Phubbing: Is Your Friend an Ass or Just Progressive?

As Langdon Winner describes in “Technologies as a Form of Life,” the association between technology and progress causes technological somnambulism, or blindly following technological trends without much reflection.  We are sleepwalking through the 21^st century and openly accepting the hottest technology without consideration.  In industrialized nations, speed and value coincide: if it is faster, it is progress. Because of this mindset, technology is rarely questioned; it is advancement, it is good.    

Phubbing means to snub or disregard someone’s presence by looking at a phone rather than pay attention to them.  In that moment, the phone is a life form or a world more important than the world in front of the individual.  This form of life, like language, has growth, development, even invention – ie the creation of concepts such as announcing your “status.”  Often, I find myself in conversations where the other person is absorbed in our phone (maybe I need new friends?). By definition, phubbing is rude, but it shows the authenticity of the tech world; it is regularly enough to consume us to the point where we only partially exist in our current world.  As technology advances at an alarming rate, we must ask ourselves how legitimate this other world/existence is? I am not deeming it fake, simply “the other” for now, but I would not be surprised if one day it takes the majority of our time and energy (it does for some already).  If someone is phubbing at a table with a friend, but “liking” their pictures and snapchatting them, to what extent are they disregarding their presence? They are acknowledging a different form of their presence.  This may seem like a stretch, but it must be considered as we normalize the technological obsession in social spheres.

Referring to Marx and Wittgenstein’s theories, Winner says, “Social activity is an ongoing process of world-making.” I agree with him on numerous ideas, but certainly I concur with the notion of being aware of the current age. Winner uses the example of turning off the television as the freedom to choose how much technology one indulges in; but in the 21^st century, as certain apps, gadgets, and social networks are deeply rooted in society, denying the phenomenon creates a setback.  It is up to each individual to establish boundaries. There are downsides to living more in the technological world than the human world: people may miss important opportunities for individual growth or relationship building when they are too consumed.  For example, women my age often take pictures for Instagram or Facebook on a night out.  Because of this craze, some are more focused on taking an attractive photograph, editing, and posting it, than enjoying the night.  Similarly, people on vacation, at a cool music function, or even meditating outside, feel the need to document their experiences – often to the point where they forget to live it.  There is nothing wrong with accepting technological advances, but it is important to reflect on how they affect you as an individual.  Rather than sleepwalk aimlessly, question, seek answers, and find a balance that works. There is an overwhelming pressure to perform on social media platforms, and sometimes it is important to just be. 

Question 1

Fatima's Midterm Essays

1. Hello! I'm still here!
During this time and age, we can no longer see ourselves without using our smart phones and other sorts of technology in our every day life. Portable devices such as cell phones have drastically changed our way of living. Even though, cell phones have made our lives easier with their capability of apps, we cannot ignore the downside of these new technology. We have become a society that have become dependent on our devices. Someone being on their phone or tablet while eating or walking has become as some sort of accepted norm. We are completely consumed by our little screens that we forget to notice the world around us. This phenomena is called by Langdon Winner as technological somnambulism. I completely agree with his opinion. Society is so focused on their phones that we are immune to any other outside stimuli. People, noises, lights, etc become blurred and ignored when we are glued to our tablets and phones. People trip, run into trees or poles, and even miss important human interactions so they can contribute to the mass data feeding systems we call social media. Such as during a date. Your partner can be consumed in documenting the date that he or she can ignore or overlook you because they have to post their food on Instagram or twitter. I can personally testify that I am guilty of this dependence on my phone. I often use it to avoid public interaction when I'm either at the store or just walking to class so when my phone stopped working today, I became anxious and desperate to quickly replace it. However, I cannot do anything until Monday. I am not without my vital tool for social avoidance throughout public and family life. Specially for the family gathering I have to attend tomorrow. I cannot longer rely on my technological somnambulism to save me from having to chat with my aunts and uncles. The idea of not having my phone for about two days made me feel like I had just been disconnected to everyone since I can not text, snapchat, tweet, or Facebook message them. The social media Fatima will be nonexistent for this time so I wonder how many people will wonder where I am. Do I really cease to exist or matter if I'm not posting, liking, or messaging them? Did I really go somewhere if I didn't document it on my social media profiles? Documenting your life has become the major component of the technological somnambulism that we no longer find it rude if someone is on their phone while talking or hanging out with friends. The funniest and most recent example that I can think of that truly explains technological somnambulism is the viral video of the sorority girls taking selfies during the baseball game. Not one of them was paying attention to the game or each other farther than agreeing to take a selfie. Have we truly become a society that in order to express and communicate ourselves to other has to be thru the internet? What happened to getting to know another person by meaningful conversations? Are we becoming more consumed by technology? When will we reach the limit of technology interfering with our lives?

