Artificial Intelligence

With all the advances in technology today, technology singularity and artificial intelligence are very interesting topics. I have always wondered how far technology will advance in my lifetime. One of the group members asked us if there were a chip to but in our brains to allow us to think twice as fast, would we do it? I honestly don’t know how I would feel about that. On the one hand, it would be nice to think twice as fast, however, would that really be fair? They also mentioned that it wouldn’t be fair if some people could afford these chips and others couldn’t. Is it ethical to allow some people to increase their mental capabilities because they can afford it, and hold others back just because they cannot afford it. It also raises the question of what happens if these systems begin to fail. Suppose all the sudden they do not work and you have spent time and money getting them put in. What if they begin to cause harm to our bodies. While it would be very nice to have a chip put in our brains to allow us to think twice as fast, it is interesting to think about the possible consequences. What do you think? Would you do this if you could?

AI and moral/ethical codes

A lot of our presentations have brought up ethical or moral issues, but I think the technological singularity presentation raised a really interesting point: how could we program artificially intelligent systems to behave morally or ethically?
Of course there are a lot of technical things at work behind the scences, but I think the most important question here is: who decides how to program the systems? Would there be an organization founded to develop these codes? Who decides those are the most qualified people?
One issue that comes to mind is culture - how would cultural norms be incorporated into these moral and ethical codes? There are obviously huge differences between some societies and cultures, so this would be as essential to the program as what language (spoken, not programming) the system used. And this isn’t even an international thing, necessarily – think of the differences between the southeast and the northern east coast in our country.
Since we talked about outsourcing recently, consider this: what if the company was founded in America, the actual program was written by people in India, production was outsourced to China, and the robots/machines/whatever were shipped out to 10 different countries?
What other problems you can see with programming moral codes?

Technological singularity

This week we learned about AI and technological singularity. I think it's an interesting topic, in that our technological advances are exponential, and that perhaps the creation of superhuman intelligence is right around the corner. And even with AI, will we ever truly achieve technological singularity? Looking at the technology advances that we have achieved now, while the older generations are having a more difficult time understanding and using them, it is almost second nature to the younger generations (us), who use them on an everyday basis. So in the future, isn't it possible that our intelligence will not be surpassed because those younger generations will be experts in that technology?

Do people really believe that something greater than human intelligence can be created? And if it is created, what do you think will be the consequences for the human species? With more advances, people become more lazy. Think of the website that allows people to hunt in Africa from the very comforts of their couch. If true singularity is accomplished, then where will the human race fit on this planet?

Artificial Intelligence

As we saw in Dr. Nicholas' lecture and the presentation on Monday, artificial intelligence is a real issue that we may have to deal with in the near future. As we develop the rudimentary systems which display an ability to learn and develop on their own, what risks do we incur?

I for one am both excited and fearful of the possibilities of using AI technologies. So many advancements could be made in medicine, business, education etc. But there is always the looming fear of complacency and apathy developing in humanity, and of course the eventual dooms-day scenario played out in countless movies.

To make it more real, Marvin Misky of MIT said "People have silly reasons why computers don't really think. The answer is we haven't programmed them right; they just don't have much common sense." Since we are on the cusp of developing this powerful technology, what kind of regulations do you think our government should put in place to protect us from all of the potential risks and ensure that the technology improves society?

E-Consumerism: similarities to history

During our discussion of E-consumerism I noticed one thing in particular -- we began the discussion with the history of shopping in general, with the Agora (a marketplace for people to meet, discuss, and purchase), the general store (interaction with the store clerk), and the department store (a browsing experience where everyone can partake even if they do not have the financial means to actually purchase). Though it seems like e-consumerism is an entirely new concept, I tend to think that it is a new embodiment of all of the former means of shopping and consuming. The Internet now seems to match literally the exact definition that we provided for Agora: "the social and economic hub of the society." Communication and economic activity are available and practiced just as much on the Internet (via social networking, instant messaging, email, blogs; and online retailers, banking, etc) as they are in any real life setting, thus it seems like just as the Greeks used their 'agoras' for basically any sort of interaction they required, so do we use the Internet for all of those things. The department store also has its parallel in the online realm--on Internet shopping sites, people can navigate their way through thousands of products per day, browse different details/reviews/pricing/options for as many hours as are in the day, without ever having the obligation to purchase or even to INTEND to purchase. The browsing experience is taken to an entirely new level here though, because now not only do we have access to local department stores, but I can even browse the stock of small boutiques across the country that normally would rely only on local customers.

