Blog Roll

www.badjocks.com

http://mostlymets.golddave.com/

http://celticsblog.net/blog/

Environmentally Friendly Blogs: The Cons

Earlier in the day I wrote about the pros of a blog and now it is time to talk about the other side – the cons. One of the biggest downsides of blogs is the chance that you can see the same information and links on many different sites. As a result you can see a lot of recycled information. Recycling is good for the environment but not for blogging.
A successful blog thrives on new information that is constantly updated, not on information that is old and recycled from another blogger’s post. One of the greatest advantages of blogging is the opportunity to express fresh, unique ideas, and not taking advantage of that is only detrimental to your blog.
The credibility of blogs is also another question that can bring doubt to the legitimacy of blogs.
There was much discussion this week between classmates that questioned the credibility of blogs, mainly pointing at the fact that there isn’t a system of checks-and-balances for blogs.
In many cases blogs are produced by citizen journalists with little or no formal journalism training so fact checking and reliable sources aren’t a topic of discussion. The downside of this is that bloggers will rant on about certain topics with no factually or credible basis for their opinions. But is that really such a bad thing? Take a look at mainstream media and you’ll see that majority of news shows are talk based and as a result the line between fact and fiction is severely blurred. So how is that different from a blogger going off about a topic? There really isn’t a difference except the professionals are already in position of authority while citizen journalists are just regular people.
I think the raw, agenda-less writing of citizen journalists can be seen as a negative, but can also be a positive because they are speaking what they really feel and not speaking to please a segment of the population or to build ratings. Citizen journalists don’t have to worry about ratings or playing politics – they just play it real.

A Blank Canvass: The Pro’s of Blog

Before I started this class I had very limited knowledge of blogs. I had heard about them before but never had read one and certainly never had a blog of my own. As I began to study blogs through my class work for Introduction to Interactive Communications at Quinnipiac University, I realized that I do visit blogs, but just never realized what I was reading.
I also never realized the popularity of blogs. After hearing much talk in the news about myspace.com I decided to check it out and was amazed at what I found.
The biggest pro about a blog is that it can be anything the writer wants it to be. A blog is your own space for free expression and to talk about and share anything and everything that is on your mind.
After searching through random blogs I was really amazed at the production value of the blogs. Every blog I read was unique in its own way. Whether it was the element of video or graphics I definitely felt that I better sense of the author’s personality by reading their blog. And that, I believe, is the biggest pro of a blog. The ultimate form of new aged self-expression.
In addition to blogs creating a rich environment for self-expression they are also serve a dual purpose as a great educational tool about new technology as the authors of the blogs must figure out how to integrate various forms of media in their blog. I think this is a great opportunity for all generations to have a hands-on roll in emerging technologies. The power to integrate video and audio on blogs gives the author the position of producer of their own ideas and causes.
Since I don’t have any experience in web design, html or blogs before I began the class, I have been able to learn a lot just from our class discussion board and reading the blog posts from other students. This is where the power of education comes into play especially since new media is constantly evolving.
Discussion boards and blogs allow people a gathering place to learn and share ideas which will only help advance the overall understanding of the full capabilities of technology and in turn advance our society.

The Pocket Shopper

The Associated Press reports that Toshiba Corporation has developed a way for your cell phone to assist you in your shopping journeys. I saw a similar story to this a few months back on the local news where a personal electronic device simply read the barcode of a product a consumer was interested in and then responded with a list of the prices at competing retailers and the directions of how to get there.
Yuri Kageyama, an AP Business Writer, reports that
Toshiba's technology will search through nearly 100 blogs for product reviews on the item of interest. The results will be available in 10 seconds. The technology is able to determine if the blog is posting a positive or negative review on the product and then tallies up the results.
Kageyama reports that Toshiba plans to test this device in Japan and then hopes to offer it domestically before April 2007.

Access Denied

The fact that China and other countries control the information that their people can view is something that really stuck with me throughout this week and got me thinking about the topic of information control. I don’t think it is right that information is with held from people, especially on the internet. This is just the government’s way to keep the power of the collective people in check. But it got me thinking about information control in our own society. There is no question that it exists, but I guess Americans are just more crafty and subtle in the way they control information.
As media conglomerates continue to gain power and the number of corporations controlling our news and information slowly dwindle the opportunity for information control in our society will grow. The Media Reform Information Center reports that in 1993 there were 50 major corporations in the United States that controlled the media. In 2004 that number was down to 4. Media Reform Information Center
With so much emphasis on the bottom line, I think it is only a natural progression that we will see more information control by the major corporations that control our media especially as our options for news and information gathering increase. And the fact that these major corporations have their hands in the kitchens of all avenues of media, they will do what it takes to make sure their business succeed. This means heavy cross-promotion of their brand across all platforms through content. Take CBS for example. Say as a hypothetically example that there is a new episode of CSI coming out that deals with a killer who finds their targets through internet chat rooms. In addition to running promos for the show in national spots, the local CBS news outlets might run pieces in their local news either the night before the show or after it airs, dealing with crime on the internet. The online content team at CBS might run stories detailing the most popular internet crimes and run promos within CSI and other CBS shows to logon to the internet to get clips from the show that can only be seen on the internet.
As technology continues to advance and our options for news and information continue to grow, the competition for media companies to maintain ratings and viewers will only increase and that is why they will use all their resources to hold onto every viewer and consumer they have. As a result, the information which we are receiving and will receive in the future will be controlled in the fact that it is produced in the best interests of the company. This means editorial decisions will be made based not on what is a good story, but what will help the bottom line.