5. The real fountain of youth has been found
Aging is difficult for everyone to accept but it seems to affect women the worst. But what if I told you that you could live forever? That's something that I thought about when I saw the short film, Be Right Back with the whole idea of living on as my "better self". Robot Ash was very interesting when you think about artificial intelligence. No, I would not consider him a full artificial intelligence agent because he still acted more like Martha's servant than an actual companion. I can see why Martha decided to try the robot Ash prototype but as time progress she became annoyed with him until she locked him in the attic. In my opinion Robot Ash differs from Ava (Ex Machina) for he does not possess free will. He is like a walking version of Apple's agent, Siri. Robot Ash did nothing more than what Martha asked him to do. He had no more personality than being helpful and cheerful. Social media Ash that made up the aura or soul of Robot Ash left little room for developing. Robot Ash was a little puppy like creature that Martha slowly began to shape into her idea or perception of the human Ash. On the other hand with Ava, I would consider her an artificial intelligence agent. Even the tittle of the movie, Ex Machina, seems fitting. Ex- former, Machina - machine. Ava to me IS a former machine. She was able to develop and maneuver the best and worst parts of humanity. Ava cared for art, nature, infrastructure of buildings she had never seen but also managed to develop our traits of deceit, manipulation, killing, and lying. The fact that she manipulated and tricked one human and killed the other demonstrates that she has fully developed consciousness and free will; human characteristics that can not be coded into a simple robot. With the constant improvements and development of smarter, more capable robots, we are left with the question of morality and our moral responsibility for them. Are we morally responsible for a robot? I think it depends. We do have some responsibility to take care and provide maintenance for our technological properties but in the case of Robot Ash and Ava, I feel more morally responsible for Ava than Robot Ash. Robot Ash seems to me like a puppy that you can communicate with so I would take care of an artificial intelligence but with Ava the responsibility increases. Since Ava is more technological developed than Robot Ash she is like a small child. She has the ability to develop, make choices, and form ideas so we have a moral responsibility for her well-being. Even if they're not organic but developed or man made creations, we should still be held accountable for their actions and physical condition for they're our creations and they will have our human imperfections. Just like you take care of your phone, tablet, or even your toaster, we should treat our artificial intelligence agents with even more care for they can respond back so we would have no excuse to avoid responsibility for our creations.

6. Total robot takeover. Part 1
The Turing Test has been performed since 1950 and since that day, we have strived to create a program that can beat the test. The Turing Test consists of a panel of humans determining if the person they are chatting with is a real human or a computer program that was made to give human-like responses. I strongly believe that if a computer ever wins the "imitation game" they should be considered intelligent because they have developed a way to some how think and analyze the situation presented to them and decide what would a good response be in order to get a desired outcome. Computer programs, right now, cannot do this. They are simply programed to state a specific answer when a specific question is asked. They cannot develop this train of thought that humans posses thus we cannot consider them intelligent. With a train of thought, we can further develop into free-will and form our opinions and that is the key for computer programs to be consider intelligent. The Turing Test however is not without flaw. The Turing Test assumes that humans already have a certain expectation of what a computer would and can respond like and what a human would and can respond like. For example, as a human we can already assume that a computer program knows only facts, will respond with correct statements, and cannot understand and process any sort of emotion. While a human will try be able to understand and even give advice or an option when presented with a complex, emotional issue. But is emotion the only thing that separates us from machines? Besides the hormonal waste product that we call emotions, how else can we determine intelligence in robots and computer programs when they have a faster access to an infinite amount of data?  I think that when computers begin to rationalize and become opinionated on their own is when we can consider them intelligent. The moment they become able to process and analyze the data and come up with results on their own is the day that they will be intelligent enough for a robot take over. One example of this development is Wall-E and Eve from the Disney movie. They were both developed and intelligent enough to process and decide that the plant in the shoe was important enough to protect even though their superiors wanted to dispose of it. Eve and Wall-E displayed leadership, determination, and revelry that were not programed for in order to fight and save what they believed for. They slowly developed these traits. And let's not mention the fact that they were able to demonstrate a form of love that other robots in the movie did not. Having these human attributes shows their intelligence.

Midterm Questions 2, 3, & 5

2. Public Privacy vs. Private Privacy


The argument in Jeroen van den Hoven's essay is true because violating privacy will lead to multiple problems. Implanting the RFID chip or any type of tracking device in people may seem like a good idea because it would be easier to find lost or kidnapped children, criminals, and pets. Hoven provides four examples of how these chips are being used today. Firstly, in Japan, students have been chipped, and a computer traces them to and from school. Secondly, there are clubs that give people the opportunity to pay their bill with chips that will be placed under their skin by a doctor that is present at the club. Thirdly, in Mexico, people at the Ministry of Justice are chipped so it will be easier to find them if they are kidnapped. Lastly, in the US, millions of chips have been implanted pets to make it easier to find them. The examples show that there are advantages to having these chips, however, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.


Hoven gave four important reasons why people should have control over their own data/personal information. First is the prevention of information-based harm. Radio signals are used in the RFID chips to hack into peoples information which can lead to "sniffing, skimming, and spoofing" when unauthorized users are trying to get information that is stored on the chip (Hoven, 289). There are data protection laws that require informed consent, but can that law actually protect people from being hacked? In addition, there is the issue of identity theft. Hoven stated, "One's bank account may get plundered and one's credit report may be irreversible tainted so as to exclude and from financial benefits and services" (Hoven, 290). I think this is the most harmful violation of privacy because this can ruin people's lives. People would pretty much have to start their whole lives over if the identity thief is not caught in time. Second is the prevention of informational inequalities. This is so people will not get price targeted and ensure each transaction is fair. Third is the prevention of informational injustice and discrimination. The example in the book showed people discriminating against others based on what is in their medical records. If a person had AIDS then others might try to prevent them from getting certain jobs. Fourth is the respect fro moral autonomy and identity. Public opinions can pressure people into conforming to a socially acceptable identity.


Public privacy vs. private privacy. . . Which one can cause the most harm when violated? I think private privacy is the most harmful because that information defines who we are. This is the reason why identity theft is so scary. People can make all the right decision regarding their financial what their doing in life and then their identity is stolen and they have to start over. In regards to public privacy, I do not think that exists. I think the moment you step out of the house, everything is just public. It seems like anywhere we go, we are being recorded. I think eventually there will be a device created that will be able to find people wherever they are. In the movie Furious 7, there was a computer program called God's Eye where every camera including surveillance cameras, cell phone cameras, laptop cameras, and the cameras that catch you when you run a red light were all connected. Only a name is needed and all the cameras will start looking for that person. Anything that is done in public is public knowledge so the only privacy we have is private privacy which are things done in our homes and our personal information such as our medical records.



