This article was quite interesting to say the least. Right of the bat, the layout had my attention, it was very well organized. However, it had me on edge the whole time. Personally, if felt like I was on a constant up and down roller coaster.
One of the main points that I understood from this is that they want technology to be accessible to all since it opens the space to being human and feeling human. Basically that to be human you need technology to make you feel whole??? They mention how through technology, the want to get rid of poverty by making everyone rich. I feel that the bigger picture would relate to my film review. As even in the movie, AI is seen as growing human/learning human interactions and feelings. AI showed its power in the film and similarly I feel this article did as well.
When reading this, I assumed that it was a cherry-picked argument that made points supporting technology. I, now, realize that it is purposefully showing an optimistic viewpoint to contrast the common pessimistic view that people have with technology. The movie, “Ghost in the Shell”, can be mistaken as a dark, violent movie that shows the horrors of technology, since the main antagonist is an AI. Some points of this manifesto reflect what is shown in this movie. The technology is helping the city and everyone is efficient, but there are attacks being done on people’s brains due to bugs and AI. In the end, the movie reveals that it is neither good nor bad. Technology reflects human nature and our beliefs. The AI’s goal is to become human, to feel alive. This can be said for everyone on Earth. It’s a fantastic movie with a perfect balance on showing the positive and negative of technology.
It was very interesting to read a perspective on technology that framed it as an ultimate good versus looking at it skeptically like a lot of films that use AI. The Techno-Optimist Manifesto also describes the development of technology as a virtue, and anyone who tries to hinder its growth will cause society to die alongside it. Personally, I tend to view technological developments like AI as neither a neutral, and this it the morality of its uses are situational, which doesn’t seem to be the opinion of the manifesto writers. While “2001: A Space Odyssey” tends to portray AI in a more negative light, I think that the film and the manifesto have more in common than would seem on the surface. Especially in the section “Becoming Technological Superman” the manifesto authors stress the importance of AI to human development in a similar way to the film. The film stresses the need of man to conquer all and to overcome nature in order to progress the development of humanity. The alien super race only reveals itself to humanity whenever it has taken the next step in the process of conquering nature. In the same way, the manifesto preaches these same ideals but views AI as a means to the end. I think that this is the main difference between the film in the manifesto, for the film humanity is meant to conquer all, even technology, while the manifesto that that the ultimate form of conquering is the development and use of AI.
Some feedback given by Dr. Oblivion is to consider that anxiety inducing element that the film gives off and that this may be one of the main purposes of the film. While I agree with this, I also think that the audience of the film needs to be considered. When the film first came out, this anxiety was a Sci-Fi idea, and while it was scary it was definitely still seen as fiction. For a modern viewer, the anxiety is almost undercut by the tangibility of AI as it has already leaked into daily use for many individuals. While I still feel this tension between man and AI, I think it is lessened as I don’t necessarily view it as a monster like the original viewers may have.
When I started reading The Techno-Optimist Manifesto, my first reaction was that this was written by AI or a robot to try to convince humans of their practicality. Once I finished reading it, I looked up the firm that published this article, and was not surprised to find that they are a venture capital firm in Silicon Valley. That made perfect sense to me why, then, it would sound like someone trying to convince me to keep building technology.
My next thought was that a lot of the sentence structures and arguments read like LSAT questions where you have to point out the issue with the argument. For example:
“The socialist USSR was far worse for the natural environment than the capitalist US. Google the Aral Sea.”
I choose answer A: The argument uses one part to justify a conclusion about the whole.
I quite enjoy reading Malcolm Gladwell books, but the issues with them to me is that they are highly anecdotal and have many cherry picked situations to justify his arguments. This doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of his books, but it does remove some credibility from the conclusions. This article reminds me of that style of writing. It includes many quotes from recognizable names and examples of things to support the arguments, but also makes some heavy assumptions, for example:
“The current gap in per-capita energy use between the smaller developed world and larger developing world is enormous. That gap will close â either by massively expanding energy production, making everyone better off, or by massively reducing energy production, making everyone worse off.”
This is a massive assumption to make! Political scientists, along with many others, have been trying to figure out why there is a development gap and how to close it. To assume that the gap will close without a doubt and this author has cracked the code is ridiculous to me.
The Techno-Optimist Manifesto definitely has a more positive view of technology than a lot of films and television shows. I consider myself to be more optimistic about the future of technology and the possibility of AI helping humans significantly in the future. But, this article is rather radical to me, especially since they have a robo-dog in the technology fight.