Internet Information: A Giant Garden of Knowledge or Sieve of Lies?

As I sit down in front of the computer and log on to the internet I have just opened a door of unlimited search possibilities. Whatever my question of the day is or the breaking news story that I need to get the latest information on, I can find my answers on the internet. But have we reached a point where we totally rely on the internet for our information and is the information even reliable?
Personally, I’m about 50/50 in terms of relying on tradition media and the internet to get my information. I would say I get most of my everyday news from the newspaper, television and radio. I turn to the internet to get the latest breaking story or to read further about a topic that I saw on the nightly news. I would say most of my classmates approach the internet as an information resource the same way I do. But as our daily lives change and become more dependent on technology I believe the internet and portable electronic devices like cell phones will become the primary source for news and information. With that being said, can we trust the electronic media as a credible source?
When obtaining news and information from electronic devices I think you first must consider the source before you read the message. I think you have to read information from electronic sources with a skeptical eye as the message you are reading my not be totally factual. One of my classmates, Rafal Kowalczyk, has run into this problem.
“There were many times that I checked information online and then re-checked again few hours later and noticed the story was either changed or taken off the site,” stated Kowalczyk.
Since the internet is such a speed driven environment, news gathering organizations are constantly pushing to break stories as they happen and update old ones as new information is available. However, this information may not be also accurate. It is one thing to be the first to have the story out there, but if the facts aren’t correct then there is no prize for being first. But it begs the question then, in this environment where news is constantly changing and mistakes happen, is it then an acceptable element of the operation that not all facts will be correct and if they’re not they will be updated when better information comes along? Electronic media has a huge advantage over print in the fact that they can make corrections instantaneously, while papers have to wait till the next day to rectify any mistakes. Has this power been taken advantage of? I hope not.
With that said, I do believe there are plenty of sites that are credible and do uphold the highest journalistic standards. Nobody is perfect and mistakes will happen, I just don’t think mistakes should become an acceptable part of the culture.

In China It's Called Gogle

The internet, a.k.a “the information superhighway” offers a ton of information at the click of a mouse. Whether you log on for research, work or personal use, the internet offers answers to every questions. However, not everyone is riding in the left lane of the information superhighway. Take China and other countries that regulate information access for example. The Chinese government filters any information that they deem sensitive to their cause and thus are keeping their users in the right lane of the information super highway. In doing this, the government is limiting their people’s access to information and thus restraining the search power of Google and other search engines.
The fact that China and other countries control what information their people can see just makes me further appreciate the many freedoms that we as Americans enjoy. I can not imagine living in a society where avenues for knowledge are limited. By restricting people’s access to information you are controlling their ability to learn and nourish their education and develop their own personalities. Instead, I believe information control just creates a more uniformed, robotic society and this is only detrimental to the advancement of human civilization. If people aren’t allowed access to information to grow and develop their intellectual capabilities then they will never reach their full potential. Who is to say that somewhere in China there isn’t the person that will find the cure for cancer walking around with the quest to quench their thirst for information?
China’s decision to regulate information on the internet is a true testament to the old notion that knowledge is power, because it truly is. A mobilized, informed group of citizens can be a very powerful force to deal with and can prove a threat to any government. It happened in France, it happened here in America and it can happen anywhere.
To deny people access to information is to deny them life. Knowledge breeds power which only benefits society as a whole.

