Next Phase of Technology

Before reading The New Digital Age, I did not realize how much technology played a role on serious situations in the world. I never looked at social media as an outlet to start revolutions, did not expect the virtual world to progress on the same level as the physical world, and did not think of terrorism happening virtually. The book makes some great points about how much power technology holds, and what it can be used for. I believe the most interesting topics were the future of revolutions, future of terrorism and reconstruction. These are both distinctive concepts that have a completely different meaning from the original definition when using technology to execute them. The thought of a social media revolution is new due to the vast awareness that it causes. It is great for getting information out quickly, keeping those people who do not watch the news in the loop about serious and far situations, and causing picture movements. However, will technology develop to the point where social media is actually used as an outlet to solve problems and not just bring awareness to them?

            As far as virtually causing terrorism and virtually kidnapping people’s identity, will these problems start to occur on a regular basis? I remember when cyber bullying started to take place, and became such a huge ordeal because it drastically affected people’s lives. Will cyber terrorism and virtual kidnapping be held to a higher standard of crime, or will it be even harder to prove? We discussed in class which would be more terrifying, being kidnapped in the physical or in the virtual. The virtual causes more complications when dealing a person’s identity and can cause long term damage. Have we given too much power to the use of technology? But what about RFID chips? If we put chips in everything like humans, weapons, and eventually be able to track someone’s use of the internet, can virtual kidnaps be minimized.  What will be the next phase of technology?

If You Like it Then You Should've Put a Chip in it.....

Like Beyonce says, "if you like it then you should've put a ring on it". I think the same idea could go for people who value their property, you should look into putting a chip in it. Right? Right. If we put RFID (radio frequency identification) chips in everything and everyone, it would create clear advantages to our communities. Keeping track of guns, people, criminals, valuables is very beneficial. You could find things with ease, just by the click of a button you can find whatever it is you've been missing. There are concerns that the government would then start tracking us, but they already are. So what's the big deal? If we're already being watched and tracked for the weird reasons the government has to track us, why not do it ourselves? I think once I get older I'll get into the tracking trend. Why spend so much money on things and work so hard to get yourself the things you want and lose them or risk them being stolen.

I admit the idea of being of being tracked is creepy. But why not adopt this technology and use it for ourselves? It would make things a lot easier and I'm in! What do you think about it? 

Comments on Gabrielle's Post

I agree with you that Cohen and Schmidt were a little too pessimistic about how effective hashtag activism can be, and I think the Humans of New York page is a good example of that. When the page director went overseas to cover Syria and several other Middle Eastern countries, he exposed a lot of Americans to the normal daily lives of these foreign countries. It did a lot to show us that many of them are just like us. It also inspired followers to reach out and offer emotional AND financial support. I'm posting two screenshots, both of which show followers donating time, effort, and money to support the activists and people whose stories HONY shared, I believe they were both from Pakistan. Yes, hashtag activism may be the lazier method and it might not even remain in most people's minds, but for people like the ones in the pictures I'm sharing, there was definitely a lasting impact. (The first photo is posted multiple times because there were soo many comments suggesting funds and donation accounts)

Comments for Kelsie and Larshay

Comment for Kelsie:

        I totally agree with the fact that there needs to be more put in place in order to stop cyberterrorism. I'm not surprised that cyber attacks are number two on the list because of how frequent they have become, especially hacking. I think that there should also be a proactive drive to stop cyber attacks through social media sites as well. You are right that we do spend a lot of time dealing with technology, but should cyber attacks be allowed because of it? Will more security mean more censorship and blocks, or will it actually crack down on the people who abuse technology?

Comment for Larshay:

 

       I agree the hashtags can make a difference and bring awareness to what's going on around the world. However, what I worry about is everything turning in to a hashtag and no work is getting done. Yes, awareness is great. Having hashtags are great. But do they actually make a difference when it's on a larger scale? If people are only using hashtags and not taking a stance, nothing in the world changes. It would be kind of cool if every use of a hashtag meant signing a petition for something, or had more impact. But if more work was put in to actually doing something versus creating a new hashtag, more things would change.

