Final Post

Evolution and its Technology

When they created Futurama for the World Fair in 1964, they imagined all sorts of technological advances. They correctly imagined rovers on the moon, we now have them on Mars. They imagined deepwater exploration, however, they thought it would be manned rather than remote operated. They imagined us living and working in polar regions and using lasers to effortlessly create roads through the jungles, thankfully those two things have not yet happened. One thing they may have never imagined was having the world in our pockets. With smartphones, we have a phone, a camera, the news, the internet, access to shopping, restaurants, and friends who live across the country or across the globe, all at our fingertips. These days it is not uncommon to see people walking around with their faces in their phones, people sleep with them, eat with them and even use them while driving, which leads to the question, is this a healthy relationship with technology? For me, and others in my generation specifically, it is a complicated question. Technology both enriches our lives and robs us of aspects of life. This type of technology is one of the most major innovations of our time and has had a huge impact on society, and we have a love-hate relationship with it because it is something that we have to have, it is no longer a choice. We love to use it to connect with one another and stay in touch over time and space. It is so much fun to be able to shop when we want to or order food anywhere we are. At the same time, we have to be so careful with it because, as we have learned, our privacy is at risk every time we log on. It also gives us no place to hide. We can find people online via their social media or even Google and learn details about them they may not have wanted to share. People can reach us anywhere, anytime and this is, in a way, another invasion of privacy.

Fortunately, my online footprint is clean. I am careful about what I post and I try to maintain a good image because I know that my parents and grandparents follow me on social media and I know that when I want to find a job one day, they will be looking online at my past and present to determine if I will be a good fit for their team. For some people, one simple mistake, if captured and put online, could ruin their lives forever. In the past, young people didn't have to worry that a night out with friends could be the end of their career prospects, but our generation definitely has to be aware of this.

Technology can definitely make us smarter, if we are looking to gain knowledge from it, but it seems that many just want to commiserate, and therefore are more susceptible to misinformation and inadvertently spreading this misinformation to others. Now that we have advanced photo editing software, people can create false images and those can spread online and easily be taken for the truth because people tend to believe what they see. There are so many good things about technology, from helping to cure diseases, to keeping us in touch with people, but it is also a vehicle for misinformation and disinformation whether on purpose or just by chance, a person’s life can be made better or completely destroyed just by technology. While I am happy that technology advanced when it did, and I still had a time period in my life where technology wasn’t the center of everything, our generation basically grew up alongside technology rather than into it like the children of today are. We, as a society, need to make sure that technology is enriching our lives and not taking them over. This will be a huge challenge for all of us going forward, it seems like it is up to each of us as individuals to make sure that we take time away from tech and just get outside and live a little. In the words of one of my favorite professors, Dr. Toole, “When you are eating and you are on your phone, you are not embracing the taste and texture of your food” and the same applies to life. We need to be in the present and live the physical life we have, using technology to enhance it not as an escape from it.

Blog Post #10 Age of AI

 

In the Age of AI

“AI is like electricity, in that eventually everyone will use it.”

The Frontline documentary In the Age of AI was both enlightening and frightening. One of the first things the filmmakers said was that “AI will take jobs,” and this was followed by, “AI is corporate surveillance.” Both of these ideas are something we are aware of in theory, but to have it presented like that and from a documentary that is already five years old was shocking. It makes one wonder how much closer we are to that reality now that five years have already passed. It seems like AI is still brand new, and people are reveling in the excitement of all the magical things it can do, like help us write papers, synthesize and analyze information, create characters from our descriptions, and even create stories from a few prompts. What is discussed less often, especially among people in our age group (Gen Z), are the dangerous things it can do, like take away our privacy, take away our jobs, and even put us at risk from our own government and those of other countries.