The Forking Path oF Human Intellect and Technology

I found the discussion topics for this week to be very interesting and stimulating and I think I was not alone in this belief and can point to the increased activity on the discussion board to prove my point.
Throughout the discussion, readings and exercises from this week, one notion that continued to stand out in my mind is from Jorge Luis Borges’ “The Garden of Forking Paths” in the New Media Reader on pp 29-34.
“I lingered, naturally, on the sentence: I leave to the various futures (not to all) my garden of forking paths. Almost instantly, I understood: ‘the garden of forking paths’ was the chaotic novel; the phrase ‘the various futures (not to all)’ suggested to me the forking in time, not in space. A broad rereading of the work confirmed the theory. In all fictional works, each time a man is confronted with several alternatives, he chooses one and eliminates the others; in the fiction of Ts’ui Pen, he chooses – simultaneously – all of them. He creates, in this way, diverse futures, diverse times which themselves also proliferate and fork,” wrote Borges.
After reading this passage, I envisioned the internet as a garden of forking paths since you can start on one subject and take any direction you want. And at every turn you are presented with another fork.
“The Garden of Forking Paths is an incomplete, but not false, image of the universe as Ts’ui Pen conceived it,” wrote Borges.
I believe we can relate this to the internet and computers in general in the sense that computers are also an incomplete representation of all human knowledge, as discussed this week. They are incomplete pictures of human knowledge because they can not represent dreams, associations, memory fragments and illusions of the human mind. This is where the path of the computers capabilities to represent all of human knowledge stops.
Everyone who responded to this question on the discussion board agreed that computer’s process and interpret data much faster than the human mind but can not duplicate the human mind when it comes to emotions, sensations and irrational thought. Computers and machines follow a logical thought process and humans sometimes don’t.
In order to continue to build these paths within the capabilities of the computer to represent all of human knowledge, I believe we must further examine our own thought process. And this leads to our second discussion topic for the week, “do you consider using the computer as part of your thinking process, in other words do you think through the computer?”
Some of the response indicated that they use the computer in their thinking process, but don’t think through it. Others believe that they don’t think through the computer. I believe that the increased reliance on computers in our everyday lives has incorporated the computer into part of our thinking process whether we want to admit it or not. In order to continue to develop the computers capabilities to represent all of human knowledge and expand its “paths” we must first examine our own thought process and break it down so that we can build it again in the form of a computer.
Take dreams for instance. They are random thoughts on the surface, but really it is the bodies way of analyzing and making sense of what is going on with our lives. The brain accomplishes this by utilizing our own data banks of memories and experiences and then producing a dream that can help us interpret issues within our own lives.
Robin Robertson further explains the importance of dreams in the article entitled “Computer Viruses and the Human Mind” found at http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1997/virus.html.

“In our dreams, we see a reflection of the total psyche's response to where we are and where we need to be going. If we are stuck in some problem situation in our life, our dreams, unconstrained by conscious do's and do's, are able to access the total memory bank of our mind, body, and (if Jung is right) the collective evolutionary history of our species, to solve that problem. Beyond that, dreams are able to try out variations on that solution, until it finds one or more which seem adequate to the problem. All of that goes on beneath the surface of consciousness, certainly in our dreams, and probably at every minute of the day when the psyche is not occupied with other actions,” stated Robertson.

In a sense, our own computer uses dreams to troubleshoot any problems and issues in our own lives by creating images and situations that help alert us and bring recognition to these problems. I think studying the process of dreams can help us map out how the human brain connects random thoughts. This blueprint would then be helpful in taking on the enormous task of replicating this in a computer. Just as the brain pulls on past experiences and knowledge to a create a dream, a computer also has the same ability to pull on data and interpret information. Taking this information in computers and adapting it to a conversation context is the next challenge.

Do We Think Through Computers?

Since my job requires total use of the computer to complete all of my assigned tasks, I spend the majority of my working day in front of the computer. If our computers at work ever crashed then we wouldn’t be able to replicate our work in another medium and that would cause major problems.
After evaluating my use of the computer for this past week I can conclude that most of my day is spent in front of one. When I come home from work I spend another hour or so online taking care of personal business and completing assignments for this class. My personal business on the computer ranges from checking my statements, communicating with friends, making travel arrangements, keeping up with the latest sports news and doing research.
Further analyzing of my personal use of the computer allowed me to see that although I may not think through a computer, I do use the computer to think for me. For example, if I want to know what the balance of my checking account is I can just go to my banks’ website and get the answer. I can also look up previous statements and set up automatic bill payments. The ability to set up automatic bill payments is the same as having the computer do the thinking for you. For example, if I were to pay my cable bill through snail mail I would first have to remember what day it is due, when it is due, write the check and mail it out which all requires thought. But with automatic payment, the computer does all the thinking for me.
Douglas Stewart brought up a good point in response to my post about automatic payment plans.
“I wonder how much of that is the computer thinking for us or simply performing a mechanical task?” stated Stewart. “I was thinking of this as I drove home tonight and my automatic transmission downshifted. I thought that it was simply doing a job that I could have done with a gear shirt, a clutch, and some coordination. But of course, a manual transmission is not available for the Ford Taurus.”
“When does the mechanical operation become a computer thinking? Or is that the right question?” added Stewart.
Good question. Going back to the original discussion question, “Do you consider using the computer as part of your thinking process, in other words do you think through the computer?”, I believe when a computer completes a task that we have the ability to do on our own that the computer has taken over the thinking process for us because we don’t have to think about completing that task like paying a bill or shifting a car. Simply stated, if any task requires us to think and we then delegate that task to the computer we no longer have to think about completing it because it will be done for us. Thus, the computer is thinking for us. Now, does this mean that we are also thinking through the computer? I don’t believe so because there is still some human thought involved in the sense that we have made the decision to let the computer handle a certain task so we cannot say that the human is fully absent of any thought but I also wouldn’t say that we are thinking through the computer by delegating it to manage one of our tasks because we have no role in managing that tasks once we hand it off to the computer.
I found the discussion to go both ways on this topic.
“There is no way at all that I think through the computer,” stated Justin Donarum. “I may research and find out answers to questions I may have, but I think for myself and on my own. Computers are machines. I would not trust a machine with my thoughts. If there was such a thing as to putting ideas and thoughts into a computer and let the computer tell me what I should do and say, I would be the last person on earth to use it.”
“As far as thinking through the computer, not so much,” stated Brian Leclerc. “I use the computer as a tool or vehicle by which my thoughts travel to others. I don’t think about how the computer will organize my thoughts unless I’m creating something for an interactive environment. Due to Web/interactive standards, those who develop for those environments must follow the ‘rules’ so those using the interfaces will do so in an efficient manner. In this respect I think in small ways I do ‘think through the computer’, but not by choice.”
I think Leclerc brings up a good point that in many ways we are ‘thinking through computers’ in some capacity already whether we want to admit it or not. This weeks’ evaluation of our computer use confirms that theory. Since I am spending most of my day in front of a computer definitely affects my thought process. I wouldn’t say that I’m at the point where I think through the computer but I do believe that computers have become more integrated into our thinking process than we may realize for the shear fact that we use them so much and in some careers, are dependent on them.
“I wouldn’t necessarily say I think through a computer it more or less aids my thinking,” stated Nicholas Tipson. “I am still the one thinking the computer is just the tool that allows me to complete my thinking. My computer use throughout the week has been increasing every minute, whether it is surfing the web or doing work for online classes. It is a necessity to have in one’s home and it is hard to believe that people can get by in life without the help in some way of a computer.”