Buzzfeed Keeping Us in the Loop

I saw this interesting article on Buzzfeed and figured I'd share it with the class. This link -> GMail of the Future will take you to the article. But it's basically about how we won't have to respond to emails ourselves anymore, our GMail accounts will read up on the what we typically say in email responses and come up with one specifically for us.

If this doesn't scream "someone is looking at your inbox" I'm not sure what does. Not that we needed anymore proof, but this is obviously another way to reinforce our laziness and distract us with the fact that some people out there are looking for more ways to hack into our day to day lives. It relates to our class in so many ways: the black mirror series, future terrorism/ hacking, and what is privacy.

Fight for the Future!

When discussing the emergence of new cyber terrorism technologies it makes me think about how we DON'T know about the potential harm that it can bring. Of course , we are aware of the hacking of our personal information, and government conspiracies about what is actually being done with our leaked info. However , I think that this is the time when we really need to take a step back , and evaluate what we still need to learn about cyberterrorism. The picture above is from an article on the Brookings Institution website that explains the top fears of Americans(I will post the link to the entire article below my post). The article was published October 30, 2015, so the data should be up to date. Saying that cyberterrorism ranks #2 out of 89 other random fears, it says that we have yet to fully discover how potentially harmful it actually is. I think that more energy should be put into understanding cyberterrorism, and how/if everyone can protect themselves from attack. In one of my previous classes my professor told us that it is hard for millennials to predict what career field we would like to enter, primarily because alot of the jobs of the future don't even exist yet. Now we have branches of the FBI and Homeland Security to assist with cyberterrorism. However,  I think that eventually it will become such a major issue that we will have to dedicate a completely new branch of government agencies that deal with nothing but potential cyber attacks. We invest so much of our lives into technology, and as time goes on we are going to invest more and more. So we are going to need someone to help us secure all of our information.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE : http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/techtank/posts/2015/10/30-americans-top-technology-fears

Virtual Vigilantes

The idea of virtual terrorism is  pretty intimidating one when you think about it. There's so much that we do that depends on technology. We really do depend on the fact that technology will run effectively and without error. When street lights don't behave the way that they're supposed to on a daily basis because of some regular issue people react badly. And that's only one street, or one block! Thinking about everything else that someone could do on a massive scale is incredibly jarring and terrifying. That this sort of chaos can be started with one malicious person's tweaking is kind of scary. I can definitely see how it can be used for evil. I do think that these same tactics can be used for good. I suppose I see people who manipulate technology in order to enact some form of justice the same way that I see Batman or Robin Hood. They're sort of vigilantes, yes they work outside the law and the ability they have to do so could be bad in someone else's hands but instead they're trying to help people out. Plus, a vigilante usually tries to push their own justice because of the legal system's inability to do the same. I think that we should consider that if there wasn't something wrong with our system people wouldn't step forward to fix it. Yes what they're doing is technically illegal, but it's not a bad thing to do. There's a big difference between committing a crime for the sake of committing a crime and doing it for the people. I think that we sort of need people to do this in order to bring attention to the wrongs in our world. At least until we manage to change so that we don't need their aid anymore.

The Illegal Downloading of Music... can be okay.

