All this talk about the brain, humans, artificial intelligence, nature, and the growth of technology got me thinking about the future that is in store for us. I noticed that, not only in The Shallows but other texts as well, writers often personify computers/technology (I’m going to use them interchangeably here because my reference to technology is mainly to computers and the Internet, which is part of the computer’s function) as entities with human quality. For example, on the page 224 of the book, Nicholas Carr writes, “The seductions of technology are hard to resist…” Usually the term “seduction” is used in a more sexual context between two or more humans. But here, Carr is almost saying that technology has that same quality as human seductiveness as we (humans) are attracted to it (technology). The reverse is also true: we describe people using machine qualities. We would often describe a large group of people doing the same generic action as robotic. Or that workers are more “parts” of the factory, “gears” needed to run the place, etc.
In the end, those are only relationships I noticed. But I’m sure you all did as well; it has become quite common to describe humans through machines and machines through humans – so much that it has become a blur as to which is more human, machines or humans. Our acceptance of these descriptions due to the inundating references over the web and books may contribute to why we are inevitably LED into believing that machines will one day become more human than humans. The role of humans will become that of machines (like what Carr said on page 46). Perhaps that is the reason it instills the fear of technology taking over humanity.
The questions that I want to explore then is… What if machines become more human than humans? What if humans become more machine-like than machines? What are the consequences and effects on people?
I have already thought of two examples that I can use so far, one negative and one positive about machines/technology/computers – interchangeable to me at this point.
First is the example of the 2008 stock market crash. Part of the reason it crashed was because people are using computer programs to trade stocks. The computer programs acted like human operators and conducting calculations that will reap the best trades. In a sense, it was design to mimic humans with a mind for calculating probability that is far beyond human capacity. And the result of it was the failure of the stock market (of course, it’s only part of the reason but a reason nonetheless) which greatly impacted many people’s lives, driving them into poverty – hence the negative impact of machines given human jobs.
The positive second example is a computer software program created by Crypton, a Japanese company, called Vocaloid. It’s basically a voice sythesizer with a model (there are many but the most famous and popular one is Hatsune Miku) that can dance and sing to the music that people compose. Over time, Vocaloid grew to become more than just a program. Hatsune Miku became an icon with so much popularity that it (or she) was announced as the world’s first virtual diva (idol). She had live concerts (four or five so far in Japan, Taiwan and Los Angeles) just like any other famous singers did. And everytime, tickets were sold out. She was able to capture the minds and hearts of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people all over the world (me included). I no longer see her as a mere computer program but as a person that takes on the personalities of the composers, artists, musicians and fans. The future of Hatsune Miku and other Vocaloids developed to have their own intelligence and thought looks bright and not so dystopian as what many people think computers’ effect on us would be.
… I felt like I wrote my proposal here instead of just my thoughts on what I can/may do for this project. Anyways, comments and opinions are appreciated!
Really. Good. Topic.
It borders right on the verge of “sci-fi flick come-true,” and your line of questioning isn’t too far-fetched to not be believable. Great examples. The stock market one shocked me – and I’m sure you can consider the implications about purposely building machines to act and think like humans on more than a logical basis. You’ve got a goldmine with the Vocaloid stuff. I, uh, actually know a little about them, and I’ll admit that during that “phase,” I often forgot that they were only computer programs, and not real people.
I think you have a strong topic to research, and it looks like you already know where you’re heading with this. I can’t wait to read more!
I agree with Brian that your musings seemed to be bordering on a sci-fi movie of the near future where machines have gained autonomy and intelligence. I think the negative part of machines becoming more human would be more interesting to focus on because machines are designed to aid mankind, so the question becomes, what happens when they don’t have to anymore?
I really like your topic, and I especially like the example of the Vocaloid software. I think it would be interesting to explore that particular software through a societal criticism perspective- to point out the good and bad things it created in Japanese (or global) society, or perhaps to explore how it alters our perception of what a person is (which I think may be more the direction you were leaning toward.)
I liked the link you posted to the Socratic thinking webpage. I’m not sure it has much to do with the topic you’re trying to explore, but I really enjoyed reading it!
I love the metaphors you use in your first paragraph above. It’s cool to notice how Carr uses human-type language–e.g. “seduction”–to talk about how technology works on us and on our minds. I also like Kunal’s suggestion above: what happens when machines don’t need to be in an auxiliary role to humans anymore because they have…what?…gained autonomy? Is that possible? I mean, is it possible for machines to gain autonomy without humans creating the conditions, the somehow false or constructed conditions, for the machines to gain said “autonomy”? Without human buy-in–without all those fans wanting Vocaloid to be a “star,” without their adoration creating the context for her stardom (and isn’t any stardom always socially constructed and on some level “false”?), she wouldn’t have become what she has become. Right? So doesn’t human intelligence always drive the conditions? At what point does any machine take on a “life of its own”? Yeah, it is a good question. I kinda like you taking a positive spin on this issue, since in my view, we more usually see the distopian visions when it comes to the question of the “life” of machines.