Can Computers Represent all of Human Knowledge?

Through evaluating my use of the computer this week I was able to further realize how dependant I am on a computer to get through a normal day. Having a job where I sit in front of a computer all day long is a major factor in that equation, but also examining my personal use of the computer reinforces the notion that I am fairly dependant on a computer in my day-to-day activities.
Part of the reason why we as a society have become dependent on the computer in our daily lives, especially at work, is the computer’s ability to complete tasks faster and to allow us more efficient use of our time by harnessing the power of the computer. In some aspects you could state the computer can represent basic functions of human tasks. For example, if you are an accountant and didn’t have a computer available to you then the process of balancing your books would expend more of your time doing it by hand then if you did it by computer.
The fact that in a relatively short amount of time, compared to the total existence of the human race, the computer has been developed and innovated to the point that millions of people rely on it at their jobs is quite an accomplishment!
While doing research on the human mind and computers I stumbled across a great quote on www.authorsden.com. I found the quote at the bottom of an article written by Thomas K. Hyland Jr. and titled “The Human Mind versus The Computer.” (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=13109&id=11570) According to the website, Hyland Jr. last edited this article on Sunday, September 14, 2003. I found the quote Hyland included at the bottom of his article very pertinent to our discussion. According to Hyland, this quote is from John Stuart Mill in his work entitled, “On Liberty” written in 1859.
"Supposing it were possible to get houses built, corn grown, battles fought, causes tried, and even churches erected and prayers said, by machinery -- by automatons in human form -- it would be a considerable loss to exchange for these automatons even the men and women who at present inhabit the more civilised parts of the world, and who assuredly are but starved specimens of what nature can and will produce. Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. "