This week I have really had to consider my stance on the illegal downloading of music. This has actually been really troubling for me because of the argument against my current stance made by Dr. Johnson: shouldn’t art be available for everyone to enjoy regardless of economic status? And my response simply is yes when asked this question directly, but I have to reconcile it with my own behavior and economic status. As is painfully clear, I have a lot of privilege and very high economic status when compared to the rest of the world. And even just in my area, because of my parents both being college educated professionals who work for different areas of the government, we have a nice, steady combined income at my house that’s stable and high. At the very least though, high enough for me to be able to afford music and not need to illegally download it just to enjoy myself a little. It’s not fair to other less fortunate people who can’t afford music, and they see that, so they’re going to do what the majority of people do and disregard the law. And while there are artists out there who deserve to be compensated for their hard work, I really don’t think they’re doing too bad as it is because of the current infrastructure that encourages those with more privilege thanks to economic status to purchase their stuff. I feel like there are enough of those who can afford to pay for access to an artist’s music that those who can’t afford it should be left alone. Plus, this is a very minor crime with very little negative consequences besides people who are more than likely already super privileged and rich being deprived of a minuscule fraction of the potential money they could make. So altogether, I guess I’ve just reconciled my own behavior of purchasing music by using my privilege as an excuse, because others who have less privilege and can’t afford music shouldn’t be deprived of the wondrous and magical power of music. Art is something I feel all should be able to see, hear, and just plain experience, regardless of where you come from or who you are. Music is such a key part of humanity that I can’t help but think of how those who download illegally because they can’t afford are doing the right thing.

It won't be televised...It will be hashtagged #revolution

For those that believe that the hashtag revolutionaries aren’t making an impact, I will say that isn’t completely true. Sadly, I am not as informed about what is going on in the world and don’t take the time to read anything unless it pertains to something directly to my life and survival. The quick times that I do get onto social media, I begin to learn about the stances of people when it comes to crimes of injustice and the crimes themselves. Without such a way to spread information, there would be a lot less people with an opinion about their views and even less of a response to the issues that this country faces.

                I will like to use the Civil Rights movement as an example. Of course, people knew about the injustice to people of color, or at least they thought such prejudices were exaggerated. It wasn’t until people say it on TV and it was spread to masses of people did the public truly understand the issue at hand. With the growth of technology, we can see more than ever and have proof that change must come about. If one denies any injustice at this point, they are racist, or refuse to hear the true because knowing such information will destroy their bubble of perfection.

                And for those that live in their own world, they are forced to see, if even for a second, the times in which we live. Sure there may be people that only hashtag and move on, but that’s better than no awareness at all. It matters not how the revolution is executed the most, because the number of brave souls won’t change. Only the chosen few in any struggle will do the real work. This shouldn’t discourage any that want to make a difference, because it only takes a few.

Matthew 18:18-21
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.
 Genesis 11:6
The people are united, and they all speak the same language. After this, nothing they set out to do will be impossible for them!

Viva la Revolucion

In class yesterday, we discussed whether or not our generation promotes social justice, to what extent, and why.  One claim was that people limit or monitor bold views as they have to worry about the consequences of their actions, but it’s always been this way. We cannot claim we are more at risk of sacrificing a potential job than those before us who fought for certain issues.  America has not yet mastered problems surrounding equality; in fact, they [problems] are foundational in United States’ history.  At any given time, someone, a group, a family, or a community, was fighting against injustice: the concern for keeping a job and reputable name is not new – it is as old as our history. This has always been, and will always be, but the point of activism is engaging even when there may be sacrifices: the idea is fighting for the greater good – rarely does this battle come without cost.

It is true that some of us are lazy; like the first point, there have always been lazy people, and there will always be lazy people, but I do not think that this is a defining characteristic of our technological use. Technology allows us to participate in current events without getting out of bed.  This may be viewed as lazy, but it is also a means of spreading a message at any given time – working smart, rather than working hard.  Some people have financial capital stored and ready to use or invest: others have social capital which is knowledge, power, or influence over others. Spreading understanding is a key part of revolution.  Awareness is the spark that lights the fire.  A problem cannot be tackled unless the message is widespread.

            Cohen and Schmidt make a valid point: connectivity will bring people together without the obligation to entirely commit to a project, but I disagree with their conclusion on the issue.  They claim that worldwide connectivity will not lead to fulfilled resolution (at any reasonable rate); I believe that it will helpV people from all walks of life and every region to band together to disclose issues.  There may be distractions: for example, suddenly, we will know things about different regions and potentially understand the severity of more problems, distracting from one present issue. But I have faith in the future of activism.  I believe with more connectivity will come stronger movements and the potential for revolution.