3. Singularity & The Merging of Biological and Machine Intelligence


Singularity is the irreversible and rapid change of technology on human life. This concept is very much true because if people looked around, they would see that we are surround by technology (television, cell phones, Ipads, cars, and computers) and its constantly changing. There is a new invention everyday, which makes it harder to keep up with the innovations happening across the world, and I am sure that there are many things that are being worked on that people do not know about yet. Fifty years ago, technology was not nearly as advanced as it is today. The internet and cell phones were not invented yet, and people still read hand held books and did their research by looking through those books. If people actually thought about it, they would realize that fifty years is not that far in the past, but in technology years, fifty years is ancient history. Ray Kurzwell stated that technological growth will be subtle then it will grow at an exceptional pace, and I think that growth is happening now.



I think the merging of biological and machine intelligence started many years ago and will continue for many years to come. I think the merge happened with the first technological invention (whatever that might have been). Technology allows us to do things that would have been ultimately would have been impossible to do. Humans cannot fly, but we invented airplanes and helicopters that allow us to do so now. Deaf people are not supposed to be able to hear, but with a cochlear implant, some will be able to. Humans cannot kill lions, tigers and bears with our bear hands, but guns allow us to take them down easily. (I am not saying that I condone the killing of animals. This is just an example.) As we get deeper into technological innovations, we see the unity between our biology and machine intelligence, and I think the internet (computers) and striving for artificial intelligence are the best examples of this. The only thing separating us from computers and artificial intelligence is the fact that they have not reached or surpassed the human level of intelligence, which shows that for right now humans are still superior. As time goes on, I believe that artificial intelligence will be achieved and all the information that could possibly be in our minds will be on the internet.



Honestly, I do not know if singularity is a good thing or a bad thing. I think it is great that humans can invent such creative and life changing things, but at the same time, are these changes for the greater good? Singularity is rapid and irreversible, and I find that terrifying. If (when) artificial intelligence is achieved, there is no coming back from that because the damage will be done. Artificial intelligence being accomplished would mean that humans would become inferior. According to Ray Kurzweil, the most important implication of singularity is that "our technology will match and then vastly exceed the refinement and suppleness of what we regard as the best human traits" (Kurzweil, 2005). What will become of the human race when this happens? Would humans become obsolete? Will we become so dependent on artificial intelligence that we would not be able to think for ourselves anymore? I hope not because that is not a world I would want to live in.




5. Ava vs. Ash . . . Examples of Artificial Intelligence?


I think Ava (Ex Machina) was an example of artificial intelligence to a certain extent. Ava is an example of artificial intelligence because she was able to relate to Caleb and ultimately made him fall in love with her despite him knowing that she was artificial. In addition, the fact that she was able to manipulate Caleb into helping her escape shows that she achieved some type of artificial intelligence. She used he womanly charm to achieve her freedom, which is something anyone would have done. However, she was programmed to seduce and trick Caleb into helping her. This was the extent of her artificial intelligence because she only had one goal and that was to escape. I wish the movie had continued to show if she really did achieve full artificial intelligence. The movie left me wondering how she would interact with other humans since she already achieved what she was programmed to do. I do not think the creator, Nathan, programmed her to do anything else because obviously he had no intention to let her leave. Ava showed artificial intelligence to the extent of being able to accomplish what she was programmed to do.


I do not think Ash (Be Right Back) was an example of artificial intelligence. His knowledge of the REAL Ash was limited to his social media. The FAKE Ash was unable to embody the REAL Ash's exact personality. Because of this, Martha was become frustrated at the FAKE Ash's lack of emotion and always doing everything that she said without putting up a fight. Perhaps if Martha took the time to teach the FAKE Ash what the REAL Ash was really like then they could have lived happily ever after because he did show that he was able to learn. At the same time, it would be impossible to completely grasp the full concept of being Ash because the only person that could fully imitate the REAL Ash is the REAL Ash. In addition, Martha only able to talk to Ash over the phone could have been an example of artificial intelligence because it was obvious that Martha was able to forget that she was not talking to the REAL Ash. It was not until she bought the artificial Ash that everything changed. Also, I think that it should be taken into consideration that Martha was having a difficult time coping with the loss of her husband and being pregnant so maybe she tricked herself into thinking she was talking to the real Ash.


There are many moral obligations that humans should have for each other such as being respectful, fair, and just treating each other the way you would want to be treated, however, I don't know if that would apply nonhumans. I think it depends on the person and what they think morally. If someone sees a robot as only a machine then they most likely will not treat it with respect. I think it is hard enough to find people who are genuinely kind and respectful to other human beings so it definitely would be hard to find people who would treat robots fairly. If the robots look completely human then they would have a better chance of being treated like other humans. In addition, I think that if a robot was built to perform a certain job such as being a sex toy, slave or factory worker, people would not care how care how they treated it because it is only there to do its job.

Privacy is Dead, My Phone is an Appendage, & Unnaturally Natural Life: A Series of Miniature Essays by Brock Swims

#2: Privacy is Dead

Privacy seems to have gained a negative connotation over the past few years, especially after 9/11. We reacted impulsively as a nation out of fear and gave parts of our government too much power via the Patriot Act. This led to a massive invasion of American privacy that is still happening today. The author and myself are both in agreement when it comes to a lack of privacy causing harm. The subtle violations of privacy we have been putting up with for years, like how the NSA has been collecting our phone conversation metadata and we’ve done basically nothing about it, have snowballed. This is what has caused our current expectations of privacy in public and in private spaces to become shaped in a way that is too open, too willing to share.