In the beginning, AI was used to see if computers could behave more like human brains, learning and adapting rather than just performing the tasks they were taught the way they were taught them. When DeepMinds, a subsidiary of Google, created AlphaGO, a program that could learn to play and win the 4000 year old Chinese game GO, they may not have realized that it would open the door to a competition between East and West for the most technologically advanced, or maybe they did…just 8 years later China is using AI for everything from granting loans to tracking ethnic groups through facial recognition software. While here in the US, the focus was on self driving vehicles, especially trucks for shipping goods. This sounds great, but it is estimated that 300,000 trucking jobs will be threatened in the very near future. It is not only blue collar jobs that are at stake, in fact, according to the documentary, of the 50% of jobs threatened by AI in the next 15 years, a large percentage of these are white collar jobs, particularly in customer service and analytics. One of the points the filmmakers made that resonated is that every company is trying to use AI for more efficiency and because of that, the US is no longer the land of opportunity; AI is the driver for increased inequality.

I think one of the most frightening parts of the documentary was the section on surveillance capitalists. The idea that computers are simply trying to serve us is something most people have bought into, until now. Companies are using computers to analyze each of us through our behaviors online and even at home when we speak to our Alexa. This advancement, like many others in the past, seems like progress, but as the filmmakers point out, all of our advancements have started this way, industrial capitalism claimed nature to be sold and repurposed to make companies money, surveillance capitalism claims human experience to be sold and repurposed to make companies money. Another consequential quote from the documentary sums this up well, “Technology has a place in our lives that it did not earn” and we trusted it.

Finally, the saddest and most disturbing part of the documentary was the section on the surveillance state. Here we learned that the Chinese government is using facial recognition to build national databases for incentives/punishment systems which allow them to detain Muslims for punishment or reeducation. They are monitoring what language people are speaking and even how often and when they pray and they are using the technology for collective punishment of an ethnic group; to make it worse, China sells this technology to other countries who also want to target individual populations. These systems reward party loyalty and punish those who speak out – this is against our US constitution as it currently is, but that doesn’t mean it will be that way forever, our constitution has been adjusted before and certainly will be again.

AI has its good and bad sides and it is mostly reliant on who is operating the systems. Ultimately, AI could help us discover what it means to be human but that all depends on if it is used for good or evil. If countries use it safely without encroaching on rights and privacy, it could eventually be great, but if history tells us anything, it is that countries will likely choose money over people and that is a terrifying thought.

EOTO2 Post

 

Diffusion of Innovation - Electric Vehicles 

The Diffusion of Innovation theory is an interesting one. It discusses why innovations or ideas are adopted or rejected by society and what influences the decision to adopt the innovation early, late, or not. According to the theory, five elements influence the spread of an innovation, those are: The innovation itself and how useful or interesting it is to the general public. The adopters and why they are adopting an idea can also influence others, especially these days when people follow influencers’ suggestions. The communication channels or how the idea is being spread. Time or how long the innovation has been around and how well known it is, and finally, the social system which may be friends or family or influencers adopting the innovation and sharing about it so others will adopt it as well. I have chosen to look at this theory through the innovation of the electric vehicle (EVs). In the 2020s, we see electric cars and hybrids all over the roads, but this is a late adoption of an earlier innovation.


The first successful EV in the US made its debut around 1890 thanks to William Morrison, a chemist from Des Moines, Iowa. His six-passenger vehicle was capable of a top speed of 14 miles per hour and was essentially an electrified wagon, but it helped spark interest in EVs. At the time, gasoline cars required manual effort to drive, shifting gears was hard, they needed to start with a hand crank and they were noisy and smelly, while electric cars were quiet and easy to drive with none of the toxic emissions of gas-powered vehicles. So why didn’t they catch on back then? EVs always had the five characteristics of innovations. It was a good idea, it was relatively easy to produce, it was compatible with the needs of the masses, people could try them out and easily see that they were a better quality vehicle than gas cars and better for the environment and they were simple to learn to produce and drive. The problem then was that EVs fell short in the area of elements that influence the spread of innovations. Yes, the innovation was a good one, yes, there were adopters, but communication channels were not extensive then, they had not been around very long and people were still wary of them and the social system was not helpful because there just weren’t enough people talking about them. When Henry Ford’s Model T was introduced in 1908, it made gas cars available and affordable. While an EV of the time cost about $1700, a Model T was only $650. With the discovery of Texas crude oil, gas became cheap and readily available for rural Americans, and filling stations began popping up across the country. In comparison, very few Americans outside of cities had electricity at that time. In the end, EVs disappeared in 1935. In the late 60s and early 70s, oil and gas prices were at an all-time high and Congress took note and passed the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976, authorizing the Energy Department to support research and development in electric and hybrid vehicles. EVs were again on the rise. Or were they? We have all sorts of electric and hybrid options now, from the Toyota Prius introduced in 1997 to the Chevy Volt in 2010, yet some still refuse to adopt this technology.