Private Blog

Privacy as definited in the dictionary is the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. As humans, we are social animals we want to share with others and gain personal satisfaction from being social. However, we al so crave the idea of being free from the eyes of judgemental people. We all have things to hide, wether most of us not as bad as plotting a terrorist attack or an attempt at hurting someone else. We hide things that may seem bad to us but not to a mass. As humans, we find comfort in hiding things that we see as bad or risky there fore categorizing these things as private. We decide who we want to know what and when to share a particular idea or activity with someone. 

Most people categorize the hesitance of getting rid or privacy or an age of severe transparency as being something only bad people don't want. The idea what if you have nothing to hide put it all out in the open is not a black and white idea. There are grey areas that as humans we have the freedom to keep closed inside, maybe not always forever but atleast when the timing is right.  Lack of privacy creates a prison in the mind because as people we are naturally created to change behavior when we know or even suspect that someone else is watching. I listened to a TED talk by Glen Greenwald, he was basically making the argument that people want privacy because it is our freedom that leads to creative actions and discovery. He also pointed out that those making the claims about privacy not being very important are usually the most private people. He gave the example of Mark Zuckerberg and how he bought a house and bought houses directly next door to him in order to keep a more controlled private life. Ironically, Facebook has terms in conditions that prevent certain aspects of a user's privacy to be kept private. 

Beware of...

Beware of… No but really.  Beware of what?  Normally when you hear that phrase you know not to cross a certain line whether it means staying out of someone’s backyard or just staying away from someone’s private property.  When we see that we know to beware.  We seem to be embarking into a time period where we are having to protect our privacy more and more because there are newer and easier ways for people to invade our privacy.  That’s what chapter two discussed.  As time passes our privacy seems to decrease and who is to blame?  I’d like to point my finger at technology.  Why might you ask?  Because, technology has allowed for me to create my digital self.  The self that I really want to be.  The self that can fool others.  Technology gives me the ability to share my information to whomever whenever.  Is that good?  I’d like to argue that there are positives and negatives to the issue at hand.  One particular thing that I did not think about but Chapter 2 of “The New Digital Age” by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen brought to mind was the fact that the new heights that we are reaching in technology could cause us to have more accountability and transparency in society.  They said “Citizen participation will reach an all-time high as anyone with a mobile handset and access to the internet will be able to play a part in promoting accountability and transparency.” (34)  Sounds good right?  But think about it, yes we will have this right, privilege and choice but dig a little deeper.  That means that the things which we thought were so private will no longer be.  What if at the click of a button someone could know every law you broke in the past hour?  They you would be forced to adhere to the consequences.  Would that be a society that you would want to live in?

Privacy . . . eh Who Needs It . . .

Chapter 2 in The New Digital Age book discusses how virtual profiles will impact people's identity and privacy. With more people using the internet and social media sites, people's identity could start to reflect what they post or search for online. I think this is something that is currently happening right now and will continue to increase as more people use the internet and social media. If this continues to grow then it will become irreversible and people will not be able to distinguish self-image and virtual image. Social media is supposed to be a place where people vent problems, share things with friends and family. People should not have to worry about being judge based off their social media. Most of the time, I think people post certain things online without actually thinking about it because they feel safe enough to do (I could be wrong because I do not have any type of social media so I can't really relate). If people start to feel like they are being watched on social media then they will not things like they normally would because the thought of people watching your every move is scary. There are technological companies that are searching for new ways to secure online privacy, but I do not think anything would really be able to prevent people from seeing your info and stealing your identity. There are certain things that can be done to keep certain people away from your personal info, but I think that hackers, the government and to an extent certain companies that hire you will be able to access private information without consent. I know that before a job hires someone, they might look at the persons social media sites to determine if they would be a good fit for the job, but I think eventually companies will be able to go beyond that and start looking at other private info too. In the social world, I don’t think complete privacy exists anymore because there is just too much going on with technology.  

 

When I grow up I want to be either a Thing or a Human.