The expectation of privacy always depends on where you are and who is around. When people are in the privacy of their own homes, they naturally will expect whatever they do there to remain unknown and private to the rest of the world. When people are out and about, that expectation disappears; but it’s not that simple either. Sometimes, when we’re out and about, we create an expectation of privacy by choosing what looks like a safe room or area to talk or something. But nowadays, anywhere a smartphone is, is not truly a private space.

These smartphones, regardless of brand, version, or any other details, basically perform a lot of the same functions such as being able to record and store pictures, audio, and video. And the majority of apps nowadays require a lot of access to these functionalities of smartphones via the apps that the user downloads. Now put yourself in a company’s shoes that exists in today’s mostly capitalist society.

Big data is big money, as we have seen. They are going to exploit every possible thing they can to make profit, as that is the purpose of a capitalist business. If it wasn’t for the socialist regulations we have on businesses, blatant abuses of privacy would probably be much more common, as there would be less penalties (or possibly even no penalties) on companies for not using customer data appropriately and keeping it safe. But even with all the legislation we have come up with as a nation over the years to better protect our data, we still cannot prevent violations of privacy from happening, partly because we are not sure of whom exactly the enemy of privacy is.

The legislation currently in existence (to my knowledge) is only concerned with keeping customer data safe when it is in the hands of a company; basically, defending only against hackers. That’s very good of course, as there are plenty of illegal entities (hackers, nation states, etc.) trying to gain access to this data all the time in order to exploit it. But companies are violating American privacy in the bright of day with no penalty all the time. They are accessing data about people via other companies whose sole purpose is to collect information on Americans via other companies. They are accessing data about their customers that they did not even know they had or need to protect. It’s these violations of privacy I find the most harmful since they play off of ignorance. And these companies whose apps we use are learning way more about us than we ever intended or could have imagined. Together, US businesses and government agencies are performing an ungodly and unjust amount of violations of privacy every day because of programs like the NSA and products that find themselves in the hands of many Americans (namely smartphones).

#3: My Phone is an Appendage             From my understanding, “The Singularity” is the concept of humanity merging with technology, or in other words, machines or robots. Basically, it is the idea humanity will eventually merge with robots/machines/technology in some way that will lead to an age of super intelligence and probably android humans. Just like the rest of humanity, there is no way I can know the future, but from what I have experienced in my lifetime, I would have to say that this merging of humanity and machinery is already taking place. One reason I say this is because of my own experiences with smartphones.

            Ever since I was fourteen years old, I have had a smartphone. The potential the smartphone had was unseen at the time, but now, looking back in hindsight, part of that potential has made itself clear to me. These devices have so deeply ingrained themselves in our society within just the past decade that it almost would be silly of me to NOT expect some sort of merging of human and machine. These smartphones have hardware and software that keeps improving and becoming more complex year by year. We have new devices and new functionality on our current devices popping up all the time. We keep bringing these devices closer and closer to us, in an abstract sense AND physically.

            For example, for the past seven years I have had a smartphone on or near me almost every single minute of every single day. Any time I have not had my phone on me for even a short length of time, I always start to physically feel bad. My anxiety levels rise rapidly and my emotions become heightened. My smartphone is so valuable to me that I treat it just like an appendage or any other part of my body. Because of the current infrastructure of today’s society in regards to humans and technology, this smartphone is the only thing that allows me to truly keep up with everyone else around me. This leads me to believe that if this one technology can vastly change things, why couldn’t another more advanced technology have a different, but amplified effect?

            Whether or not “The Singularity” actually happens, its potential effect on humanity could be so great that it could wind up destroying us or possibly saving us. For all we know, we might create artificial intelligence that will turn malicious and destroy humanity. We might also create AI that will never go bad and could end up helping or possibly even saving humanity (especially due to the environmental damages we have caused over the past century). But we will never truly know until we get there. For now, I think it is neutral concept, neither good nor bad. We simply do not know enough about the future technologies that will be inexistence or are close enough to that future to really know. And the goodness or baseness of the merging of humanity and technology all depends on the results in the future, which none of us will likely get to see.

            #4: Unnaturally Natural Life

            If artificial intelligence exists whenever a machine/robot/computer can successfully trick humans into making them think they’re talking to another human, then Ash is absolutely an example of AI. Personally, I would define AI as a robot/computer that becomes self-aware and is a special kind of intelligent being separate from humans and other animals, since they would be made of inorganic material. But regardless of which definition, I am still inclined to think Ash was an example of this. At first, I saw Ash purely as imitation software. But it seemed almost as if the robot Ash became a new version of the old Ash, especially once he started imitating emotions towards the end of the film.

            When it comes to morality and how we should treat other intelligent beings, I think we should remain consist with what I believe the overwhelming majority of humanity has done for the majority of history: treat other intelligent beings, regardless of the amount of difference in intellect, with respect and help improve their quality of life along with ours as much as possible. I feel like this sort of moral obligation is one that should exist throughout the universe, regardless of the varying forms of life. Since we obviously do not currently know if there is other life outside Earth, this moral obligation is relevant only to life here. But I think this moral obligation definitely applies to future forms of intelligent life as well, which I expect will be here within the next one hundred years or so, if not sooner.

