http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom
After reading the above article titled, The Doomsday Invention, by Raffi Khatchadourian, I had some reactions to many of the points and observations by the writer, as well as Bostrom. The first two sections were the most striking to me and had a lot to consider upon reading through both of them.
I found the first part very interesting because I have always wondered some eerily similar questions. I have always held a certain fascination with this universe that we inhabit. Really thinking about how many planets are really out there, I too have come to the opinion that there is certainly life out there somewhere. There has to be. So it was incredibly provoking to think of why we have yet to encounter life from other planets. Odds are there is definitely multiple populations and forms of life that began ages before humans evolved, which would mean they should be much more advanced technologically than us humans, so why have they not made themselves evident to us. An answer to this speculation was brought up by Bostrom and was somewhat worrisome. Maybe these civilizations had gone through the same sort of technology evolution that humans have, and are, going through, but when they reached a certain level of advancement it might have caused the entire civilization's demise. If that is true, then at what point do humans make the leap to that level and ultimately cause our own demise? Also, if that is true, then one hope we may have is just the astronomically improbable chance that Earth is in fact the only planet with life. But lets not get too comfy with that hope.
The second part of the article gave me the feel of The Terminator movies. That movie itself, back years ago when I first watched it gave me the same questions that were presented. I agree with Bostrom that advancing technologies too much could certainly be catastrophic. Humans dominate and control this planet simply because we are the most capable beings that inhabit it currently. If we create something that is more capable than ourselves, then there is no reason to think we are entirely safe from a takeover. A lot of this fear depends on the development and advancement of A.I. If the machine is able to think as a human does and can actually take in experiences and teach itself and better itself, it could surpass any limitations humans may have put on it. Another worry to creating superintelligent machines is that thy would replace the need for humans. If these machines were passing our levels of intelligence there would be no need for us in anything. The machines would essentially regard us as inferior being such as we regard animals. It's a crazy sci-fi looking idea but what is even scarier is how it actually is not far from reality. I think it is important for humans to look further ahead at the implications we may be creating instead of just focusing on how it might help in the short term. Like Bostrom said, breakthroughs are often unpredictable, so what if we accidentally come across the next breakthrough that ultimately leads to our extinction?
Monday, February 29, 2016
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Privacy and Trust
Reading the article, "The Intersection of Trust and Privacy in the Sharing Economy," by Joseph W. Jerome and Benedicte Dambrine, a couple chords were struck with me. It was very interesting to look at for one, because it brought to light some issues that we talk about a lot, but never really try and solve. For instance, most of us know total privacy is almost nonexistent, especially online, yet we never really question why that is or if it is absolutely necessary anyway.
The main point that the article really seemed to hit on, at least as I read it, was the focus on trust. I found that particularly intriguing because it made so much sense but it was a concept I had never really considered. I strongly agreed with their point that these Sharing Economy platforms operate based on consumer trust in them. I thought it was especially true when they mentioned that the greater the transparency of the company, the more trust consumers had in that company.
Consumers are not just going to hand over personal information to just anyone. They have to trust that their information is used in a proper, ethical way, in the same way that the company has to trust in the consumer that they are in fact who they say they are.
The main thing I want to talk about is the part of the article where they mention how the two different companies, Uber and Airbnb, took different approaches to try build on this idea of trust and safety.
I personally thought Airbnb's method of verifying users was preferable. I thought it was a good way to know where exactly you would be sleeping or if you were hosting, you would know who you were allowing into your home. I actually felt it was a good idea. However, I hadn't considered some of the downsides, such as not having enough Facebook friends. It did seem a little much to require something like that.
Now in the case of Uber, their idea made a lot of sense to me, even though it seemed to bother a lot of other people. Being able to rate both drivers and customers is a great idea I think. If a customer is consistently late or does not show up or is disrespectful, then I think other drivers have the right to know and, in turn, refuse service to these people. Now there is certainly gray area, because some people may be quicker to hand out poor grades for particularly minor offenses. And, for instance, what counts as tardy for one driver or customer, may not count as tardy to someone else. So I may not agree with how some people use the rating system, but I do support the idea in theory.
There just needs to be some middle ground that can easily verify who people are without having them give up sensitive information. The information provided also needs to be handled ethically. If these do not happen, then trust cannot be built between platform and consumer, and then, the Sharing Economy would collapse.
The main point that the article really seemed to hit on, at least as I read it, was the focus on trust. I found that particularly intriguing because it made so much sense but it was a concept I had never really considered. I strongly agreed with their point that these Sharing Economy platforms operate based on consumer trust in them. I thought it was especially true when they mentioned that the greater the transparency of the company, the more trust consumers had in that company.
Consumers are not just going to hand over personal information to just anyone. They have to trust that their information is used in a proper, ethical way, in the same way that the company has to trust in the consumer that they are in fact who they say they are.
The main thing I want to talk about is the part of the article where they mention how the two different companies, Uber and Airbnb, took different approaches to try build on this idea of trust and safety.
I personally thought Airbnb's method of verifying users was preferable. I thought it was a good way to know where exactly you would be sleeping or if you were hosting, you would know who you were allowing into your home. I actually felt it was a good idea. However, I hadn't considered some of the downsides, such as not having enough Facebook friends. It did seem a little much to require something like that.