What has taken so long for this innovation to spread and become the primary choice for vehicles? We already talked about how EVs met all the criteria for a solid innovation, but in the past, they fell short of elements that influence spread. Now, we even have plenty of adopters. The tech has been around long enough that everyone is aware it exists, they have been persuaded by the fact that they have low emissions, they require less maintenance than gas cars and electricity is cheaper than gas, but what is taking so long in making the decision, buying an electric or hybrid car and trying it out for themselves? We hear about the idea that EVs are expensive, it is hard to find charging stations, charging takes too long (20 minutes), they don’t have enough range, and they will cause higher electric bills at home (but lower gas bills so it evens out), batteries are expensive batteries and they don’t do well in cold weather. So we are back to the adopters as the cause of the delay in a broader acceptance of electric vehicles. The communication channels exist but there are just as strong communications coming out of the gas and oil companies insisting EVs are dangerous or unreliable, so people sit on the fence, especially if their social system is influenced by Big Oil and is talking them out of trying an EV. In the end, EVs have always been a victim of five elements that influence spread, they have the five characteristics of good innovation, they have adopters that have gone through the five stages of adoption, and they even have three of the five elements that influence spread, but much like anything in our society, if the communication channels are disrupted or influenced by misinformation designed to keep the money in the right pockets, this will also influence the social system and it leaves innovations like EVs still struggling for adoption over 100 years after they were invented.

Blog Post #7 Antiwar

The Evolution of the First Amendment

When the First Amendment was emerging, the Supreme Court didn’t originally interpret it for the populace, it was geared more toward the government getting involved in decisions. Until 1914, when World War I started, the court essentially stayed out of state and local happenings. When The Birth of a Nation, a silent film about the Civil War and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan, debuted, it was met with violence and protests on both sides. Finally, Ohio banned the film, and the filmmakers sued under prior restraint, but this was disputed because they said the film was commerce and not protected by this law.

In 1917, the United States entered World War I, and Congress passed the Espionage Act in case people said things against the war or released military secrets that would damage the war effort - and even today, we hear about whistleblower cases for espionage. While the Espionage Act was originally passed for government employees, Congress now wanted to punish anyone who spoke out against the war or the military. This may be one of the reasons that, to this day, we do not hear or see very much in the way of anti-war sentiment in the media. Congress took it one step further with the Sedition Act, which says it is a crime to speak out against the government at all, and in 1919, the cases of Schenk, Debs, Frohwerk, and Abrams brought this debate to the forefront. These journalists spoke out against the war and were jailed for sedition. The Supreme Court sided in favor of the government against these men, claiming that the anti-war stance was incitement because it could cause others to rise against the government and that it was not protected speech because it posed a “clear and present danger”. Later, however, Justice Holmes dissented in favor of  Abrams due to the marketplace of ideas, wherein we want to hear good ideas, and just because Abrams was against the war, it did not mean that he was not making good points that may need to be taken into consideration. This argument is still used to this day.