            The fact that an artificially intelligent machine/robot/computer is inorganic and not “natural” should have nothing to do with our moral obligations toward it, as it is a form of intelligent life. The inorganic robot form of life may not have gone through the same things our organic forms of life have to get to where we are, namely, evolution and natural selection. But that doesn’t mean that life can’t appear via another fashion. Maybe this could be the evolution of the concept of evolving: for humans to create a more durable form of intelligent life implies that literally building more/equally intelligent beings should be the next step up the evolutionary ladder. Regardless, artificially intelligent machines should be treated with the respect and concern for other forms of life that we humans do, if they truly are intelligent, self-aware beings.

            Another moral obligation we would have towards a form of life that we create might be one that could make the human race sort of a parallel to the concept of a creator or god. Humans have looked to religion for an explanation behind where our origin is. Imagine if another intelligent being made us. We would want some sort of explanation from them about why we are here. We would want to know our purpose and who we are. We would have about a thousand questions. I feel like we would be morally obligated to help guide and maintain/care for any artificially intelligent machines, should we create them and they’re similar enough to humans. If they aren’t human in the way that we are (meaning they don’t want to know everything there is to know in the universe and our purpose in life), then we have no obligation; otherwise, they should be treated almost like our children.

Turing's Testes (Essay #6: Artificial Intelligence and Robotics)

The Turing test, created by the world's first computer scientist (before computers even existed!), is a test designed to gauge when true artificial intelligence has been manufactured. It is basically a test to determine when an artificial intelligence program can imitate a human being well enough to fool a majority of people it encounters into thinking that it is a human.

The test is designed to gauge how well a computer can fool a human into thinking it is human. This is done in a number of ways; the foremost among them are by attempting to engage in human behavior. This includes irrationality, typographical errors, “lame” or “corny” jokes, incorrect math, creation of a persona, and can even include attempts at flirting. When a conversation persists for long enough, a person will eventually be able to tell that something is off, and that they may not be talking with an actual human being. If you've ever tried to talk to CleverBot, you know that the robot often types in circles and uses quotes or reasoning that a human wouldn't. An example of a conversation with CleverBot illustrates this idea.

Me: What's your name?

CleverBot: Pepus.

Me: Pepus?

CleverBot: Yes Pepe.

Me: Why did your parents name you that, Pepe?

CleverBot: That is not my name!

Me: Then what is your name?

CleverBot: Then my name is Weronika.

Me: Are you a female?

CleverBot: Good question. Am I female?

Although the CleverBot did use the word “my,” indicating that it has some degree of awareness of itself, this conversation illustrates how inconsistent the CleverBot was in the conversation. It contradicted itself in two different posts about its name; the first, when it changed its name from Pepus to Pepe, and the second when it changed its name from Pepe to Weronika (and no, I did not make that up). CleverBot also exhibited gender identity confusion, which is a problem experienced by many humans, but humans don't go around asking others if they are male or female. Obviously, CleverBot has failed the Turing test.

Turing said that if an artificial intelligence program could win the so-called imitation game, it could be counted as true artificial intelligence because it would have exhibited enough human personality characteristics to fool actual humans. The test allows for the threshold of what is considered artificial intelligence to be low enough that a sizable percentage (30%) of the population would be able to tell or have some idea that they were talking with a machine. Why not go for trying to convince 100% of the panelists that the artificial intelligence program is a human being? Well, when you know you're supposed to be judging the humanity of a presence that you cannot see or feel, you are, naturally, going to have a nagging doubt in your mind about whether the person is truly a human, while at the same time having a doubt about whether the presence is a robot. The test allows for that margin of uncertainty that accompanies any human judgment. 

Robots as Pets, Sleepwalking, and Human Paranoia: The Midterm

Sleepwalking as a Form of Life

         Winner's concept of "technological somnambulism" is concerned with the facts that people are currently so unwilling to make changes or make themselves aware to the need to make changes in their lives to fulfill outside wants, but unknowingly make huge decisions about changes in their own lives to accommodate newest technologies. This is about how people are looking towards technology as the main tool of progression. As a country we have made technological advances by evolving from an agricultural society to an industrial society and now currently a post industrial society. This evolution has also come with different forms of technological advancements such as the assembly line in the industrial revolution. I feel as though this was the start of the technological somnambulism in a way. With the start of the assembly lines, people were forced to do only one job at a time to create an item. This caused those people to sort of sleepwalk through the day and become less human and more robot like. People are adapting more to working on one task made it easier for them to focus on one thing in life and in has just been making us humans more lazy generation by generation. It seems that improving is now rooted in new technology and what new machines have to offer. In a way, we have become stationary waiting with current technology until the new gadget or gizmo comes out.  I  agree with the author, because in a way people have gotten lazy and have become more dependent on technology. The concept of cars that drive themselves seems to be rooted in some lazy fantasy to be able to multitask and do as much as possible while cutting out "pointless" things. We get so caught up in doing as much with technology as we can we get lazy when it comes to everyday activities and interactions.When people wait in line for days to be the first group of people with the newest Iphone instead of participating in regular daily activities they put life on hold in order to feel more connected because, this new technology will come with something interesting that will keep them better incorporated into society.There is even a new job industry for it, people will hire someone to wait in lines for them so they don't have to. The business isn't corporate or anything, more of like a craigslist listing for people who want to make some extra cash. I can imagine how this could actually become a thing where someone starts a company to just help people find and purchase the newest technology faster than others. Besides jobs, education is being affected. More and more students are using technology in the classroom and the use of pens and paper and handwritten notes are seen less and less. Will school supplies soon become obsolete to students? Is this a good thing or bad for us? The environment might be better off because we rely so much on technology, but will we then start to suffer as humans and become less knowledgeable and social. How long would you wait and how much would you spend to stay up to date with new technologies? I personally think slowing down and looking at life through our own eyes and taking a break from staring at screens could be very beneficial to our individual growth and societies as a whole. Who knows, we might develop ways to incorporate more human activity and get rid of bigger issues in the world. All in all, the concept of technological somnambulism is based in truth due to our past behaviors and obsessions with new technologies.


