Hello World

We talked a lot today about technology and how it could/would replace the need for people in many fields of work. There were many examples named, from having holograms of artists and singers to using robots to perform surgeries, and while the panic due to automation-induced unemployment is understandable, I don’t think that it is as bad as many people seem to believe; it will be a long time before robots will completely replace certain workforces, and new opportunities will be opened up by these technologies. The argument mentioned in the WIRED article speaks to this fact–in the grand scheme of things, technology will become more of an aid/assistant than a replacement for humans. The value of human interaction, craftsmanship, and creativity does not seem like it will be lost due to automation/technology. For example, synthetic diamonds can be created and sold for a fraction of the price of real diamonds, but the value of the real diamond is still appreciated and sought after. The less expensive, synthetic diamonds merely appeal to a different group of consumers who may not be able to afford the real diamonds, but this doesn’t take away from the value of the real diamond, especially as a “status symbol”. The same phenomenon can be observed in fashion; fast fashion offers a much cheaper way to purchase clothing that imitates “haute couture”, but it in no way replaces it.

In terms of technology taking over service/retail, like Amazon Go for example, I think that this might occur for certain things like groceries and video game rentals, but the value of human interaction will allow many stores to keep thriving. Many cosmetics stores like Lush or Sephora offer valuable human interaction in stores, where employees develop a relationship with the customer. This experience cannot be replaced by a robot and so the demand for these stores will still exist. Technology can just provide more options for consumers; if they need something quick and convenient, they can go to somewhere like Amazon Go where no human interaction is needed, but if they want the experience of human interaction, other places will still exist.

I do think that the implementation of technology can bring about more profit and efficiency for both consumers and companies, but I think it is important to realize that while there might be a net growth in GDP, the distribution of the riches may be extremely skewed. I think that the rise of technology in the workforce comes with the consequence of even greater inequality, as only those with access to resources and education will be able to take advantage of the opportunities opened up with technology. I would imagine that much of the push for increased technology refers to growth in GDP, but a rise in GDP is not a good indicator for quality of life, since it really fails to take into account the individual experience. Inequality is a very pressing issue in today’s society and I wonder if the implementation of technology into the workforce will exacerbate this problem.

Another important thing to think about is how social media platforms/media in general can facilitate conversation instead of fuelling echo chambers. It is hard because, as Jacob mentioned in class, there was a study that showed how exposure to another perspective during the political election actually polarized people even more. However, I feel like the reason for this is partly due to the content that was shared; for example, most videos by liberal platforms straight up insulted Trump and his supporters, and if you were a Trump supporter, you wouldn’t change your opinions after getting told how stupid and racist you were. The content that is randomly shared by platforms should definitely be more neutral, but ultimately it is the individual who has to be open to viewing these different opinions. The problem now is that even if individuals want exposure to different perspectives, the media makes it difficult to find that content.

I look forward to further discussion on technology and its relationship with societal issues.

Hello, World!

Something that really struck me in this discussion was how standards were set. OSI, a standard created by very smart people who held a lot of power, could not compete with TCP/IP even though there were many genius minds working to develop it and several countries adopted the standard. TCP/IP was the one that was implemented by the broad public, and used to this day. I think one important reason highlighted in Jim’s blog last week was the importance of simplicity; TCP/IP has less layers, and I think that this definitely made it simpler and not need as much theoretical calculation. The simplicity of the design of TCP/IP really needs to be appreciated, and the fact that there was a more hands-on approach with its development compared to a more theoretical/abstract approach for OSI also speaks to its success. I remember learning how in developing TCP/IP, you actually had to build it, whereas developing OSI involved a lot of discussion but not much actual implementation. The moral of the story is that you really have to try/experience something to learn and grow; merely thinking about it will not nearly be as useful. This lesson is actually very applicable to many aspects of life!

The World Wide Web was mentioned in the discussion as well, and I think the piece we read that talked about its challenges brought up some interesting issues. I find the spread of misinformation on the web to be extremely troubling, and this problem is linked with the lack of transparency in political advertising. Bots and algorithms nowadays track what people like to see (things that align with their beliefs), and bring up articles or other subject matters that reinforce those beliefs. Targeted advertising means that political platforms can say conflicting things to different groups, and with all the fake news out there, it is hard to search for the truth. Moreover, this phenomenon brings about other problematic things involving echo chambers and safe spaces, and the question of free speech comes into play. All of these topics are very pressing issues in society today that stem from the World Wide Web, and the plethora of problems could be a result of the openness of the web and the lack of centralized government. The openness of the Internet has been remarkable in shaping what the Internet has become today, and considering how it will shape the future is a very intriguing topic that I am excited to discuss.

