Hollenberg's Thoughts

This week in seminar, we discussed the Internet and its implications on the upcoming election and prior elections as well. From the readings, the first thing that surprised me was how much power Facebook has compared to its user. Facebook can basically control your entire newsfeed whenever it wants, and therefore can have a huge impact on the elections. Facebook has all the power in this situation, while you have no power to control what is on your newsfeed. Let’s say in the weeks before the election, Facebook filters your newsfeed to show you all anti-Clinton posts, and anti-Clinton shares from your friends. By the mere-exposure effect (a little psych terminology), you will see Clinton in a poorer light, and to some people this could convince them to change their vote. This is only the beginning of the power that Facebook can have on voting. Additionally, Facebook can convince non-politically active individuals to vote by including an “I voted” or “I’m voting” button on your Facebook feed.  One study had this to say on the impact of Facebook: “It is possible,” the Facebook team wrote in Nature, “that more of the 0.6 percent growth in turnout between 2006 and 2010 might have been caused by a single message on Facebook.” By barely putting something on Facebook, it is possible that voter turn out grew by 0.6%. Now, that doesn’t sound like a lot of people, but let’s say Facebook actively tried to increase voter turn out, and used a lot of their resources to influence their users to vote.

How big a difference could they make?

Some questions to ponder:

What other social media platforms increase voter turnout? What effect does snapchat have on voter turnout? Does social media even effect voter turnout?

Feel free to answer in the comments!!!

Another aspect of our conversation that I found interesting was the prospect of voting moving online. There are definitely pros and cons for this movement. To begin, one huge benefit of online voting would be how easy it is to count the votes, and for people to vote. I think it would also increase voter turnout if you could simply vote from your smart phone. But would it be beneficial for those who really are uninterested and uneducated about the election to cast a vote? That starts another conversation of should voting be mandatory, which is a conversation for another time and place. Lastly, it would be much easier to analyze the voting data if it was done online. Trends would be easier to see, and much more data on the elections would become available if voting was done online.

However, I still believe that online voting would never be secure enough, and would ruin the voting experience. For me, voting was such a thrill when I went to the polling station, and was able to cast my vote by hand. It truly made me feel accomplished and that my vote counted. If it was just a simple tap of a button on a smart phone, would people take it as seriously? Additionally, the lack of security with online elections is frightening. Hackers all over the country and all over the world would spend years targeting this online voting system, and in my opinion one way or another would hack the system and rig our elections. It is too risky unless someone develops the PERFECT, PERFECT model. To me, all voting should be done by hand at polling stations!!!! That is how it should be!

I hope you enjoyed this weeks version of Hollenberg’s Thoughts. Stay tuned for next week.

Brady is too good!!!!

In seminar yesterday we talked about the Singularity, which to me is…FREAKY! The Singularity is a hypothesis that at some point Artificial Intelligence will surpass human intelligence, and computers will be smarter than humans. To me, this is a horribly terrifying concept. Personally, I do not believe that the Singularity is near. Actually, I don’t believe that machine intelligence will ever surpass human intelligence, but more on that later.  Paul Allen in his 2011 article “The Singularity Isn’t Near” explains that the Singularity isn’t near because not only will we need the necessary hardware to create such intelligence, but also we must create more complex software programs that are smarter and more capable than the human brain. He argues that “Creating this kind of advanced software requires a prior scientific understanding of the foundations of human cognition, and we are just scraping the surface of this.” If we barely understand the human brain, how can we expect to write software that is smarter than it?

Back to my earlier statement that the Singularity will not happen. I know this is an unpopular opinion, and deep down it could just be what I hope, but for now I truly believe that the singularity will never happen. EVENTUALLY, (according to Moore’s Law, the exponential growth of our computing power, and many other hypotheses etc.) I believe that we will have the necessary software and hardware to create a machine that can surpass all human intelligence. But will humans allow that to happen? Personally, I do not think so. Humans thrive so much from being at the top, from being the “smartest” creatures on the planet. Why would humans ever want to create something that would overpower them, that would be above them on the intelligence chain? As inherently selfish as we are, and how much we thrive from being on top,  human beings will never create a machine that will outsmart them. They might create a machine that is very, very smart (perhaps even smarter than they are), but humans will still be able to control this machine somehow. We LOVE being in control, and I can’t see humanity losing their control to machines.

Yet, what if the Singularity happens?…………..

Just take a moment and think about it. Imagine computers dating, marrying, and reproducing new, smarter machines when they get old. Imagine humans being like pets to these machines. Can anything stop these super-intelligent machines from making smarter and smarter machines? Will there be a limit to the intelligence these machines have?

Personally, I get lost just thinking about it.

I have a pessimistic view on the Singularity. If humans lose control, it will be chaos. We will not know what these machines are capable of. If humans are “inherently bad”, what will machines be? To me, the Singularity is too absurd of a concept for it to be beneficial to us.

Overall, the Singularity was definitely the most interesting topic of discussion so far. We could talk about the Singularity for weeks on end, coming up with new arguments to why it will happen or why it wont; to why it will be beneficial, to why it will ruin humanity. There is so much to talk about with the Singularity. I really hope I can study this topic further in my college career.

I hope you enjoyed Hollenberg’s Thoughts. More to come next week.

Brady is back and better than ever. Watch out!

The Internet of Things (IOT) is a fascinating concept that seems so futuristic, but is truly right around the corner. The IOT will begin to control our lives, as all of our objects will be communicating with each other and create one network that will almost control our lives. There are many positives for the IOT as it will make our lives much more convenient, save us time and money, and increase our safety (will it? I will get to that later)? Yet, there are also many things that concern me about the IOT. First, I believe the IOT will make us very one dimensional people. Our lives will be so programmed that we will have a very difficult time straying away from our regular routine to try anything new. No longer will we have ample opportunity for our unique human experiences, such as a long drive on the countryside, or a camping trip without having little machines do everything for us. I mean it is pretty cool that a sensor can turn on your workstation after you park your car so that you are ready for work upon arrival. But is it so cool that these sensors and this networks knows your whereabouts all the time? Do you feel like a person still? Or do you feel controlled?

Is there a point in which we will lose our uniqueness as humans if machines continue to take over our entire lives?

I believe that will be a part of our discussion next week, and I cannot wait to see what ideas our classroom has on this topic. To me, it is quite scary and I am excited to discuss the future.

As I discussed earlier safety and security is a huge controversy in the IOT. One thought I shared in discussion was the safety of our information on the web currently. Personally, I am never worried that Venmo will steal my credit card information, or that Charles Schwab will steal all the money that I have invested in the market, or that some hacker will hack my online banking at Bank of America. Now that I think about it….why aren’t I scared? Why aren’t I scared that someone will steal my identity online after I type in my social security number to apply for a job? My answer was simple: It is because I trust these online sources and I trust them with my information. But still, why do I trust them? For that, I have no answer.

As technology improves and these sensors start to pick up even more information about us, should we start to fear even more about our privacy, and furthermore our safety. How can we trust that the camera in our house will not be hacked? How can we trust that entire network of sensors that is tracking our every movement and planning our every activity won’t be hacked? As technology improves, so will the technology of hackers, and to me that is scary. I already feel like the Internet knows way too much about me with targeted adds, and all the information that I have posted on the web. With my new understanding of the Internet of things, I have realized that this is only the beginning. Soon, so much of our information will be on networks supposedly for our benefit. But will it be beneficial. To that I say: Only time will tell.

I hope you enjoyed this weeks version of Hollenberg’s Thoughts. Stay tuned for more!

One more thing….BRADY IS BACK!!!!!!!!