In the early 1920s, the advent of radio and radio news allowed voices to be heard across the country, so information was able to travel faster and farther than before. Finally, the 19th amendment was passed, giving women the right to vote, which then amplified this segment of the population's voices as well. This was a time of progress and change, we had a good stock market, it was the Jazz Age, art and architecture were innovative, and race relations were changing, too. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was still behaving as it always had. Taft wanted to make a change, and in 1925 he passed the Judiciary Act (certiorari) allowing the Supreme Court to pick and choose the cases they thought were worth hearing rather than having to take them all. One of the first cases under the new Act was Pierce v Society of Sisters which was an argument that said forcing kids to go to public school rather than having the choice to go to Catholic school violated the 14th Amendment because liberty means that people can raise their children in the manner they see fit which includes sending them to whichever school they choose. The Supreme Court decided to incorporate the Bill of Rights into Due Process to get down to the state and local levels. Finally, in 1931, the Minnesota rule sought to put a gag rule on sensationalism, but prior restraint was argued so the court used the “near rule” to decide if they should allow it. This outlines three exceptions to Prior Restraint, if it is pornography, if it poses a national security threat, or if it is considered incitement.

The government continued to try to stop publishers and protesters so the Supreme Court added three more exceptions, first stating that prior restraint is unconstitutional, second, the burden of proof is on the government and third the act must represent direct irreparable harm and these work together to help protect the first amendment. So with all of these protections, why is it still so hard to find anti-war voices in the media? This is likely for a few reasons, mostly because the United States has a huge military complex, we have bases all over the world and are involved in various conflicts at any given time usually regarding oil production or some civil rights violation. If these antiwar voices were heard by too many Americans, they may start to question the very thing that makes the United States what it is and that could be considered incitement which is not protected speech.

Blog post #6 EOTO1 Reax

Reaction: Video

The blog post I chose to review was Maggie’s post on the evolution of video. I thought it would be interesting because video is such a huge part of our lives, with YouTube and TikTok, not to mention television and movies. I was surprised to learn how the technology originally developed. In 1839 photo negatives were invented by William Henry and these allowed people to capture images that eventually led to Jules Marey developing the chronophotographic gun which would allow people to take twelve photos per second, almost like when people photograph models or action shots. They could then place these photos back to back at high speed giving a video effect. This concept reminds me of stop motion animation or silent films, which is exactly what people started using them for. 

In 1891 Thomas Edison further improved on this technology by inventing the motion picture camera and color and sound were added in the early 1900s. People started using this new technology to produce movies and TV shows, which revolutionized the film industry. I was also surprised to learn that the VCR was invented in 1954. It wasn’t until the 1980s that people had this technology in their homes, so it was hard to believe it had been around all that time before it was available to everyone. I was also surprised to learn that digitization was only perfected in 2008. That was just over 15 years ago! When digitization took over, it increased the quality of videos and enabled people to better edit and alter videos, especially animation. Now videos are everywhere. Video technology is a huge part of everyday life, whether we are using it for social media, entertainment, or even our jobs. It is amazing to think that just about 10 years ago, we were still creating videos much as they did in the 1950s with only some technological advancement. With the advent of AI, it will be interesting to see where video goes from here.

EOTO Terms & Concepts

The Story of Podcasts

Almost everyone has heard of podcasts, even if they haven’t actually listened to one. The first podcasts were basically on-demand radio. They were episodic audio programs that listeners could find and download online through platforms like Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Much like NPR (National Public Radio) podcast hosts would use their shows to discuss things such as politics, news, sports, and movies or music. The main difference was that listeners could subscribe to these shows so they would know as soon as a new episode was available. Today, podcasts have evolved into a diverse medium featuring any topic you can imagine, from true crime to history to health and technology, but where did it all begin?

Back in 2004, Adam Curry, a TV announcer, and software developer Dave Winer came up with the idea that people would love to hear stories about current happenings rather than reading about them. A year later, Curry founded PodShow, which is a podcast promotion company, and began hosting his own shows. Curry is often referred to as The Podfather for his role in the founding of the medium.

