe a moral responsibility to.  Maybe robotic consciousness is possible without the consideration of souls.  But then we are still left with the question of what determines consciousness; we are not even sure which non-human animals have a consciousness.  Okay, so what about robotic interaction with humanity, regardless of whether or not robots have a consciousness?  Should robots have the ability to work as nannies?  This is a very important topic for me because I am a nanny.  From my personal experience I do not think that robonannies should be implemented.  For little kids, robonannies might not be so bad because they do not need much of anything besides to be kept safe, fed, and happy.  Once the kids get to elementary school age, robonannies are not such a great idea.  Kids of this age need more than a small child; they require imagination, advice, good role models, and sometimes instinctive decisions.  I know that I have been in situations that required me to act so quickly that I did not have much time to think about what I was doing; I just acted instinctively.  Could robots do that?  I do not think that they could because they follow a code that is programmed into them.  All information that they receive must be processed before a educated decision is made.  They may not be able to act quickly enough to prevent something that a human reaction could have prevented.  Also, I do know that a robot would have unlimited access to information via the internet but I still do not believe that it could be imaginative enough to entertain and educate a child.  When I nanny, I have to be very creative when we play games and when I teach her information.

HOT ROBOT SEX: CLICK HERE

Glad I got your attention!
But I hope no one actually clicked this blog looking for a good time, but there people out there who are interested in sexual intercourse with robots. Our class discussions have been geared towards the advanced technology with robots and how we could possibly be able to use them in the near future. So about robot teachers, robot nannies, robot cops, and robot assistants, but now the possibility of robot companions is on the horizon. 
This brings in another aspect of the morality of robots and the positions they could possibly have in our lives. Can they say no to the sex? Will they stick around and eat pizza with you? Is the use for robots primarily based on humans no longer wanting to do the everyday things to live a happy healthy life? What happened to going to the bar to pick someone up and take them home?
We could not only be losing out to jobs because of robots or other machinery but possible partners. (But who would want a weirdo that wants a robot? -_-)

I am seriously disturbed that this is becoming some sort of trend but I am not surprised after the discussions we've been having in class. I mean we discuss robots being able to take care of our household and other needs and now people can also get their sexual needs taken care of. There are a ton of red flags going up for me about this but I want to know what you guys think about this becoming a new norm for people? And how do you feel about the notion that humans will at some point become obsolete?

It's ok, my toaster is watching him!

        This week, the question of whether or not a robot could take care of a baby or the elderly has been the topic of conversation. Other questions or topics presented have been will robots be able to provide emotional care and structures for children or the elderly. Although those have a great concern for them, the real question should be will the human race become so bound and depended on technology that the world becomes a real version of Wall-e? Will robots take over the earth, not in a bad or devious way, but in a way that humans are no longer needed for manual labor, surgeries or even just for companionship?
       The progression of technology happens rapidly and is occurring whether we are actually paying attention to it or not. One of the things that stood out to me the most in the discussions over the week is whether or not robots will be able to function as moral agents, or Artificial Moral Agents. Will they be able to fully function as a human would. And would that make the robot technically a human? When I think of a robot that is already somewhat functioning like a human, I think of Siri. Siri is programmed to show different types of emotions, answers and smart remarks. For example, if you call Siri a bad name, she will respond like a human and say might say "That's not nice or "I'll pretend you didn't hear that". When I asked her who her dad was, she responded, "I have you. That's enough family for me".
      If we already have phones programmed to respond with emotion and intelligence, the progress of robots is not too far behind. As of right now, by the year 2050, technology will not only be taking care of children and the elderly , but of the human race as a whole. There is even a possibility that humans and technology will coincide, making terminators the new race.

                                                    

We are Groomed for World Domination!!

The issue of our personal privacy and emerging technologies is a growing one that we are all going to have to face in coming years. Through social media , online banking, and over all smart phone use we make ourselves open and vulnerable to new ways of people abusing our openness. In class today the topic of microchips being embedded into humans for tracking purposes. However , agreeing with the majority of the class , I am dead against them. I think that it is another classic way of our government dipping into our personal privacy just because they do not think that citizens will make a big deal out of it. We have been slowly groomed over the past ten years or so to make our private lives open to anyone who will pay attention to it. Particularly with my generation , starting with Myspace. We began Myspacing at the tender impressionable age of eleven. We began to spend a lot of our time on the internet becoming master web page designers and communicating with people from Lord knows where. From that point forward we moved on to Facebook, Twitter ,  and Instagram. It seems like with each new social media sight ,the more intrusive it became. We went from simply making a status about once a day to making several statuses a day. We then migrated to Instagram where not only could you share a status , but you have to upload a picture that in a lot of instances tell your exact location. So for the newest technology to be “enchipping” humans is not at all surprising. I do not know if it is my natural human instinct to be weary of the unknown , but I do not feel that the good is going to out way the bad in this scenario. However , it brings us back to the discussion of whether or not technology is ethically neutral or not. I still feel that technology is ethically neutral , but I think that a technology of that sort would most definatley end up in the wrong hands. Embedding chips inside of humans just sounds like something out of a Distopian Science Fiction novel where everyone’s most valuable information would very easily get into the wrong hands. Then , of course ,  the information would be used for total world domination.