So I discussed with Dr. Oblivion!
The doc said to make sure to keep the risks of technology in mind. He also mentions that the claim about the current per-capita energy use gap is dubious, and the author makes it a black and white situation despite a significant grey area. Dr. O also mentions the vested interest in promoting technology from many venture capitalist firms and the importance of analyzing the source of each article.
I think Dr. Oblivion and I might be on the same page. Or at least that’s what he’s telling me…
Today, I read the Techno-Optimist Manifesto and it really took me by surprise. It entirely contrasted my views on AI, and completely contrasted the film I watched last week about AI. It made me think a little bit.
The Manifesto is optimistic of AI. It implies using technology to build our near-utopia future. It also explains how we have always used technology to advance, as well as advanced technology, and that this is no difference.
My own personal thought is that I’m still scared of AI. I’m looking at it through the corner of my eye, giving it a little bit of a stink eye. I feel like the Manifesto didn’t touch on the environmental costs of this kind of technology. How are we supposed to save our world using technology that kills our world? Poor people will be put in place to gather the materials to create the technology, and they won’t even get access to the technology. The Manifesto was just too good to be true. It didn’t feel universal. Someone is going to suffer through the technology.
I reflected my concern about the environment to Dr. Oblivion and this is how he responded:
I don’t like this guy.
He seems sarcastic!! I’m asking real questions, not complaining!
I decided to ask a different question, asking about Dr. Oblivion’s thoughts on the ethical concerns with the technology, and here’s how he replied:
I’m glad he agreed with me on this and also felt the concern, asking the the Manifesto addresses these concerns and yearns for fairness in the retrieval of the materials. However, I’m still not convinced that it would work. I’m not sure if these thoughts would even change anything, and that’s what upsets me. It’s not at all fair, it’s inhumane.
Finally, I asked Dr. Oblivion’s thoughts on the Manifesto itself, without asking anything else, and this was his response:
(Dr. Oblivion saying “asterisk sigh asterisk” is very funny to me.)
I like how he is interested in it but cautious. He said to take it with a grain of salt, be cautious of it, and take note of “with great power comes great responsibility.” Maybe me and Dr. Oblivion will be getting along then.
After reading the Techno-Optimist, I have to say there are some interesting points made. For example, the quote “Our civilization is built on technology.” I would agree with this statement. In our everyday life we are surrounded by technology. Our phones are a prime example. We use our phones daily to make calls, text people, gps for direction, and much more. In my opinion a running civilization requires communication with others and technology plays a huge role in that. Another example is cars and vehicles, in our civilization today day we use cars and vehicles to get from point A to Point B. We use them to get to and from work, school, and to carry out daily tasks. I’d say our civilization is definitely built on technology as it is necessary to survive in our day to day lives.
I was curious to see what our fellow Dr. Oblivion had to say about the quote “Our civilization is built on technology.” and here’s what he had to say.
I guess you could say me and Dr. Oblivion are on the same page with this quote. Until next time!
Manifesto is right â This was tough to read. Iâm going to break it down into sections and give my thoughts on each. But I want to be up front that there is an underlying piece that the author forgets⌠people with power and money.
Lies â The author mentions we are being lied to and told that technology is a tapestry of awful and terrible things. I mean, I donât necessarily agree with this. We are learning through new technology that our old technology was doing these awful things like destroying the environment and I stand to say that we are generally hopeful for new technology so we can fix the problems of the old. We are being lied to, I agree, but by the people that profit and want to continue using this old technology. Looking at you oil and coal.
Truth â I will agree our civilization was and is built on technology and innovation. The author maks some good points; we can advance; we have the will. And I would even say that a lot of us are techno-optimists. But optimism does not mean ignoring the bad and having no reservations.
Technology â In this section the author goes over a few things that technology has helped fix like starvation, darkness, cold, heat, pandemics, and poverty⌠donât know about that last one. I agree with the rest, but poverty is still a huge problem and those in it have not had those other problems fixed. The author is clearly speaking from a place of privilege.
Markets â The whole section on markets I think follows the problem that markets have always had. They tout freedom and competition and lower cost and, it seems like it should work. But when corrupt people get involved in this system and are un-regulated things go off the rails. These people ruin the dream of markets for the advancement of technology. The focus isnât on advancement but on money. Wages stay low, prices rise, competitors get absorbed until you have 3 big companies that own everything. I really disagree with the line âMarkets are generative not exploitativeâ. I think they are both. They exploit to generate. So, somebody always gets left behind. The goal of techno optimism should be to advance everyone, not just the few that can afford it.