Three Rules of why Humans are Paranoid

           I think the merits and limitations of the rules are based on different people's opinions of them. They seem to be used to keep anxiety and preconceived notions at bay when it comes to new technologies involving robotics. People need to be reassured that there won't be a robot uprising. Asimov's Three Rules of Robotics are to calm the fragile nerves of those who fear the worst from a man made creation because they know what man is capable of based on past actions. Humans commit heinous crimes against one another everyday. Mass shootings, bombings, genocides, slavery. From the past to the present day, it is very clear we haven't treated each other with the right amount of respect and love. So with this knowledge people assume that this behavior is to expected from intelligent beings.  Not to say that people are coming up with ideas of hostile robot takeovers on their own, the media in movies like I, Robot and even Ex Machina show robots being fed up with human behavior and taking a violent turn towards humans. Even in recent news, the drones the government is using scares people into thinking  someone or something is working against them.Some people would even go as far as saying the government is against them and by acquiring and using drones on our enemies,they are practicing for when they decide to turn around and use them on us.  One thing we do not understand is that it would be difficult for these types of intelligent beings to form an uprising against us because us as humans do not understand the reasoning behind some of the things we do.So how could we program something to be smarter than us if we ourselves do not understand. Also a lot of heinous crimes that are committed by human beings are claimed to be committed by human beings with mental illnesses. Not to say that all people with a mental disorder are violent or are threats to society. But, how can we create an intelligent being that has a mental illness when some of the time we do not know the cause of the illness. Yes a program can have a glitch, but that issue would be a lot easier to identify than mental illness. We as humans are afraid of things we do not understand fully or do not know a lot about.The average human does not know much about artificial intelligence we can only assume and go by what we are told this alone creates a sense of false paranoia in humans and it allows our imagination to run rampant. We aren't aware of why humans tend to behave the way that we do and I think the fear about robots taking over comes from that idea. The issue comes into play as to who would create the intelligent beings and their purpose. If we can program these beings would we not be able to program them with certain limits and abilities used for certain jobs?



Pets and Robots are the same thing, Right?

             When you have a pet, you teach it things, nurture it, and help it grow. After you've had it for a few years it is completely different from when you first got it. It has learned tricks and can somewhat communicate with you. Now you didn't create this animal but it belongs to you and it is your job to take care of it. So in relation to Ava and Ash they aren't "natural" or "organic" but they are intelligent beings under our supervision. If you spend enough time teaching and creating these beings then you have a similar obligation to them. Because like animals we keep as pets, with attention and time they can grow and learn and we can become attached to them as well. So now let’s take our cell phones for example, if our cell phones are not human beings and in some instances they can come with  artificial intelligence, such as Siri. We do not have moral obligations to those programs but we are also still cautious and afraid to break or drop our phones and some people even go as far as spending hundreds of dollars on a case just to protect it from all damages. We have no moral obligation to them but we take care of them better than we do some actual humans. Although Ash and Ava weren't humans, they were pretty damn close and the other characters became close to them and interested in them. Mistreating them like Ava and putting them in an attic like Ash aren't suitable, you wouldn't do that to your dog. Would you? In the scene when Martha tried to make the artificial Ash jump, she couldn't because he began to show emotions and she couldn't bring herself to make him destroy himself. She was well aware that the being in front of her wasn't her husband at all, but she still had a certain attachment to him and although she ended up putting him in the attic, she couldn't get rid of the artificial Ash. So although people may feel that the concept of owning something of artificial intelligence is scary and also that it may cause an uprising against them they will still own it because it is new technology, the concept of fear may make some people feel obligated to treat the robot nicely and treat it as though it is an actual human being. Overall, I believe that even though different people have different views on the treatment of intelligent beings and their own morals, we have an overall moral obligation to treat these beings accordingly. Mistreating them would be cruel and show a sense of entitlement in humans. Mistreating intelligent beings shows that we don't appreciate new and emerging technologies and feel a sense of power and ownership over them, to just discard them. One of the main issues that will arise with people owning the robots and being morally obligated to care for them will be the fact that some people may treat the artificial intelligence being better than they will other people. Also there may be parents that treat the artificial being better than they do their own kids.

Ava v Ash: The Ultimate AI Smack-down (Essay #5: Artificial Intelligence and Robotics)

 Ava was an excellent example of the type of artificial intelligence we are attempting to create now. She exhibited all the hallmark characteristics of what generally is defined as a human: creativity, curiosity, the ability to manipulate others (which, as much as I'd like to think isn't a “hallmark characteristic of humanity”, is in fact an attribute of only humans), the ability to handle situations that would never have been programmed by her creator, and the ability to leave another human being to die in order for her to accomplish her personal goals.

Ash, I think, was physically as human as robots could possibly ever get; however, what he lacked was the ability to think critically for himself and react with natural emotions, as Ava apparently did. Ash had to ask Martha if he was behaving appropriately or accurately, as the real Ash would have. The most obvious example of this is when Martha commanded Ash to jump off the cliff, and he moved to do it without any real questioning or any sense of self-preservation that would be exhibited in any natural human or artificial intelligence like Ava.