These similarities obviously do not suggest that E-consumerism is the SAME as in-person activities like those that occurred in the shopping experiences of centuries past, but there are definitely some parallels now that the Internet offers such a vast array of options to its users. Do you think that the transition of these activities from real-life to online action is better or worse for society's development? Is the efficiency of the Internet valuable enough that it outweighs the importance of face-to-face social interaction? Because this is essentially the reason we use the Internet for communication and shopping...it takes less effort to email than to have dinner with an old friend, and less effort to buy a shirt online that will be delivered to your door than to drive to the store. Is it worth it?

The Benefits of E-Commerce

I found this weeks’ discussion on e-commerce really interesting. The Internet has changed nearly every aspect of the retail experience for both the retailer and the consumer. While I don’t feel that the Internet will ever negate the need for brick and mortar locations, the trend is certainly toward e-commerce.

Over the past year, I’ve relied heavily on Amazon.com for everything from textbooks to camera equipment to things for my apartment. I find that I’m attracted to the customer reviews and ratings features, which could never be duplicated in a face-to-face setting. I think that for purchasing certain items, especially tech products, the ability to view detailed product specifications alongside customer reviews is hands down a better way to shop than heading to Best Buy or even a camera store and trying to figure out what’s the right product for you. For clothes and other things that need to be sampled or tried on, I think it’s another story. While the Intellifit and other related technologies are really interesting and impressive, I doubt it will ever take the place of going to the mall and trying on jeans. In my opinion, online shopping is hugely beneficial to consumers as they can shop around, avoid salesperson pressure and save time and money. In my exprerience, customer service is paramount to online retailers and forces them to do an amazing job compared to return counters or call lines. What are your thoughts and experiences with online shopping? What kinds of products do you see yourself continually buying online or in retail locations?

One thing that stood out in my mind during our class discussion was my use of Sephora.com. Sephora is a makeup and skincare retailer that has stores in many malls and even in some department stores. I started buying products from Sephora.com because there was no Sephora store in Asheville, where I’m from. I’ve continued shopping there even since moving to school here, where there’s a brick and mortar location a few mile away, because they have e-mail marketing down to an absolute art. I find myself going to the store to browse and test products then ordering them online where I often get free shipping, samples and free gifts. It’s the best of both worlds for me, but may not be sustainable for the company as the Southpoint location is not receiving my business even though I’m purchasing products in the end. Has anyone else had a similar experience where they shopped for products at a brick and mortar store with no intention to purchase anywhere but online? How do you think businesses can best capitalize on customers like me who want the hands-on shopping experience but always look for online bargains?

In one of my Entrepeneurship classes, we did a case study on Netflix. It is incredibly interesting to read about the development of a company that found the opportunity in online shopping and completely opted out of any physical store locations. While it was revolutionary and hugely successful at the time, even Netflix is losing business to even more convenient services like Redbox and iTunes, not to mention illegal downloading/streaming websites. What do you think the future holds for retail? Do you think we’ll still have stores like Best Buy? Internet retailing seems like an amazing way to minimize overhead costs and pass the savings on to customers, but are you concerned about the potential decline of the social shopping experience?

One important aspect of e-commerce that I think is most impressive is the rise of tiny independent businesses that are so specialized they could never survive in a single bricks and mortar location. Sites like craigslist and eBay allow peer-to-peer sales of useful goods and services available in close proximity or only a shipment away. You can generally find something to suit your needs and budget without leaving your home. Other sites such as etsy.com allow artists to support themselves by displaying their goods in a huge, international online marketplace where they have the best chance of reaching customers. How do you think e-commerce provides opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs? Have you personally witnessed any examples? 

E Consumerism: Going too far?

With online shopping sites such as amazon.com becoming more in tune with consumer preference and need, it’s no wonder internet shopping is up 40% in the last two years. Yep, it’s pretty magical if you think about it: you get online (in the comfort of your home), shop around a site like amazon, make some purchases and then you wait for the delivery. The next time you sit down to shop, you are presented with a plethora of options that have been data-mined or hypothesized based upon your previous activity. Pretty soon you’re buying things you didn’t even realize you wanted.
Now I’m not an impulse buyer, but technological innovations such as these are tearing up the former retail market. Consumers have unlimited options even with limited time on their hands. We point, we click, we buy and hardly any energy has been spent.
Kansas State professor Esther Swiley believes that e-consumerism will turn into something much like second life. It’s a compelling thought, to be honest. People, again, can remain in the comfort of their home while perusing a world of unlimited options (even shop with their friends).
Now I’m all for technological development, don’t get me wrong. But as we continue to exponentially evolve our technology sector in ways that alleviate traditional “coming and goings” from the store or business environment I think we need to pause and think. Is there a ceiling on how far we will go? Just how much do we enjoy the virtual world versus the interaction that makes us all human? For me, it’s comforting to break away from the mundane screen. It seems that more people are finding the real world to be an escape from the computer world – basing that assumption on the way business is run today.
Wholly speaking I’m all for saving time and the “assisted shopping help.” But really, when is enough, enough? How much farther will we push not only shopping but other every day activities into the digital realm? Will the next generation be socially hindered by our dependency on the computer and the ease of living it brings?

