Social Media AI

The fact that Facebook uses AI to help its users does not surprise me at all. I have known all this time about this specific feature but never knew it was considered artificial intelligence. There are various amounts of websites that have this feature including Instagram and YouTube (that I know about). This lies within the argument that we are living post-human because we barely think about our interests, it now just pops on a screen because you have viewed something similar. Without us knowing, artificial intelligence is taking its stance on earth whether we like it or not, or even if we notice (which we don't). Facebook in fact is for the people, but artificial intelligence spices things up a bit. In other words, it gives people ideas of what they may or may not be interested in. AI on social networks gives humans options to whether or not they want to see certain posts again. So, in a way AI does not completely take over, it just steps in to give a jump start on one's thoughts sometimes. We haven't gotten close to Vernor Vinge's inflection point just yet. His definition of inflection point is when AI machines are able to outsmart humans. I believe that we are on the path of getting there, but so far all AI can possibly do is take over a humans job. It is scary to think that a human being will even want to make something that is smarter than them and possibly cause an extinction of the human race. If we had only AI machines for only certain tasks such as curing cancer then that is fine. But when you put so much knowledge into one object it can be very dangerous and outsmart you even though you created it. In closing, I leave you with a quote from a Control consultant, Bela Liptak, "Automation opened a new chapter in human evolution... this can be a great achievement, but can also become a slippery slope for human civilization". In other words, do we just sit around and not work on something that can potentially become the greatest thing ever, or work on something that can end our lives forever?

http://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2016/is-artificial-intelligence-dangerous/.

If I were in Cooks situation I don't know what I would do. Change my policies because of terror in my country? Or not bother with it because it will violate our policy and we would have to make all phones the same. FBI will have access to anyone's iPhones at any time. This may lead to a decline in customers, increase in supply, and no money for the business. Although Apple has changed their policies for pop star Taylor Swift, why can't they change it for the government. According to the Washington Post, the company did not want to be shamed by Taylor Swift. I guess that's worst than the government?

If the FBI gets there way then it violates the security and privacy of its users. Apple does feel as though this "backdoor" opens doors for hackers as well. If Apple were to get their way then they only will get criticized for not feeling for those who have lost their lives in "terrorist attack". According to the privacy act "Amid the passage of open meetings and open records laws, the federal government also recognized a citizen’s right to avoid improper distribution of data it keeps about them. The 1974 Privacy Act also allows citizens to find out what information the government keeps on them, primarily in order to ensure its accuracy." This is interesting because it may seem as the FBI may seem to say we help you out by giving you what you need, so can we get what it is that we want? This idea may seem crazy, but there are many scandalous activities and negotiations that take place behind all of these big businesses.

The Next Big Weapon

In my opinion I do believe that AI weapons violate the Martens Clause because according to the text, these "autonomous weapons systems select and engage targets without human intervention..."(Russel 415). In other words, these weapons can work on their own with no human/s needed. The Martens Clause bans weapons that violate "principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience"(415). in other words, AI weapons are taking on roles that humans are able to do on their own an the Martens Clause practically believes that it should stay that way with no interference of robots. Many countries, such as Germany for instance, "will not accept that the decision over life and death is taken solely by an autonomous system". In a way, this violates the human right to live. This autonomous system will have the say in who lives and who dies. This machine will have too much of its own power.

I describe meaningful human control over AI weapons as a human stepping in when the weapon begins to get out of control and abuse its power. From this article that is how it seems. I feel that it needs to always be controlled, before it controls us. The article states, "LAWS could violate fundamental principles of human dignity... they might be tasked to eliminate anyone exhibiting 'threatening behaviour'". How does the weapon know when someone is actually in the action of threatening someone or if one is simply joking around with a friend? Yes, they can be tasked to do these things but how do they actually know when it's serious or not? This weapon needs all the human control as possible because it still does not know right from wrong.

The scope of the conversations was social media and how it could help scientists and researchers spread the word that robots were good and can actually help out in the future. The biggest hurdle was that "many researchers have never tweeted, blogged or made a YouTube video" and "it can take years to build a social media following that make the effort worthwhile"(Hauert 417).

"Clustering analyses can define new syndromes-- separating diseases that were thought to be the same and unifying others that have the same underlying defects"(Altman 417). This easily impacts the medical fields. These machines will be able to diagnose and treat patients and even come up with treatment and cures. All of these tasks in which a medical professional can do will be handed over to robots. Yes, this will help in the future but every day our medical professionals learn new things, although sometimes it may take years. Whereas robots just seem to know everything without training. what helps patients these days are feelings. A robot cannot help a human when being diagnosed. They will not know what to say to them. In other words, a doctor can say to someone "we can hope for the best" when dealing with someone who is losing a battle to a disease. When a robot may bluntly say  "you will die in two days" or they may not say anything at all. There will be no comfort.

These articles reminded me of the Disney film Smart House. The house did everything on its own. Cooked, Cleaned, etc. Until one day it just wants to control the family that lives in the house. This film goes to show that everything that glitters is not gold. Artificial Intelligence is a great thing and may possible do great things in the future. I do believe that everyone has that small piece of fear in the back of their head knowing that it can all go wrong. Without the right control, robots can and will be able to take over the world.

Post-human vs. Humanism

1.)The Macy Conference on Cybernetics came up with "central concepts that would coalesce into a theory of communication and control applying equally to animals, humans, and machines" (Hayles, 7). The conference viewed human beings as beings that only processed information and were a bit similar to machines. To some in the conference, they were not interested in seeing humans just as machines, much rather just making the machine and human equal.

2.) Hayles defines posthuman in four different characterized point of views.
-Posthuman view privileges informational pattern over material instantiation.
-Posthuman view considers consciousness
-Posthuman view thinks of the body as the original prosthesis we all learn to manipulate
-Posthuman view configures human being so that it can be seamlessly articulate with intelligent machines.
From my understanding of posthuman, I define it as a person/thing that exists beyond and actual human being, whether it is artificial or an alien.

2.5) Since there are many perspectives of humanism, Hayles went with the fact that the liberal humanist subject has deconstructed in cybernetics, but it still has some affinities with these perspectives, it proceeded primarily along lines that sought to understand human beings as a set of informational processes.
-I have always expressed humanism as the goodness of human beings and how good they are.

3.) "For some... the posthuman evokes the exhilarating prospect of getting out of the old boxes and opening up new ways of thinking about what being human means" (Hayles 285). This is the pleasure part of being posthuman. This is what, in a way, makes me posthuman because I am more than open to learning more about humans and what it means to be one. I am also all for closing doors and opening up new ones.