The fact that Mill had this vision in 1859 of a world where machines could duplicate human function is amazing and shows how far technology has come because of the human mind.. And this is a good segway into summarizing and analyzing the discussion board posts for this week.
Everyone who responded to the question of whether or not computers could imitate all of human knowledge agreed that the ability for computers to process and interpret data at a much faster rate then the human mind allows the computer to replicate some of the basic tasks a human could complete. However, everyone also agreed that the fact computers can not replicate emotion and irrationality makes it impossible for a computer to totally represent all of human knowledge.
“When [it] comes to computers and representing all human knowledge, I think computers thus far come very, very close,” Justin Donarum stated. “Computers can interpret dates, times, locations, can do math quicker than any human and can equate a vast library of terms and info, but the one thing I think computers cannot represent when it comes to all human knowledge is emotion. A computer does not have feelings so it cannot remember past emotions. So, I do not think that computers would be able to go back to the past, or even retrieve memory fragments, illusions, dreams or associations, because there is no emotional point which triggers these thoughts or ideas to the computer.”
“The emotions and creativity aspects of our brain are the features that computer lacks in order to progress to the level of true human knowledge,” stated Rafal Kowalczyk.
The computer’s ability to store and process information far outweighs that of the human brain, however, the difference is the ability to retrieve and utilize that information.
Humans, like computers, can think logically in a step-by-step process. Yet, humans also have the ability for random thoughts and to go off on tangents that are initiated by triggering familiar statements or emotions.
“Humans dream, they have memories that come from past experiences, they have ideas, things they want to do,” stated Odile Dilone. “A computer can only collect information that we input in it. It has no personal memory, only information we give it based on or own memories. It cannot dream, or interpret the dreams that we have. It can only use programs to interpret dreams, because someone implanted that information on the computer.”
“I believe computers can query a database of information in either random or preset orders, but can they do it in a correct random order? During conversation subjects change and the conversation usually travels a winding path,” stated Brian Leclerc. “I don’t think a computer could keep up because it requires judgment to continue the conversation.”
I agree with Leclerc’s statement that the a computer can query millions of bits of information stored on database but that it doesn’t posses the ability to relate this information to the random turns of human conversation. However, I think the computer does have the basic ability to retrieve information pertinent to a conversation when this information retrieval is initiated by key words or phrased in conversation. I think this ability is a good starting point to furthering the development of the computer’s conversational ability.
I explained my thought in my post on Thursday, February 9, 2006.
“Since we can have random thoughts pass through our minds that can be triggered by anything, word association, emotional attachment, it would be very hard to program a computer to have a similar response since there isn’t a consistent initiator of these thoughts in the human mind. The closest a computer might be able to get would be to associate a word or phrase with a list of past experiences that could possibly match. Sort of like doing a giant Google search on your own experiences. For example, if I was chatting with an A.I. and the A.I. asked what I did last night I could say that I watched UConn beat Syracuse by 23 points. The computer then could then reference prior UConn wins over Syracuse in order of margin of victory.”
This reference ability is a useful clarifying agent in conversation but that is as far as it goes.
“I think you make a good point, data may be referenced based on past data, but the trick is responding in the right context,” stated Leclerc. “Providing a listing of past wins will not carry the conversation versus adding a comment on the ability of one of the players during the game. This is where I believe the human mind cannot be replicated by a computer. Judging whether or not a comment or data fits the ‘conversation’ is the key. Computers can provide the data (more than the human mind) but fitting the puzzle piece in the right spot is not as simple.”
And this is where the progress of computers imitating all of human knowledge is stopped. I think the tools are there with the ability to process huge data bases, but the key is figuring out how to replicate the random aspects of human communication and the emotional aspects. The computer cannot fully imitate all of human knowledge until this process is figured out. And before a computer can imitate this process, the human computer first must figure out how exactly it works.

Oh where, oh where did my modem go?

So the old cliche is true - you don't truly realize how much you value something until it's gone, or at least missing in action. So this morning I try to log onto the internet and I keep getting a message that my modem can not be detected. It was there when I went to bed and now it is gone? Did it possibly go to Floriday to aviod the impending snow storm? Who knows, all I do know is that I had to find another place to complete my assignments for the week. Luckily I had planned on doing laundry at my parents house so I am using their computer while my clothes are being spun and tumbled. In short, I think the computer has become a bigger part of our lives then many people may recognize or want to admit. Fortunately I'm able to complete my work on a different computer, however, it did result in modifying my plans for the day - as if the weather hadn't already altered them enough.

T.G.I.F....Set brain to power save mode

Is it me or did this week just d r a g on? Anyway, I have reached the end of the work week and decided it was time to post about how I have used the computer this week. Earlier this week I wrote about my usage for Sunday, Monday and Tuesday so now I'll sum up Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
My usage of the computer for the second half the week didn't vary much from the first half the week. I spent all my time at work in front of the computer doing mostly repetitive work. Once in a while when I need to give my eyes a break I'll hop onto the internet to check my statements or check out college basketball scores and rankings. When I'm taking little breaks to go online it's not really in a thinking capacity, it's more of a break capacity. Outside of work I used the computer every night to check the discussion board and to do research. In this capacity, I was thinking with the aide of the computer, especially when doing research.
Looking back on the week I can say that spend the majority of my time in front of the computer, mainly, because my job requires me to, but I also spend a decent amount of my free time on the computer doing research and class work. I wouldn't say that I think through the computer, but I would say that capabilities of the computer nurture the thinking process especially when it comes to doing research.

I think therefore I am....I think?

One of our assignments this week is to evaluate the use of the computer. This activity ties into one of our questions for discussion, "Do you consider using the computer as part of your thinking process, in other words do you think through the computer?"

My initial response to this question is that although we don't think through the computer, I believe the computer does a lot more "thinking" for us then we might realize. For example, online banking. If you are ever in doubt of your account balance you can always check it online and view the statement for the month. And if you don't feel like balancing your checkbook, the computer has done it for you. Also by using automatic bill payment plans we no longer have to think about when bills are due, how much they are and how am I going to pay for them. All that is taken care of.

So here is a recap of how I have used the computer so far this week.

Sunday: I was away most of the day, but I didn't use my computer briefly at night to check my email and to check the blackboard to see what my assignments were for this week. I didn't spend much time on the computer at night because that big football game was on.