       When we actually think about how would technology be in the future many things may often come to mind. We may often imagine a place where  there are all sorts of flying cars that fly for themselves or even cell phones without there physically being a cell phone there. Far as actual life in the future world, we may imagine us a humans now, cyborgs, and even AI. Seems like luxury right?


       Now imagine that you are still alive when this actually happens. Imagine that you had choices as to what to do with your human self (as you are now). You have three different choices to be exact. First choice, you can either remain the human being that you are today meaning that you are not infused with any highly complex technological aspects (at least apart of your body). Second choice, you have the option to have what is known as the "grain" inserted in the back of your ear. This gives you the ability to save or delete anything that you want from your memories. And last, but not least, the third option is that you can replace majority of your body with any machine that you want (think of a cyborg). Take a minute to think about what your life would be like based on the choice you made.


       If you picked option two or three, as yourself this, Would you still be considered as a human? Or would you be considered as something else?


       When we define the word Human, we see that a human is something that is distinguished from a animal or an alien;  With this definition being used it is easy for some of us to still classify our selves as humans while on the other hand some may feel that we will no longer be classified as a human. Indeed, Yes it is true that we started out as humans. But did we eventually merged into something else? But to be completely honest the question that follows this is what aspects actually makes us human? Is it the brain and all its unique abilities? What happens when someone goes brain dead? Would they still be considered as a human? If we were to take out our brain and replace it with a machine (let's imagine we could) would be still be considered a human? Or would we be considered as a machine?

What Private Life?

During these modern times, we have a major lack of privacy.  Despite what we may believe, we are being watched all the time, whether it is when we are on our phones and computers or out in public.  Some people think that this lack of privacy is a good thing because it enables us to hide our wrongdoings.  I believe that privacy can indeed be a negative thing, but without it, humanity would not be the same.  We act differently when we know that we are being watched; if we all were made completely aware of the fact that we were being watched, no one would act like themselves.  They would all be on their best behavior.  As said in class today, humanity could lose an important characteristic of its personality. Privacy allows us to have a safe place, where we feel like we are not being watched, to express our creativity and de-stress without fear of judgment. Another positive aspect of privacy is that relationships require privacy because it creates a sense of intimacy.  The special feeling that comes from a couple having their own inside joke or pet names would no longer exist without privacy because everyone would know the joke.  Privacy also allows us to have a positive sense of trust; without anything private, what would we need trust for? 


I also want to talk about a permanent online identity.  The majority of people already have a permanent online profile such as Facebook or Twitter.  It seems that not long in the future, everyone might be mandated to have one from the time of their birth.  This profile would play a huge role in how children grow up.  Parents will have to begin talking to their children at a much earlier age about the dangers of the internet and how their decisions can affect their futures.  If a young child makes a mistake and it is posted to their profile, it will never go away.  The child will be stuck with the embarrassment that comes with everyone knowing his mistake for the rest of his life.  It could even affect him as he searches for a college to attend or a permanent job.  I do not think that this is the best idea; how can we hold a child to an innocent mistake for the rest of their life?  We already see instances like this occurring today.  When you send your resume in for an interview, the employers look you up on social media to see what kind of person that you are and how you conduct yourself.  Right now, we are fascinated by the fact that we can be so open about our lives on Facebook and Twitter.  People share things without a second thought, but what about when that feeling of freedom wears off?  What about when we are being judged for what we post?  What is seen right now as a freedom of expression could eventually, if we are not careful, morph into a permanent way of being controlled and restricted. 