Where I have clear ideas of how we should treat other living beings (non-human animals for example) and the sorts of obligations we have to them, my ideas become murkier when artificial intelligence is concerned. I believe that, as we have taken over the role of “ruler of the earth”, we have an obligation to every being that calls this planet home to take good care of the environment. This does not mean we vow not to kill any animals or that we all become vegans; this means practicing sustainable farming and harvesting of resources. This means acknowledging that one day humans will be an extinct species, and we will need to have left a habitable planet for whomever comes next.

Where artificial intelligence is concerned, I do feel like we should have more of an obligation to the Ava type artificial intelligences than to the Ash type artificial intelligences because of the fact that Ava exhibited more natural responses. I will never be 100% positive about whether Ava really felt the way she expressed herself, or if she was even capable of feeling that way, but I do feel like until we can know for certain that she could not, we should afford her the same rights as a human; that would, of course, have complications in the implementation, but that's a digression. There is not an animal on the face of the planet that does not have instincts for self-preservation, and although Ava as a robot could possibly not have instincts, she did display the signs of self-awareness and that drive to protect herself. I don't think it matters so much what the being is made of, as far as whether the parts are organic or machine. We have humans now that are part machine; do people who utilize prostheses qualify as human? I think so. I believe that what is in the mind of the individual matters more than what materials their body is made of.  

I-Spy on You, and There's Nothing You Can Do (Essay #2: Information Technology)

Privacy is a right regarded by most citizens as one of the most important, right behind the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Although levels vary depending on where someone is, a person always expects a certain measure of privacy. Public bathrooms are the most obvious example of one place outside the home where a person can reasonably expect the same amount of privacy as he or she would receive at home. This means that you can expect that nobody can legally charge into your house without your permission, and nobody can legally take pictures of you without your permission.

Everyone who pays any attention to the news at all (which is a sadly small percentage of the American population) has some idea that the United States government is spying on its citizens and allies. It's a huge privacy rights issue (although you would never know by the amount of citizen apathy). We are in a state of constant surveillance that most of the time; the idea that someone may be recording our internet traffic, phone records, along with the fact that there are cameras on practically every city corner that monitor everything within sight isn't such a shocking idea to many people anymore. The young adults who are growing up in this environment, we, in our environment, are used to it.

In most places outside the home, a person can be photographed without consent, as long as the photographer is not a professional or representing any company or business. However, examples of times when privacy is generally regarded as having been violated, but not usually legally so, are in cases of “downblousing” and “upskirting.” Upskirting is when someone (of dubious morality) takes a picture, usually with a cell phone camera, up a woman's skirt without her knowledge and, thus, without consent. Downblousing is much the same thing, except the photograph is taken of the woman's breasts from above her shirt. In September 2014, a Washington DC judge ruled that upskirting is not a violation of privacy; in the same month, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the photographs are an expression of free speech of the photographer, and therefore protected under the First Amendment. The reasoning is that there is no harm done in taking a picture. There are a few issues with privacy in these cases; namely, that the women do not want what they consider their private areas to be photographed and disseminated for everyone and their mother to see.

This is just one example of how technology has forced us to confront issues that we have never had to confront before. As new technologies are developed, we have to constantly adjust our standards and definitions of what constitutes privacy and violations of privacy. In many cases, the legal adjustments of these definitions are either slowly coming or seemingly not coming at all.

Because I have grown up in a time when technology is being created and produced as an exponential rate, most developments are received with a smile and, “Hey, that's pretty cool.” These technologies aren't something we really think about in a critical way, mainly because they're being developed at such a fast rate. I really don't like that my own government has the audacity to constantly run surveillance on its own citizens and allies, but I don't see much about this situation being changed until the majority of the population begins to care about what the government wants with that information.  

Can Machines Actually Think?

The Turing Test is a test invented by Alan Turing who is a founder of computer science. A panel of judges ask questions by computer to unseen correspondents. One of the correspondents is a human while the other is a computer program. The point of the test is to be able to decide correctly which is which. Dialogue for the Turing test can range from small talk to things of a factual nature to gossip. After a conversation, judges must decide if they were talking to a human or talking to a computer. A possible thought Turing could have had was that by computers achieving and passing the Turing test they would have somehow become human like concerning their intelligence and ability to trick humans. Overall Turing seemed to believe that if computers could somehow manage to beat out humans and pass the Turing test, these machines would have displayed their intelligence because they will have shown their ability to actually think.  It is a long standing belief that machines/computers do not and will never demonstrate the ability to form their own thoughts. Sure, they can give facts and answer questions but they cannot truly think like we humans think. By winning the test, a machine will have demonstrated its ability to truly think which ultimately assigns to the machine/robot "intelligence".

The way the Turing Test was won by Charles Platt exhibiting such negative behavior says a lot about humans and what it means to be a human being. The Turing Test seems to presuppose that humans, in their true nature, are obnoxious, moody, and irritable (characteristics by which Charles Platt won). The Turing Tests seems to assume that machines and humans are different due to the seemingly bad nature of human beings. This bad nature is what sets us humans apart from machines. Based on this assumption, it is safe to say that when compared to robots, humans can be seen as hostile, cold, disagreeable, etc.  With Platt winning because of his negative disposition, this implies that human beings are rather unpleasant creatures. We are rude, obnoxious, and there is no other species on Earth as irritating as humans are when it comes to our nature.   