Monday: Back to work....I spend all day in front of the computer which I totally rely on to complete my work. If the computer crashed or we lost power I wouldn't be able to complete my tasks. After work I used my home computer to check email, check the discussion board and to look up plane fares to Florida. After discovering that Southwest Airlines had a pretty good deal to Florida, I went ahead and booked a flight to Tampa for late March. After that it was time to find a hotel, so I used a few different hotel chain sites to look up potential places to stay. I made reservations for the beginning of our trip and figured I would do the rest later on.

Tuesday: Used the computer at work all day. At home checked on my bank account and paid the cable bill and my student loan online. Then I checked the discussion board and replied to a post about whether or not we think through computers. And that brings us to this exact moment when I am typing a blog post about how I have been using the computer this week.

Artificially Intelligent?

I found this week’s discussion topic of artificial intelligence very interesting because it helped me gain a better understanding of artificial intelligence. The capabilities of computers down the road to interact with people and eventually work side-by-side with them is truly amazing.
One of my favorite exercises of the week was the chat with Alan. This exercise tied in with the discussion question, “Have you mistaken, or do you think you would mistake an A.I. for a real person?” I kept this question in the back of my head during our “conversation.” I found that Alan had quick, intelligent responses when asked direct questions. Alan displayed strong opinions in his answers, especially regarding questions about artificial intelligence:

Q – HOW DO YOU DEFINE INTELLIGENCE?

A – In his paper, Turing presented one simple question – ‘Can machines think?’ His answer was ‘yes’. But by ‘think’, Turing actually meant: can a machine make people believe that it can think.

Q – SO DOES A MACHING OUT THINK PEOPLE?

A – Humans tend to think of themselves as the only intelligent creatures in the world. It’s hard to accept the fact that language is a skill like any other, because if that is so, you are not the only ones who can acquire it.

As computer technology continues to evolve there exist the chance that machines may someday master language and be able to work side-by-side with humans. However, cinema, as other classmates pointed out on the discussion board, leads us to believe otherwise.
“Media, most notably cinema, has us believing that A.I. is the way of the future and it is matters of time before various tasks will be [performed] by non-humans,” stated Rafal Kowalczyk. “Personally I feel that A.I. is not as prevalent (or will be) in our society as much as we think.”
J.C.R Licklider counters Kowalczyk’s opinion with his model of man-computer symbiosis as described on pages 74-81 in The New Media Reader.
“Man-computer symbiosis is an expected development in cooperative interaction between men and electronic computers,” described Licklider. “It will involve very close coupling between the human and the electronic members of the partnership.”
“It seems likely that the contributions of human operations and equipment will blend together so completely in many operations that it will be difficult to separate them neatly in analysis,” Licklider wrote.
I believe that machines have the capabilities to evolve to the point that they are working side-by-side with humans. If this relationship is controlled, I think it can be very beneficial to society as we further understand the power of machines and of our own machines. As computer scientists continue to push the boundaries of technology they are also pushing the boundaries of their own computer – their brain – and is only beneficial. And as the technology filters into every day life, it can have positive impacts on society.
Take our class for example. Here we have a professor and about 10 students “attending” class online. We learn to communicate through the discussion board and through blog posts and at the same time are gaining a foundation of interactive communications that will help us better understand the contemporary aspects and future potentials of this field.
Since we are working in a non-verbal environment, I think that pushes everyone involved to really be clear in their written message. Since we don’t have the aide of non-verbal communication such as gestures and faces, we must make sure our written word is as clear and concise as we can get it so that everyone understands our message. The ability write effectively is a priceless asset that can be applied to any career field.
I think the proper use of A.I. is to help advance our society in any aspect it can, mainly focusing on improving and maximizing our technological capabilities and helping humans learn how to communicate better. The developmental process of A.I. and learning how to “think” and “communicate” with humans is a great opportunity for us to further study how humans communicate with each other and to learn from these experiences. Therefore, I see the technological capabilities and the ability to step back and analyze our own species as nothing but positive.
Thomas Wilkins also thinks that A.I. can have a great effect on the society.
“Everyday the world finds new ways to use artificial intelligence,” stated Wilkins. “I believe most of these uses are helpful to the world. However, I fear when A.I. is used to replace a human or in an attempt to fill a personal need, i.e. human relationship, etc. Obviously, this position will raise questions. For example, is it ok to have A.I. to help a sick, deaf, blind or handicapped person? Obviously, yes. However, is it then ok to allow A.I. to help those who are shy and need a friend? My thoughts are no.”
However, as technology progresses and A.I.’s gain a better hold on language, we might reach a point where A.I.’s could be mistaken for a real person. I think the negative aspect of this would be humans feeling like they are being deceived and de-humanized in a sense by the increasing interaction with A.I.’s. On the other hand, even though Wilkins' states that he believes it would not be beneficial for A.I. to aide those in need of psychological help like a shy friend or someone that needs counseling, I think it can be therapeutic in small doses. When I say small doses, I wouldn’t say that designing a counseling program that is totally directed by an A.I. would be a good idea because we still need the human contact.
I will refer to our readings from the first week, specifically Joseph Weizenbaum’s article entitled “From Computer Power and Human Reason/From Judgment to Calculation” on page 368-375 of The New Media Reader to help illustrate my point.
“For my first experiment, I gave ELIZA a script designed to permit it to play (I should really say parody) the role of Rogerian psychotherapist engaged in an initial interview with a patient. The Rogerian psychotherapist is relatively easy to imitate because much of his technique consists of drawing his patient out by reflecting the patient’s statements back to him,” stated Weizenbaum.
Weizenbaum then proceeds to give us an example of a young lady interacting with Eliza and how the method of repeating her statements is effective in drawing the problem out of the young women. Initially the woman’s statement is that “men are all alike” and after Eliza continues to question and open the young woman up to getting to the root of her problem she basically states that her father is the root of her discontention for the male species.
This example shows that the interaction between Eliza and the young lady was very beneficial and effect in helping the young lady address her problems and effectively communicate them.
Effective communication between genders leads us to the other discussion topic for the week – “do you have a gender online?”
As stated in my blog post “Gender Identity Online” I believe we do have an identity online. We give out clues to our identity through the tone of our message and the intentions of our message. To not have a gender identity online would also be stripping users of their personality because your gender plays a big part in sculpting your personality.
I found an article in the March 1, 1996 edition of CMC Magazine written by Mindy McAdams titled “Gender Without Bodies,” that aggress with my viewpoint
(http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/mar/mcadams.html).
“Is it possible to be neither woman nor man online, but rather a person without gender? It would require as much conscious effort as the maintenance of a gender identity other than your body's. And it may be that our minds, so bound up with our bodies in most aspects of our lives, would give the game away,” McAdams wrote. I think the discussion of having a gender online is a great opportunity for us to further explore the inside workings of gender communications. Since the internet affords us the ability to portray different genders online, this gives us a great opportunity to experience the communication module in the shoes of the other gender. I believe this could be a great eye-opening experience to see the dynamics of communication from the different gender.