Digital Manipulation

Today we live in a society where consumerism (consumption of goods) runs rampant. In this economy, companies are vying for the attention for American consumers to purchase their product. With all the competition in advertising and promoting of products, people are constantly exposed to this.

Digital manipulation is perfect for companies to be able to convey exactly what they want consumers to see and hoping that they elicit the response they wish ie. consumers purchasing product and promoting to others they know. Although digital manipulation is argued to be used as a "polish" for works (in journalism for example) or for artistic purposes, there are obvious lines crossed where it can be considered misleading.

The obvious questions that arise when discussing digital manipulation includes when we consider if something is unethical, insensitive, inaccurate and misleading or rather just a following of the first amendment concerning expression. However, since we are in a class that discusses computers and society, the question I pose is how much does digital manipulation reflect the society we live in? How many people are aware of how much is manipulated in the advertising of products? Even if people are aware, as a society, it sometimes seems we live in a society that is somewhat superficial (ie. diets, flashy clothing, popular music) and too conformist. With our busy lives, we sometimes seem to just accept that even some things are not what they seem, we continue to partake in the consumerist society. Is this a phase that we have always been in or will it change - especially due to the circumstances of economy?

In addition, this also in fault to the technology developed. Although this is generalizing, seeing how digital manipulation has developed into various issues, how do we maintain controls on what we develop and how it is used? Although we see the positive possibilities that a technology implicates, how do we handle the negatives of it?

Photo Manip: You at Your Absolute Best

I’d like to preface this post by noting that Warren (fellow classmate) and I run a glamour/studio photography hobby-venture where we routinely manipulate/airbrush/touchup photos of our models (friends). To see examples, take a look at: http://apglamour.com/portfolio.htm

My question is this: is it so much of a sin to make someone (or something) look its absolute best? As an example, every girl in this class has worn makeup at some point in their life. Is this not a deceptive portrayal of what you really look like? Bear with me for a second. What is the motivational difference between you applying makeup to smooth out skin tones and hide blemishes and a photographer doing very similar techniques with software? You are both trying to create visual appeal.

Another example: when you get married, you’ll probably hire a professional photographer and not have your uncle take them with a point-and-shoot. Why? Probably because the photographer is talented at using lighting and composition to make you and your wedding look as beautiful as possible. That makes sense; you want to look beautiful in your wedding photos. But the whole reason you are willing to shell out serious money for the professional photographer is because he can make you look drastically better than your uncle could. You looked the same but the photos of you just became much more flattering. Is that deceptive? Surely not. Photoshop is an extremely powerful tool, lighting is more powerful. I speak from experience when I say that light can be used to make breasts larger, muscles stronger, waists thinner, and skin smoother. Does this mean that we should shoot everything in flat, harsh light just in case the viewer thinks that the model (or BigMac for that matter) looks more visually appealing than they might in another setting? I would argue no. Thoughts?

Digital Manipulation

Digital Manipulation has been my favorite topic thus far. Due to the advances in technology, digital manipulation creates a new area of ethics never seen before. The group that presented today showed the deceiving ways several businesses have used this practice to deceive us, the consumers. This ranged from beauty supplies (Dove) to universities (Wisconsin).

Digital manipulation allows for a completely new way for the human population to express their creativity. Here is one example how an individual's creativity provides humor and entertainment for a certain population (UNC Basketball fans). http://mrtarheel.com/hansbroughindoorwallpaper.jpg For those of you that do not understand the context, the sign for Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium was digitally manipulated to Hansbrough Indoor Stadium since Tyler Hansbrough never lost at Duke in his four years. While we may enjoy this picture, what do Duke fans think? Is it a legal issue that 1.) someone's picture was used and then digitally manipulated, and 2.) a part of Duke's property was manipulated? Those are questions hard to answer since there have not been any clear-cut solutions to these problems.

Digital manipulation has been effective in solving social problems. The group that presented showed how cops use this information to locate suspects. I remember learning in middle school (can't find any info on the web, sorry) how digital methods are used for missing kids. After kids are still missing after several years, a digital process can "age" the kid to how he/she is expected to look after a certain amount of time. In one case, a missing kid was found one week after the digital process was developed.

Like most of the topics we have learned so far in this class, there are positives and negatives to digital manipulation. Digital manipulation allows the advancement of human creativity, solves social/legal problems, and serves for entertainment purposes. However, digital manipulation can also be used as acts of deception.