The Techno-Capital Machine â This section is about how markets and technology make up this symbiotic relationship. But, to piggyback off the last section, I think my point is made when the author writes âThe best and most productive ideas winâ. It is about money not advancement. I was fortunate enough to work at some interesting technology companies and see so many fantastic ideas be shelved because they wouldnât be profitable. Technology that would be widely useable and beneficial to bring up everyone, but it would impede on the profits of the old tech. So, we can tout how great markets are and that we are being lied to and all this nonsense, but it is the few people making money in this world that reap all the benefits and are deciding when and how we advance. All of it based on money, not the greater good or for the sake of advancing. Ill admit, the engineers building and making desire this advancement, I mean, thatâs why they do it. But itâs the people with money, the people in control that are preventing advancement.
Intelligence â Now here is where we get into AI. The author makes some compelling points. I particularly like the line âwe believe AI is our alchemy, our philosopherâs stone â we are literally making sand thinkâ. While this is a fun thought, saying things like âdeaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murderâ seems kind of silly. AI must move slowly since it is as uncharted as space and the deep ocean. You wouldnât just send any old submarine down there, right? You would need mountains of research from all perspectives before you could even consider going down there. Look what happens when you donât: OOPS Notice where it mentions the CEOâs feelings about regulations.
Energy â I donât think much has to be said, I think we all understand our energy situation is bad. I personally think we need to invest more in nuclear and toss fossil fuels aside as soon as possible. The author mentions that is the next step and I agree. I have a fair amount of experience in this area and its not nearly as dangerous as it seems. Maybe Iâm a nuclear-optimist?
Abundance â Is the measure of abundance falling prices? So, then we donât have it right⌠wouldnât a better measure of abundance be that nobody needs to pay for anything, not just lower prices… oh but thatâs right, how is money made when nothing has a price. I think the true goal of technology should be to not leave anyone wanting, not just make things cheaper. Wouldnât it be great to just live your life, provide your service, practice your skill without having to worry about paying for anything? Its just a dream until the greed goes away.
Not Utopia, But Close enough â The author believes they have a constrained vison, but why? The rest of the article is about just having a blowout and going all in on technology, why the sudden reservation? Is it the realization that these same people I have mentioned will try to stop it? MaybeâŚ
Becoming Technological Supermen â Here the author is addressing our desire to conquer and overcome technology. He strongly believes that we cand and will. But he lacks caution. His confidence is so strong that he seems to think he is unstoppable, and we are unstoppable. I feel that we havenât faced the real technological challenge yet, and this type of thinking can become reckless.
Technological Values â In this section he goes over their beliefs. Most of them are fine and make sense for someone who wants to advance technology, but some of them are kind of… I donât know how to describe it. Example: âWe believe rich is better than poor, cheap is better than expensiveâ This is interesting because, the rich donât think cheap is better unless it is putting more money in their pocket aka labor. But they believe expensive is better for their products, so they have large profit margins. That is literally the goal of business. So how can business and markets be the best driver of technology when their goals actively go against this belief⌠just kind of strange to believe both.
The Meaning of Life – This section makes sense, to a point. The goal is to get material abundance for all, so we have the freedom and luxury to live how we want. Again, the market section kind of holds this back because the goal isnât to help everyone, itâs only to help the few. Money drives all and if there are people at the top they will only want more, which means stepping on the weak. All of this is shattered by these people.
The Enemy â I donât think all the things the author mentions are the enemy. I mean a few are like authoritarianism and stagnation etc., but bureaucracy and central planning⌠Bureaucracy may slow things down, but without some guidelines, the people at the lowest rung get hurt even more. Central planning⌠I mean if there is a central global plan for technology development, donât you think having a focused goal would improve cohesion and we could reach those goals sooner? I think it is collective thinking and group work that drives things forward. More people with more ideas leads to more experiments and tests etc. If you have a central plan or guideline for progress, it may take longer for sure, but less people will get hurt along the way.
The Future â Calling for action to be a techno-optimist, to be honest, I think this is techno-extremism. Optimism involves care and planning and teamwork. This doesnât really leave any room for questions, its more of a âthis is how it isâ thing⌠you know… like a manifestoâŚ.
All in all, I think it made some great points, but they fall short of reality. If literally every single person had a desire to move into abundance for all, this type of thinking could work, I think. But too many things are working against it and a lot of it is the people with power and money. There are a few that want to accelerate the process, but they still crush a lot of people along the way. Is that worth it? Not for me to say.