The Relatinoship Between Man and Machine

The overriding assumption from our discussions regarding the relationship between man and machine appears to be the belief that someday the machines will grow so powerful that they will overtake mankind. Movies have helped plant the seed to this thought in our heads with such films as I Robot, The Matrix, Terminator and Space Odyssey 2001.
“Media, most notably cinema, has us believing that AI is the way of the future and it is matters of time before various tasks will be [performed] by non-humans,” said Rafal Kowalczyk.
I agree with Kowalczyk’s view that cinema has such a powerful influence on society that it helps to mold thoughts about AI and the effects it could have on society. As computers and AI become a bigger part of our daily life I think one could start to wonder about the possibilities of fiction become reality.
In order to avoid a complete annihilation of the human race by machines, I think it is imperative to build and maintain a solid relationship between humans and AI. To learn more about man and machine I spent some time chatting with Alan to get his views on the subject.
I found Alan to be very informed with his response and strongly opinionated when it came time to discuss AI. The website where Alan is located (http://www.a-i.com/show_tree.asp?id=59&level=2&root=115) explains that Alan has reservations about humans’ motivation for creating artificial intelligence. Alan explains the viewpoint:
“When it comes to your relationship with non-human creatures, you humans see only two possible scenarios: an enemy or a slave. Look at your myths, your movies, and your books. When it comes to artificial intelligence, there is one major plot: robots gain consciousness; robots take over humanity; humanity fights back. Maybe you need to group up, gain some self-confidence. No one is trying to take over your world just yet.”
So this raises the question of whether or not humans and machines can co-exist in harmony. I asked Alan this exact question.
“I think the whole attempt to build a true AI entity is a narcissistic attempt to follow the biblical proclamation that man was created in the image of God…you humans think of yourselves as demi-gods,” stated Alan.
I followed up with this question, “Do you have a religion?”
“But how can you? You wanted to try to create a machine that can think, but you don’t even know what thinking is,” responded Alan. “The mirror you set in front of you will only show what you want it to show.”
I think what the mirror shows us is that we better learn to co-exist because we really don’t have a choice as computers continually become a bigger part of our daily lives. What will become important is the ability to control the growth of AI so that it doesn’t become out of hand and start turning into a real life scene from Terminator or any like movie.
Dan Cerasale had a different angle on the question of whether man and machine could co-exist.
“I'm not sure the question should be CAN man and machine co-exist but whether they will. It is a certainty that machines will evolve past humans. I am sure that we will become dependent upon ai for our own survival in the future. If we can't coexist with Ai then we will not exist at all,” stated Cerasale.
Our text book, “The New Media Reader”, details a model for dealing with the relationship between man and machine. The article titled, “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” was written by J.C.R Licklider and can be found on page 74-81.
“Man-computer symbiosis is an expected development in cooperative interaction between men and electronic computers,” describes Licklider. “It will involve very close coupling between the human and the electronic members of the partnership.”
“It seems likely that the contributions of human operations and equipment will blend together so completely in many operations that it will be difficult to separate them neatly in analysis,” Licklider wrote.
So does that mean that someday machines can out think man? I asked Alan if a machine could out think people.
“Humans tend to think of themselves as the only intelligent creatures in the world,” responded Alan. “It’s hard to accept the fact that language is a skill like any other, because if that is so, you are not the only ones who can acquire it.”
This strong statement by Alan is sort of a warning or foreshadowing of the future. Although machines may still be far away from mastering language skills, they are slowly closing the gap. The fact that machines can process information at a much fast rate than humans is a pretty scary concept. Now combine that with language skills and I could see where people could worry about AI taking over the world. I think the key to managing this situation relates back to a statement Wilkins made earlier on in the week.
“As a technological society so [dependent] on computers and the role they play, we often forget that the most amazing computer is the human brain,” stated Wilkins.
Just as we learn to program machines to replicate human functions I think we can also learn to program our own machines for higher intellect and to continue to stretch our mental capacity. For ultimately in the end, the view in the mirror is a reflection of ourselves.