Hello world,

I find the openness and lack of governance in the development of software to be a very intriguing model for problem-solving. It’s remarkable how anything got accomplished through this system, because everyone had different opinions and could never settle on anything. Trivial questions such as right-left or left-right reading of bits took years and years of arguing to no definitive answer, and other arguments mentioned in the readings struck me as being so specific, such as what went on the left/right side of the “@” symbol of emails. Was the final decision reached by what the majority of people used? I feel like this system really pissed a lot of people off because there were so many different ideas and eventually only one of them would be standardized, but I see how it was overall a very effective system because so many ideas were shared and considered. Furthermore, a lot of problems just never reached a definitive answer. I think online debates nowadays are similar in the sense that there are no/very few moderators, and although no final consensus is reached, people learn about different perspectives and ideas nonetheless. This positive result argues for the necessity of free speech, but there are also many difficult questions concerning hate speech, what that constitutes, and how censorship may be required to facilitate free speech.

Another aspect I found interesting in our discussion concerned what was considered remarkable in the earlier days of the Internet. Getting a response to an email within 90 minutes was seen as revolutionary in the 1970s, and Prof Waldo mentioned the magical sense of being connected to the outside world only 3 times a day. There is such a stark contrast between that and our current culture that is fuelled by instant gratification. People nowadays are so used to getting instantaneous answers, whether it’s by text or asking Google, that we forget how to be bored. Instead of thinking of our connections to the network as being remarkable, we have built a reliance on it. When I’m waiting in line, I feel the need to pull out my phone because I don’t know how to be bored. We miss the opportunities to learn how to juggle or meet new people by constantly using our hand-held technologies to browse through cute animal videos or refresh our newsfeeds. There are movements now to recreate what it was like before, when people were not always connected. Trips like FOP help people disconnect from the world and be more mindful of the present. I have a friend who transitioned to using a flip-phone now and I have to dial her number every time I want to reach her (like what??). I personally can’t imagine myself not being near-constantly connected, but I see the reasons for wanting to be so.

I also wanted to share a small connection that I had when I read about the guy who got his razor back by sending a message through ARPANET. The amazing feeling that guy had reminds me of the way I felt when I was little and first started using MSN. My parents had forbidden me to use any type of social media, but my best friend at the time got an MSN account and convinced me to get one too. I remember the first time we had a secret online conversation, and that feeling of amazement and wonder, magnified by the sense that I was doing something “forbidden”. It’s the rush that people get when they’re doing something rebellious and it’s an addictive feeling; I think this played into the rise of using ARPANET to send personal messages instead of academic resources.

Our discussion today was super interesting and I look forward to next week!

Hello world,

So I’m still not completely sure what kind of stuff I’m supposed to write about in my blog but here we go! I finally finished the readings that we were supposed to do before class on Wednesday and I found the history of the Internet to be very interesting. I’m so used to the Internet being the way it is now, and I can’t imagine life without our high-tech devices that can process billions of commands in seconds. It was hard for me to see pictures of the giant, cumbersome machines in the “olden days” and realize that they were the predecessors of the MacBook that I am using right now. So much has been accomplished in this relatively short time period–the grind must have been so real.

It is also weird to picture that everything had to be physically connected, and that debugging required physical re-wiring. No devices were compatible with each other, so I can’t even imagine the frustration that people felt because when I can’t AirDrop pictures onto my iPhone from an Android, I already get pretty irked. From the readings, one thing that really struck me was the work ethic and dedication of all the people who were working on this huge project. The troubles regarding teamwork and making sure people were on the same page must have been so difficult because there was no Internet to share ideas and documents.

I have a faint memory in my childhood when my family had one big ugly-looking desktop computer in my bedroom, and all of us had to share it. I never used the Internet on that machine; I played this Hello Kitty game on it by inserting a CD into it. Now my MacBook doesn’t even have a place to insert CDs. This really shows me how much technologies have changed in such a short span of time. But I think a lot of modern day changes are just being used for profit, like how Apple always makes something incompatible so you have to buy more Apple products boooo. Anyways, I don’t know if this is enough writing but I am done.