Side things: I used some of this for my class character. Also here is what Dr. Oblivion thinks:
So, this was my rambling for this assignment. I hope it makes sense, if not feel free to let me know in the comments.
Week two for me was a very hard start to the semester. As a senior, college never seems to get easier, I constantly think that my classes will become less stressful and more fun and in my interest. But this week did seem like a lot to me, I am not sure if I just have to get used to the class but I have never been so confused in my time here at UMW. Well, as I have started my final semester, I have already had issues with Mastodon and getting logged in which was extremely stressful since I had to do the daily creates and I couldn’t log in till Wednesday. So unfortunately, I did miss two of the daily creates but I hope to never miss another one!
I will be adding my Daily Creates to my blog for everyone to see! again, I am dearly sorry for not being able to do two of them!
Create your course character?
This was truly confusing to me. I did the google form but I thought I had to create a character of my own? I am still going to “make” a character?…. I hope?
my character idea was like a Blonde Preppy girl but by again, Not sure if that is a course character or not! if anyone would like to clarify the course character assignment please let me know!
As well as Dr. Oblivion, I was confused what I needed to do, so again, I am sorry for not understanding what was supposed to be done, but it was cool to use!
I had asked him “what do you do?” and this is what he had said!
Assignment Banks!
I actually had a lot of fun with these! I was confused AGAIN because I thought those were other students posts and not actually an assignment to do, so that wasn’t clear to me.
I had done the Sports Poster, an animal GIF, and a City Poster!
I hope everyone loves them! I am also a very BIG Taylor Swift Fan so the only sports poster I could think of doing is Taylors Boyfriend lol! I also wanted to make my cat into a GIF so i went ahead and did that as well. Then I just made a FXBG poster because I love it here!….. Sometimes.
readings
In the text, the “Techno-Optimism” philosophyâwhich promotes accepting and promoting technologyâis described. It makes the case that worries about problems like job loss are exaggerated and that technology has traditionally raised living standards and helped people escape poverty. The author thinks that mankind may attain previously unheard-of levels of affluence, plenty, and quality of life with ongoing technological advancement. Growth has no intrinsic bounds, and increased innovation will be used to overcome difficulties going forward. The paper disavows the idea of restricting progress out of prudence. All in all, it encourages a positive assessment of human potential when freed from anti-growth or anti-technology viewpoints.
RE-Write film review of Free Guy
my review on Free Guy I said “for one of my AI films I had watched for week one of my class was âFall Guyâ. I had always gotten told I would love that movie because of my interest in AI and one of my favorite actors is in it, Joe Keery! I think it was such a great film and they added just the right amount of humor of AI as well as the dark side of it. I also loved Ryan Reynolds and how he captured the non emotional AI game into having feeings and wanting to explore more to help his friend. I think it is a lighthearted way to show that AI can develop feelings and maybe some could be nice and be helpful but you never know what could happen.”
to add onto that, I feel Some claim that Free Guy is the first of a planned slate of “kind AI” films that demonstrate how humans and AI entities may coexist. Some claim that the film makes the case that artificial intelligence (AI) can help create a better virtual environment on the internet. Others claim that by demonstrating how millions of interactions are utilized to create training data, which aids in character evolution and behavior improvement, the film serves as a representation of machine learning.
Material abundance allows for opportunities for religion, politics and individual lifestyles. With every advancement comes responsibility, embrace the opportunities that material abundance provides. Strike a balance and protect anatomy. That is the response that I got from Dr. Oblivion to contrast the movie Saturn 3 and the good that technology can be in our everyday lives.
I really enjoyed the Techno-Optimist point of view, but it was clearly very bias to me. Technology is invention, and invention is part of evolution in order to grow and adapt. Part of those consequences have been the loss of jobs, the corruption of children due to sticking an iPad in their face, and at times polluting the environment. Those are not lies, just like it’s not lies that technology has given us all that we utilize to make life easier and better. I view it as simply the tradeoff of growth, therefore it must be monitored (“it” being technology). The advance of technology must not be held in the hands of technology, but in ours. In comparing it to the movie I reviewed, The Creator, the balance of the two views can be seen. As ai in the movie is the thing that destroyed the world, can also be the one that can save it. Dr. Oblivion very much agreed with me as well. His main point was that humans must do two things: stay educated so we do not lose control of the ai technology and also stay connected to each other. Dr. oblivion advised that we weigh the potential consequences of advancing technology before we use it and I couldn’t agree more.