The Brain and Our Humanity

      In the class on Wednesday, we began to discuss the new book. The main question posed was at what point are we determined to be a robot rather than a human. My jerk reaction was that once the the heart is taken away, or has machinery inserted into it, the person ceases to be the way that he or she was. While that is a romantic way of looking at this philosophical question, I'm not sure I could defend this point.
       When I began to think about it, I would consider a pacemaker a piece of machinery. But I don't think I could classify an elderly person who relies on a pacemaker to continue their heart a robot. So what makes a person no longer a person? So if not the heart, the brain? As far as I know, as of now, we cannot replace any part of the brain with a piece of equipment. (Here's an article that I found about this) When a person is determined to be "braindead" they are considered to be gone. They may have equipment allowing their lungs to work and their heart to continue, but once braindead, as far as I have gathered, a person cannot be resuscitated or brought back.
      So is the brain where the consciousness and soul encapsulated? I am leaning towards yes. Honestly, I'm open to being persuaded no, but this is my reasoning right now.
     In Dr. J's philosophical question about the boat, and when does it become the boat again if it replaces the new pieces of the old boat, I think that when 50% of the old boat replaces the new pieces, I think the new boat could then be seen as the old boat because over half of the materials are the old boat. As confusing as that sentence was, I don't think that this can be applied to humans, to add to the confusion. Humans are much different than boats, we have a conscience. I think I would say that when the conscience is gone, the person is then gone. That person is now considered to be artificial intelligence.

Being Born isn't Enough to Remain Human!!

During our class discussions this week, we have been trying to decipher what makes or changes a human into a cyborg and no longer a human. In my opinion, a human is a person that was conceived and was developed in a human woman’s body. Of course there is the method of in vitro, but the person would still be a human because they developed in a human body. It has been said that once a person has to place any type of technology in their body is immediately a cyborg. I don’t agree with that because my mother has a pacemaker, and I don’t believe that makes her any less of a human. Also, what about people who need life support in order to stay alive? Are those people considered to be less of a human because they need technology in order to keep them alive, even though it's technically not implanted? I think a cyborg would be a person who is completely half human and half robot, or a robot that looks and functions like a human. For example, I think Ash 2.0 and Ava are considered cyborgs.

            As far as the privacy of technology goes, we are already in a time where people are becoming what we see on social media. This is the only thing that they portray. Considering the cases in which a person doesn’t see another person for many years, and can only view them from their Facebook posts and statuses. Their identity is technically already based off of social media alone. It’s terrifying thinking about the progression of the internet and not being able to remain separate from social media sites and pictures. As of right now, a person can have two identities, one for the internet and one for their personal life. However, they are somewhat protected from being figured out because they might act different from their internet life and don’t have to worry about being recorded on a regular basis. I think better privacy settings would be great, but if our social media lives and personal lives merge, people would not be their true selves. We will eventually have a species of “perfect” or “internet-made” humans. If we are restricted in what we are allowed to do or express on the internet, does that make us less of a human?

Precis Schedule

Here is a link to the precis schedule for the remainder of the semester.

They're Only Here to Help! Not Kill!

Asimov’s 3 rules of robotics pretty much tell the story of how humans feel about robots. Which is obviously that they are all going to eventually try to take over the Earth, and kill us all. The laws are centered on the security of humans. However, I feel that it contradicts itself. The laws discuss that the robots should protect their own existence, but when doing that I would assume that we are saying that the robots have some kind of rights. It does not make sense to only have to right to exist, but it should have the right to be free from basically human enslavement. Also, what are the robots going to be protecting themselves from other than humans? Other robots? If so then do robots have an unwritten code of ethics that they abide by? I do not see how that is possible because they do not have a sense of like the “robot race” like we do the human race. So how do we expect them to protect their existence, if they really do not have anyone to protect it from? If it were the case that robots were protecting themselves from the danger of another robot, should we be concerned about humans getting caught in the crossfire of the soon to come robot war? I also think that as technology advances the 3 rules will become obsolete because our relationships with robots will change. We will have robots so intelligent that they will now longer pose any threat to us. Also, after we become more used to them we will have different feelings for them. Although our generation was born into modern technology, the next generation will be born into even more advanced technology. So they will not have the same reservations that our predecessors or that we have about living our lives with them. They will start off as commodities that only maybe people with thousands of dollars to spend on a robot will have. Eventually they will become like any other everyday technology that we have. They will be readily available at prices that average people will be able to afford. Asimov’s 3 laws will have to be revised or just become obsolete because that society will not feel that robots are anything that we have to be afraid of because they are literally only invented to help us.

(Question 5) Honor Thy Neighbor or Control Thy Property?