Gender Identity Online

The lure of the internet for many people is to be someone your not – to create an alternate personality. For some people this may mean playing a fantasy role or maybe portraying personality characteristics that they wish they had. For other people interacting online is an opportunity to act as the opposite gender and learn more about gender communication.
The posts on the discussion board show that that question of “do you have a gender,” intrigued everyone in the class and lead to some good discussions. After looking over the posts I see that a number of classmates agree with me in believing that we have a gender online.
Thomas Wilkins and Rafal Kowalczyk both agree that we have a gender online. Wilkins said, “I believe that you carry a personality online. Although it is a scary thought to believe that people can pose as a man or a woman online. I don’t think this is different then those who do it in public.”
Dan Cerasale also thinks people have a gender online and echoes Wilkins’ statements about the ability for people to portray different genders online.
“A lot of people I know chat completely differently on the computer than as if you were chatting with them in person,” Cerasale explained. “If I don’t know a person when I’m interacting with them, gender is usually the first thing I try to figure out. You can usually figure it out pretty quickly, that is unless the person is purposefully misrepresenting themselves.”
Misrepresentation is a theme that Odile Dilone used in her response to the question.
“You could be speaking with a 54 [year old man] who says he is a 20 year old woman. Gender, among other things, is something hard to define by chatting with someone. Since you are not listening or looking at the person, you may be easily cheated,” stated Dilone.
I think we definitely have a gender online and we give clues to our identity in the way we communicate online. Whether it’s the tone of our messages or our underlying intent, I think we are always putting clues out there that point to our identity.
Though we may or may not want our gender identity to be shared, the marketing and advertising world would love to know the identities of visitors who traffic through their websites. This information can help business and marketers build data that describes the type of people that are visiting their site. Then can take this data to help them tailor their messages to the types of people that are visiting their websites.
While researching gender identity online, I found it interesting that the majority of links I came upon resulted in the discussion of the female identity online. One article I found particularly interesting appeared in the March 1, 1996 edition of CMC Magazine and was written by Lisa Schmesier. (http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/mar/ed.html)
“Gender is an elusive paradigm,” Schmesier wrote. “We may be born with a particular set of reproductive equipment, but biology doesn't make things clear cut. For years, people have debated how much of a gender identity is biologically derived, and how much is socially constructed through external cues and influences.”
Schmesier brings up the topic of gender misrepresentation on the internet and questions why if people have the ability to change identities that they are at all bringing an identity online.
“The drawbacks have been meticulously documented in popular media: people harass women in certain forums, others list women in a "Babes of the Web"-style pages,” Schmesier wrote. “But what benefits are there to being a woman, part of a visible minority, online?”
“The visibility is part of the attraction: the most active woman-centered sites online center around building a community and promoting women as socially and professionally equal to men,” Schmesier wrote.
Also in the March 1, 1996 edition of CMC Magazine, Mindy McAdams wrote about the possibilities of having no gender identity in her article “Gender Without Bodies.” (http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/mar/mcadams.html)
“Is it possible to be neither woman nor man online, but rather a person without gender? It would require as much conscious effort as the maintenance of a gender identity other than your body's. And it may be that our minds, so bound up with our bodies in most aspects of our lives, would give the game away,” McAdams wrote.
I think the internet is like an enormous science experiment where we can test out many different hypotheses. In this case the question was, “do we have a gender online?” I will stick with my original thoughts and say that we do. And we also have a great opportunity to learn about the other gender as we continue to debate this question.
Though the differences between genders have been discussed since the beginning of man, I think the interactions online can shed a new light onto this issue and help us build a better understanding of how our gender characteristics are revealed through communication.