Dick Pics (contains no dick pics, sorry guys) ((Ok, maybe one))

I love John Oliver. It's hard not to (unless you're a prick); speaking of, John made several great points about Edward Snowden and Section 215, but the one that gathered the most attention was the "dick pic." In other words, people are concerned about their privacy because they want their nude pictures to be concealed. I appreciate his sense of humor, but this was particularly disappointing to me because people do not comprehend the severity of the Patriot Act and government agencies having access to EVERYTHING you say or do, unless it can be applied to dick pics. Granted, some could acknowledge the other consequences of leaked information i.e. military secrets, but little else. To them I say, honor your penis, your military, and everything in between (lots)
by demanding privacy.

Our government intentionally instills fear in us so they can gain our support for invasions of privacy and *cough* war. This begs the question: what is more important: privacy or security? Well, there are benefits to both; and the constitution mentions rights to both, but the follow-up question is, how successful are the invasions? I was interested to find out that the constant recording and documenting has only overheard one rather juvenile "terrorist" plot.

Ok there's your dick pic:

The marvelous: Dick Cheney 

I am interested in politics as an occupation, but I do not intend to pursue it for numerous reasons. Mainly, I don't want to get caught up in lies, corruption, kissing ass, blah blah blah; but, I also do not think I could if I wanted to, because one decent hacker could find ample nudes, partying pictures, etc. Everything we do is documented: even after you click "delete," even if you think something was privately shared between you and one other person, it is indefinitely in someone's hands. I appreciated that Snowden said to "Should we keep taking dick pics?" - "Yes, you shouldn't change your behavior...or sacrifice your values because you're afraid." We, the nude takers, are right: those who wrongfully invade our pictures are wrong.

Age of Ultron

     The title maybe a bit humorous or far-fetched, but is it really? We already see robots and computer programs that are getting closer and closer to being more human. And we are become more like they are. In class we discussed how we are so tied up with technology and how it is consuming every part of our lives. many of us felt uncomfortable with the idea of being tracked everywhere and were even more horrified at the idea of "enchipped" by big brother...I mean the government to ensure our "Safety and Protection". I make the case that no true good can come from such continuation of technology and will lead this world into more chaos.
      We can agree that in this country, smart phones, hi-tech computers, and etc. are needed to in order to manage the busy lives that we have. without such tools we would be lost in a world that lives half of its life in cyberspace. Facebook isn't necessary, for example, but without it you might not receive a job if an employer can't learn about you from the web. Writing a paper would take twice as long if we, God forbid, only had books to get information. GPS for me is the compass of dreams. There is a clear understanding that there are goods, but the negatives are so detrimental that people lose or kill themselves because of what is put for all to see.
      I don't believe the majority of people understand that technology is growing to be more powerful than we are and has changed everyway we function. We cannot be independent from it. Everyday we willfully give our locations, tell people what we think, take pictures of everything that we see. The only step higher than this is a chip in us to record everything that we do. and like all technology, it can be hacked for the selfish deeds of those that have the power to abuse the masses.
     I truly believe such a time will come, and I believe in those days we will see more cyborgs than actual people. And there will truly be no escape from technology, and it will be  because we didn't act in time.
      

The Value of Privacy vs. Today's Society of Surveillance

After reading Chapter 18 out of the textbook, I was quite amused by the fact that I had just read the exact same arguments in another book I'm currently reading (called Data and Goliath by Bruce Schneier) against the mass surveillance happening in today's world. The chapter I had just finished was entitled "Privacy" and the argument Schneier refutes at the beginning of the chapter really resonated with me.

He talked about how one of the biggest misconceptions about privacy is that it's always about hiding something and people who don't have anything to hide don't need privacy. But when you think about it, that doesn't make sense at all, as he pointed out: 

"We do nothing wrong when we make love, go to the bathroom or sing in the shower. We do nothing wrong when we search for a job without telling our current employer. We do nothing wrong when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation, when we choose not to talk about something emotional or personal, when we use envelopes for our mail, or when we confide in a friend and no one else... We write intimate letters to lovers and friends, talk to our doctors about things we wouldn't tell anyone else, and say things in business meetings we wouldn't say in public. We use pseudonyms to separate our professional selves from our personal selves, or to safely try out something new." 