Blogging and Journalism

I found today’s presentation debating whether blogging is considered a form of journalism very intriguing.  There are a lot of journalism majors in the class, which led to great heated discussion.  I personally believe in the first amendment, that everyone has a right to share their opinions.  In saying that, I believe sharing opinions on blog is a perfectly acceptable form of free speech.  People have the right to supplement news stories with their opinions without leading to the demise of journalism. 

Aman brought up a really interesting point that I would like to hear more about from the class.  How did journalism sources become so trustworthy that individuals are comfortable with what they hear from one media source?  I understand that journalists are taught certain values and are supposed to follow a code of ethics, but the code is not enforceable with consequences.  Referring to the class example, while it is likely that a photographer will be fired for combining images, it is not absolute; one can hope the editor will fire the photographer, but the editor is not held accountable for firing his employee, other than his personal code of ethics – no different from a blogger’s personal code.

I want to know where people get their news.  How do you decide what is and is not a credible source, what to follow regularly, and how do you prefer the information disseminated?   Furthermore, do you believe the information you find unreliable should be regulated, and how would you censor people’s posts?   Meanwhile, how many individuals supplement their news stories with blogging?  For example do you use blogs as a way to stay updated and connected with your current industry?  How else do you utilize blogs?

Spatially Immersive Displays are the Future of the Virtual Office?

Group 6 did a great job presenting the topic of virtual offices being used by all sorts of companies. The idea sounded brilliant because people were saving gas and were able to work from home, but as I thought about it more and more there were many issues that came up that presented some sort of controversy. I began thinking up these questions….The virtual offices are said to be more cost effective and increase worker productivity, but are businesses really more effective or is it just convenient for the employees to work from home. Are the employees working from home, fully focused on their work or are they being distracted with issues at home. Even if they are not being distracted, does the flexible work lifestyle blur the line between work and family life. Does the lack of socialization between employees, lead to disconnect between the organization and clients. The issue of a lack of disconnect may no longer be an issue because of the creation spatially immersive displays.

This research is actually going on at UNC! http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/stc/. One of the projects being work on at UNC is called the Office of the Future. Their goal is to make people from across the world feel as if they are right next to each other by creating 3D images using the following: panoramic image display, tiled display systems, image-based modeling, immersive environments, and computer graphics. This may sound like jargon to many of us and with the purpose of this class it doesn’t matter if we don’t understand it. How do you think this technology will affect the virtual office…think beyond the simple idea that people will be “sitting” next to each other.

IT Outsourcing

IT outsourcing is indeed a controversial topic and one that is hard to take sides. In the presentation yesterday some people mentioned that they themselves don’t know where to draw the line of what is right or wrong. Before going into this project I had a completely one sided opinion that IT outsourcing was hurting Americans rather than helping. Research on how globalization of the job market and decreased global disparities really put things into perspective, but I still feel the same way as before except more educated. One of the interesting comments made by the class really triggered some thoughts and compelled me to do more research. It was the idea that even though more jobs are being created overseas, the pay there is low that it is really not benefiting the country in such a significant way. I just read an article that explains how some U.S. companies are exploiting cheap labor within this country and are using inappropriate methods to do so. This ‘recruiting’ company essentially importing foreign electricians under the banner of ‘cultural exchange’ and leased them to companies around the United States for $15 an hour while paying the actual employees $10. An example of this overseas is the great company of Disney. For each Pocahontas pajamas that is valued at $11.97 at Walmart, a Haitan worker who made it was paid 7 cents an hour. As much as the case for globalization stands, there are still a few problems with it such as this that I still can’t seem to side with proponents of outsourcing. Of the pros mentioned during the presentation, do you believe they outweigh the cons? Is there any real solution to this?

Cached web pages and our futures

When I read R22: "Twitter gets you fired in 140 characters or less," I started to think about the implications of our social postings on the Internet.
Most of us started using Facebook at the end of high school or the beginning of college—it was new then, we were the first wave of users posting pictures of our freshman year escapades and writing who-knows-what on our friends' walls. Maybe we were early adopters of technology and even rocked a MySpace page with the same kind of content before we had a driver's license.
Who cares? Well, after reading R22 and the passing mention of searching for cached web pages in the case of Cisco Fatty, I realized these cached pages might come into play in a major way in at least a few of our futures.
I started thinking about how much fun we (the press or the public) would have diving into the cached social networking web page postings of presidential candidates and presidents. Can you imagine getting into George W. Bush or Barack Obama's high school MySpace pages?
Fastforward a few decades when all of us are coming into our own— becoming CEOs or running for public office— and we have an army of curious internet-savvy investigators vetting us and digging up those dubious Facebook postings we made as youngsters.
Will the visibility of our youthful folly hurt us in the future? Or will there be more information across the board so that it won't matter whether or not we had an 'Oops' posting or two when we were young?