Podcasts are a simple but interesting concept. According to Liz Covart, evolution has hardwired the human brain to be receptive to oral storytelling and almost all podcasts tell stories. These stories are prepared and organized with a beginning, middle, and end, enabling listeners to hear the story of a person, place, event, or some other phenomenon. The sole purpose of these types of podcasts and audio dramas is to convey a story and create an intimate storytelling experience. Because the platforms for podcasts already existed, it was easy for this medium to take off. Podcasts are inexpensive to produce, only requiring a microphone, an interesting story, and some research. Over the last 20 years, podcasts have taken the internet and the world by storm.

The good news is that studies show that podcasts are good for your brain. Some of the benefits of consuming podcasts include: helping to increase levels of empathy, foster relationships, and boost compassion. They also reduce screen time which is good for our eyes, and many of them are highly educational so they can improve your vocabulary and make you a better listener and conversationalist.
However, in excess, podcasts can distract you from your work and social connections and even impede your ability to learn and remember. Further, as the distribution of podcasts expands, so does the potential for libel, slander, privacy violation, intellectual property infringement, and other forms of media liability risk. There can even be a risk of convincing people of things that may not be true, such as what was done with the amazingly popular Serial podcast, where the host revisited a murder conviction, which ultimately resulted in a retrial and release of the accused, who is now believed to actually be guilty.

It doesn’t seem to matter what generation you are from or whatever your interest is; there is a podcast for it, and people can be found listening to podcasts all the time. So many of my friends enjoy podcasts like Call Her Daddy and Hot Mess because you can go on with your life, driving, working out, or going for a walk, and you can listen. Rather than playing music, both old and young people are listening to podcasts. As long as people are using critical thinking skills and are careful not to overdo them, podcasts are a great option for educational and entertaining content that you can access anywhere, anytime.

Blog Post#5 Privacy

 

The Importance of Privacy

Although I knew that online privacy was an issue, I didn't realize the extent of it until I watched these TED Talks. It is hard to quantify how these issues might affect me, my friends, and my family because they literally affect everyone on the planet. We already know that Google doesn't forget, and all of our pictures and posts on social media will probably be there forever, but what we might not release is the problem with facial recognition software. I was shocked to hear that face.com has a database of 18 billion faces online. The idea that people can find out your name, where you live, and where you work just by seeing your picture online is unbelievable. 

Even if we are cautious on our social media, it is still too easy for people to track us down. In the second TED talk, we learned that not only do the police have military-grade weapons, but they have military-grade surveillance as well. Using automatic license plate readers, they can track where you go and even who you are with, so they can also access cell tower data to reveal people's locations, which is a huge civil liberty threat now that data can be stored in the cloud, there are no limits to how much information they keep and for how long. 

In the third TED talk, we learned about wiretapping and how companies build surveillance into our networks, which means that someone from our government or another government can be listening to our calls or reading our texts. The government claims that they need to be able to do this to fight terrorism, but most people are not terrorists, and this again poses a civil liberties threat to innocent people being surveilled. Finally, we heard about cyber harassment, also known as revenge porn which is when your personal photos are shared online without your consent. While some people may think this does not apply to them with our advanced photo editing technology, anyone can be put in a compromising position even if they never sent a personal photo out. The scariest part of this situation is there are very few laws to protect people, and it can take up to a year to get these photos taken down.

The government needs to create laws to protect us online. The internet is international, so it makes it hard, but stricter penalties will serve as a deterrent, at least. Unfortunately, the government approves of some of these surveillance techniques and fights against legislation that would protect us from them. so what can we do to protect ourselves? The speaker in the first TED talk did give some good advice. Even though we already know these things, we definitely need to be reminded to be careful what we post to remember the purpose of what we are posting, and not fall in love with ourselves and not post too much information. Second, we definitely need to be using the encryption features available to us. Encryption is the default on many of our Apple devices, as well as FaceTime and WhatsApp, but we need to check what protections we have available to us and enable them immediately.