And the last part that really struck a cord in me because of how true it is, is as follows: 

"We're not the same to everyone we know and meet. We act differently when we're with our families, our friends, our work colleagues, and so on. We have different table manners at home and at a restaurant. We tell different stories to our children than to our drinking buddies. It's not necessarily that we're lying, although sometimes we do; it's that we reveal different facets of ourselves to different people. This is something innately human. Privacy is what allows us to act appropriately in whatever setting we find ourselves. In the privacy of our home or bedroom, we can relax in a way that we can't when someone else is around."

Because of the society of surveillance we live in, privacy has become much more scarce. I've become slightly paranoid about the technologies I use every day due to my recent comprehension of the kind of constantly monitored world I really live in. Now that I've really started to wrap my head around this truth, I truly do feel as if I'm being watched all the time, and frankly, it creeps the hell out of me. The security I felt in private, thanks to my ignorance about our loss of privacy, is now completely gone.

I don't know a whole lot about what all the corporations in America's actual stance on this problem is, but I do know that all of this big data collection combined with the ignorance of the masses on this subject is allowing corporations to take advantage of us and make more money. Google is one corporation who's success speaks to this, as they own the majority of the digital data in today's world. Non-corporation agents such as cyber criminals and all the money they've stolen would attest to this fact as well, because why else would they take a risk breaking the law besides to make money? But we as a society are choosing money over privacy every time when we voluntarily give our data up. And now, without giving up our data up and in turn a huge amount of our privacy, we can't fully participate in today's society and will be put at a huge disadvantage without it. It's unfair.

I feel very powerless about this subject of mass surveillance. To be honest, there is probably nothing any one of us can do to help remediate this problem besides be less open online. But maybe if we get the conversation started (like I've been trying to do by writing this piece) and make this a subject Americans are all properly educated on, we could begin to solve this problem and learn more about how giving up this much privacy is has not only been unwise, but can be dangerous in the long run.

All I know is that I am not okay with living in a world where people are constantly trying to learn more about me just to exploit me in way that has never existed before because of technology. The medium of our advanced technology that caused this dilemma in the first place and that so many people still fail to grasp the true power of needs to be regulated and controlled before our society changes into one that none of us saw coming and that none of us would want.

I am NOT a Pig for Slaughter

How are we not scared to death? Or at the very least really really mad?

Literally everything that we do is tied up in technology. We bank online, we shop online, our entire identity can be found online. So when the topic of our government infringing on our privacy comes up, I expect more people to be outraged and intimidated. This is seriously scary stuff. But, during the interview that we saw most people didn't even know about what the U.S. government was up to. Even worse, most of them didn't seem to care. I feel like we would almost rather be ignorant even when our rights are being infringed upon.

Edward Snowden released a lot of information regarding the NSA's surveillance operations. They are receiving civilian phone records; they are scanning through civilian emails. Sure we already knew that the government was keeping secrets from us. And sure we accept that it's probably for our benefit. This is different! What do they gain from having our phone calls? And yet, we were only really concerned about it for a few months. How does something so important to us as a society fade into obscurity so quickly? As a civilian who stores the majority of her information on her computer I am appalled.

As a nation we shouldn't just allow people, especially the people in charge of our safety, to have complete unquestioned access to our private lives.

The problem is that as time progresses we're going to get more and more technologically advanced. We need to establish boundaries in the beginning so that our lives don't turn into a dystopian science fiction novel. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm not too thrilled with the idea of having my identity injected into the back of my neck so that I can be corralled into a giant pig pen.

Oh no! My Computer lost its morals!

This week we dug deep into Arnold Pacey’s “Technology: Patience and Culture.” One of the main arguments is that technology is “amoral.” By that, the author meant that technology is neither good forbad. I myself believe that technology is initially designed for a specific purpose and those designs vary depending on the designer. I believe that some designers do design pieces of technology for good and some for bad but technology in its purest stage and by purest stage I mean before the designer or engineer makes plans or lays hands on the materials.

 I will defend my argument by first using Facebook. Social media in general serves as a platform for people to “update their status,” connect with others, and selectively share moments of your life. That is facebook in its purest state. Initially, it was designed for what seemed to be a positive purpose but today we know for certain that social media has just as many positive impacts as negative consequences, maybe even more. From “catfishing,” lurking to stalking Facebook’s initial good intent is instantly turned bad.

 So if all of this we true, my argument to Pacey would be is technology truly amoral if the technology can be easily manipulated to be “bad.” Who is to blame for technology’s oh so bad morals? Does the fault lie with the designer or the user? How can technology truly be amoral if there are bad parts of technology? So does my computer really do have bad morals or do I? That statement in and of itself poses a critical question because technology is not a human. It does only what I tell it to do. So if I am controlling the computer is it bad because of me or is it bad because it has bad capabilities. Help!