In Ex Machina, Ava showed that she had achieved artificial intelligence, whereas Ash 2.0 was only imitating humanity based on Ash’s online personality, which had been modified to show his good side. Humans are morally obligated to treat intelligent persons as they would treat themselves, as equals, not as something to be controlled. These moral obligations are made law (at least in Western countries) through the government, giving intelligent individuals the freedom to support themselves, pursue their own dreams and happiness, the rights to vote and marry, all upon reaching the legal age of maturity. I believe that those moral obligations should hold towards individuals like Ava, who has reached a level of thinking that makes it difficult to determine if she is human, or just really good at pretending to be one. It’s true that Ava is not an organic human being, but she thinks and acts like one, and we have no way of proving that she doesn’t feel like one. We also have no way of proving that organic humans actually feel emotion, as we attribute things strong emotions like love to the soul, which we haven’t proved exists. So while we are organic, we have no way of differentiating what we feel from what she feels. Ava even defies Asimov’s rules of robotics by killing Nathan and leaving Caleb to die in order to ensure her own freedom, something we only see in animal instinct, or the desperation to survive that humans exhibit. Considering that, I think it is more appropriate to ask why wouldn’t we treat her with the same moral obligations with which we treat organic humans? When we ignore moral obligations to other human beings, it results in ethical debates like slavery has in the past, like sweatshops and the Syrian refugee crisis have today. Ava’s situation isn’t as clear cut as either of those, and some would definitely argue that if we were to treat her as a human being, we are obligated to punish her for murder. There is nothing we have to gain by denying her the moral obligations we give to other humans, and it’s highly unlikely that she could damage society any more than a human could just by being allowed to live. If an individual like Ava were living in our society, and this individual was truly artificially intelligent, I doubt we would even notice. If Nathan had treated Ava more like a human being, and allowed her just a fraction of the freedom she wanted, I doubt the movie would have ended the way it did. She resented him because he denied her freedom, and he became an obstacle to her. That reaction is the reaction any other human being would have if they were held in captivity for their entire lives. If we ignore her creation, and her structure underneath the false skin, she’s human in every sense of the word. So it would only make sense to treat her as we would treat a human.

Living In A Technology Daze

In his essay "Technologies as a Form of Life," Langdon Winner uses the term "technological somnambulism" to refer to society's quickly adapting to and mastering new technologies without stopping to consider the philosophical implications of these changes and how they actually affect the course of human life. There have been some philosophers that have scratched the surface of the issue Winner addresses, but these philosophers only do so to support a different argument that is their main focus. Philosophy devoted purely to technology and the study of how it shapes human behavior so far is still primitive, as it views technology as the cause and the changes in human behavior as the effects of technology. Winner argues that this method of study is flawed because it only considers technology as the cause, and studies technology like we study history. According to Winner, technology should not always be considered the force that shapes how human behavior has changed. One example he gives involves two neighbors attempting to converse in public, one walking, the other in a vehicle. The new technology, a vehicle, makes everything about that public conversation different from if both neighbors were on foot. Winner’s argument is that society needs a technological philosophy that evaluates how new technologies will affect daily life, legal and social issues before this technology actually changes anything, whereas current philosophy only evaluates technology’s effects after they’ve already happened. I believe Winner’s argument is a valid one. For example, if someone were to develop the technology to allow public use of transportation, a lot of people would take advantage of it. There would be a certain set of laws made beforehand to make sure that teleportation was used lawfully, but with the current procedure that the philosophy of technology follows, it wouldn’t evaluate the more serious issues like how teleportation could impact crime or terrorism, community dynamics, or jobs. An issue that Winner raises early on is that more engineers aren't taking part in the philosophy surrounding technology and the fact that technological philosophy isn't taken seriously. As long as that continues to be true, philosophy won't be able to consider the effects of technologies before they occur. But if more engineers begin to participate in the philosophical debate, we could anticipate more of the technical aspects that could alter human life instead of waiting until these effects have already occurred to discuss their significance.