Now in the case of Uber, their idea made a lot of sense to me, even though it seemed to bother a lot of other people. Being able to rate both drivers and customers is a great idea I think. If a customer is consistently late or does not show up or is disrespectful, then I think other drivers have the right to know and, in turn, refuse service to these people. Now there is certainly gray area, because some people may be quicker to hand out poor grades for particularly minor offenses. And, for instance, what counts as tardy for one driver or customer, may not count as tardy to someone else. So I may not agree with how some people use the rating system, but I do support the idea in theory.
There just needs to be some middle ground that can easily verify who people are without having them give up sensitive information. The information provided also needs to be handled ethically. If these do not happen, then trust cannot be built between platform and consumer, and then, the Sharing Economy would collapse.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Music Streaming
http://digitalethics.org/essays/ethical-way-stream-music/
After reading the article by Holly Richmond, I had a number of reactions. I, first and foremost, was very interested in the subject matter. The debate over streaming and downloading music for free has been a hot topic in the music world for a number of years now. I agree with her point that Napster has ultimately changed the music industry in a drastic way. However, I do not think it is as negative a change. I definitely see the negative aspects of it, but also sided with a number of the people she mentioned in the article that saw positive side effects.
Let's start with the downside to streaming and downloading music for free. The reasons are fairly obvious and have been the main points artists and the industry use when trying to fight against this streaming and downloading. By getting digital versions of artists' music for free, you are not sending any funds to the artists themselves. This is an issue because their music is their product, and to be able to have their product, they should be compensated. They also need to have a living somehow, and without any royalties or income from their work, they cannot exactly accomplish that. Another problem I considered is that by not paying for an artist's music, the artist might lose incentive to create anything else. If they are not making any money, then why should they keep trying? Now there are some artists out there who actually support free downloading and streaming. These include singers like Dave Grohl and Neil Young. In an online article, both artists relate streaming music online to listening to a song on the radio (https://www.upvenue.com/article/1590-musician-stances-on-music-piracy.html). Bigger names and bands are, however, able to make a living much easier because they can rely on merchandise and concert revenues and don't have to worry as much about song and album purchases, which often reward the artist with maybe a dime per every dollar spent.
Now the positive side of the argument for streaming and downloading music puts the spotlight on indie, underground, and lesser known groups. I think, as pointed out in the Richmond article, that free streaming and sharing definitely helps these groups out. The first step towards bigger and better things for a band is to first be heard and be noticed. What better way to do this than just getting your music out there to as many people as possible? Not many people will pay for music from someone they have never heard of. So in this way, free streaming would certainly help these groups out.
The bottom line for me, is that when it comes down to it, I think artists should be compensated for their work in some way or another. If we must use a streaming service such as Spotify, we should use the one that rewards the artists the most, such as Xbox Music. I do think, though, that file sharing is a great way to get the word out and actually promote a group. There's just a really fine line between trying to help an artist out, or actually hurting the artist in the process.
After reading the article by Holly Richmond, I had a number of reactions. I, first and foremost, was very interested in the subject matter. The debate over streaming and downloading music for free has been a hot topic in the music world for a number of years now. I agree with her point that Napster has ultimately changed the music industry in a drastic way. However, I do not think it is as negative a change. I definitely see the negative aspects of it, but also sided with a number of the people she mentioned in the article that saw positive side effects.
Let's start with the downside to streaming and downloading music for free. The reasons are fairly obvious and have been the main points artists and the industry use when trying to fight against this streaming and downloading. By getting digital versions of artists' music for free, you are not sending any funds to the artists themselves. This is an issue because their music is their product, and to be able to have their product, they should be compensated. They also need to have a living somehow, and without any royalties or income from their work, they cannot exactly accomplish that. Another problem I considered is that by not paying for an artist's music, the artist might lose incentive to create anything else. If they are not making any money, then why should they keep trying? Now there are some artists out there who actually support free downloading and streaming. These include singers like Dave Grohl and Neil Young. In an online article, both artists relate streaming music online to listening to a song on the radio (https://www.upvenue.com/article/1590-musician-stances-on-music-piracy.html). Bigger names and bands are, however, able to make a living much easier because they can rely on merchandise and concert revenues and don't have to worry as much about song and album purchases, which often reward the artist with maybe a dime per every dollar spent.
Now the positive side of the argument for streaming and downloading music puts the spotlight on indie, underground, and lesser known groups. I think, as pointed out in the Richmond article, that free streaming and sharing definitely helps these groups out. The first step towards bigger and better things for a band is to first be heard and be noticed. What better way to do this than just getting your music out there to as many people as possible? Not many people will pay for music from someone they have never heard of. So in this way, free streaming would certainly help these groups out.
The bottom line for me, is that when it comes down to it, I think artists should be compensated for their work in some way or another. If we must use a streaming service such as Spotify, we should use the one that rewards the artists the most, such as Xbox Music. I do think, though, that file sharing is a great way to get the word out and actually promote a group. There's just a really fine line between trying to help an artist out, or actually hurting the artist in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)