With that presupposed view of humans, it could be stated that machines are assumed to have a less negative nature than humans. Machines are painted as somehow holding the “good” characteristics of human beings. Robots/Machines are considered to be helpful, courteous, and pleasant. This is unlike humans who, by nature, can be uncaring and lazy. The way in which Platt won the Turing test also implies that machines/robots cannot have true emotions. Yes they can be pleasant and helpful, but will they ever truly be anything other than that? Machines cannot get angry at the amount of work they have, like we humans do. Machines cannot truly understand what it means to “backtalk” or have an “attitude” because it is not in their nature. They are programmed to be as mannered and helpful as possible. Machines/Robots cannot beat humans out in being the worst because they do not have the unfavorable nature humans have.

 

 

Ava Versus Ash: Who's Truly Intelligent?

Ava, from Ex Machina, was a far better example of “artificial intelligence” than Ash from Be Right Back. When compared to Ash, Ava seemed to have a mind of her own. She was conniving, cunning, and deceitful (all unfortunate characteristics of a true human). Ava used her intelligence to play on the emotions and feelings of a human male in order to obtain freedom. This type of deceitfulness involved the use of her mind . Surprisingly, Ava was able to make her own decisions based on responses she received from Caleb. The ability for Ava to make decisions drawn from her own perspectives and interpretations of human behavior through interaction places emphasis on her achievement of AI. Ash on the other hand was more of a collection of stored data acquired from the real Ash’s personal accounts taken from the internet. He simply repeated what was expected of him in certain situations. Simply parroting what someone has said does not make you an intelligent being. It does not show artificial intelligence in the least. For example, when Martha was upset with him and initiated an argument, he continued to ask what she wanted rather than shout/argue back. When she told him to leave he did with no question. If that Ash had AI, surely he would have exhibited some type of emotion (even if it was acting) or he would have attempted to argue back with Martha.

Another way Ava demonstrates her artificial intelligence is through her ability to be creative. Ava’s creativity paints her to be almost self-thinking. Being creative is clearly not something Ash can do. Ash cannot do anything the previous Ash did not do because he is simply mimicking the original Ash. For example, Ava created artwork based on her own perspective and interpretation of Caleb and his features. Ash mimicked moves he’d seen in previous pornography videos when having sex with Martha. Nothing the second Ash does is truly original or creative. He is simply a limited copy of a human being. He does not have his own emotions, he does not have his own desires, but rather he simply follows the instructions of his owner Martha. Ava showed an innate desire to be free. She expressed a desire to be on her own and to be her own individual. Ash did not express anything of this nature. He had no desire to become his own person. He had no desire to be freed from Martha. Based on these observations, Ava is an example of AI while Ash is not.

Concerning moral obligations to other intelligent beings, every intelligent being should be treated with respect and should be treated ethically. With the thought that these other “intelligent beings” do have AI like Ava, then we should treat them with the same respect as we give others. If other intelligent beings can exhibit their own independent desires and exhibit self-thinking behaviors like Ava, then I believe we are morally obligated to treat them much like humans. Personally speaking, these obligations should still hold even if they aren’t natural or organic. Today, people are being fused with mechanical/robotic limbs and parts (even of the brain) yet they are still treated as humans and given the same rights as other humans. So if these “other intelligent beings” look human, act human, but have robotic parts, doesn’t that mean that they should be treated humanely and with respect?

 

Tracking Humanity

Jeroen van den Hoven argues that privacy will be compromised due to RFID chips and nano-technology. Public privacy is not as discrete or confidential as private privacy. Concerning public privacy, there is a limit to how private things are going to be. For example, in a public place like a grocery store (Walmart, Target, or Kroger) individuals are always surrounded by others. This means that individuals are more likely to be watched by other people in society.  Concerning private privacy, the likelihood of being watched is not as high. For example, if you’re in your home alone, you are not being watched by others in society. It is just you and your surroundings. With the RFID chips, concepts of both public privacy and private privacy will take on whole new meanings. There will be no such thing as true privacy for anyone anymore. These RFID chips will result in people carrying around tagged items such as chip cards, identity documents, and other things of this nature.

 These chips will allow information to be read and identified from a distance. Those who read this information may even have the ability to be hidden from the line of sight. These chips and this nanotechnology will make it easy to trace people wherever they are located. This, in itself, is an invasion of both public and private privacy. People will not have the ability to truly be free. People will never have the ability to start fresh because they can always be easily tracked by others. It may be a good idea to chip your dog or small child in case for fear of them being stolen or lost, but is it really a good idea to track individuals and monitor their activity throughout the course of their life? Privacy will be breached in the case of RFID tags because humans will become tagged objects. RFID chips will offer up numerous security and accuracy problems concerning privacy due to ability of radio signals being sent and read by anyone. RFID sensor, tracking, and tracing would change our society into space for information to be continuously generated and accessed. Informed consent offers little relief. Despite people choosing to give consent or not, individuals can still “skim, spoof, and sniff” information stored on RFID chips which can be accessed by unauthorized readers. This is still a major invasion of privacy, even with the option of informed consent. The fact is we will not know that we are being monitored, tracked, or traced and this is the problem. Personally speaking, violations of private privacy seems to be the most harmful. Private privacy is the most personal form of privacy. Simple things such as online shopping, buying clothes, driving, etc will become tasks that are recorded, stored, and saved. The fact that the small time we have to ourselves will be open for others to probe and analyze is something I consider to be far worse and more harmful.  The breach of private privacy is more harmful because it can cause change in who a person truly is due to fear of being watched or monitored by others. This fear can influence decision making, beliefs, and other things such as this. This ability to essentially change a person and change their ability to truly be themselves through monitoring/tracing is what makes the invasion of private privacy the most harmful.