For Discussion 2, please have a conversation about Reading 2. This will help inform your creative ideas for Writing 2.
What’s missing from the argument between Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil? Whose voices and what positions are not represented? Where can we look for a broader conversation?
If you can find new sources to introduce, please do, but this is not required.
Discussion 2 takes place below. Discussion 2 will officially close on February 29—after the deadline for Writing 2—but it will be most useful if you share your thoughts as soon as possible.
From my perspective, Ray Kurzweil is too positive about the future of technology. He argued that maybe one day we will be replaced by robots. I admit that machines can do our jobs faster and effective. But the future still need us, need humans because human are conscious and we have ability to think. Machines can produce great products but they can not create art. Machines can not write novels. If the robots replace us, the world probably become more effective but more boring. Arts, music and writings make our world colorful.
Hi Yadi,
I was interested by your response to Kurzweli. While he does discuss the (what I think is inevitable) prominence that robots will have in the future as technology continues to rapidly progress, I wonder if you give too much stock to what it means to be “human”. Say these robots were able to develop AI advanced enough to create musical compositions more beautiful than anything you and I could write, or jokes funnier than we would ever imagine. Can you program creativity?
This actually reminds me of Will Smith’s speech from iRobot (“Can A Robot Write a Symphony? “) and the robot’s reply. I think you might be interested in that movie if you want to delve more into this question!
I think this is a great point. The point of human interaction is to foster an organic community that has art, music, and dance. I think if we as a society become to focused with STEM jobs- we’d lose more of our creativity. It’s definitely about finding a balance. Maybe one day robots would have the autonomy to think creatively? But of course this raises many more ethical questions about if we are starting to play God because of our creations of “humanoids”.
I think your perspective on the question is very important because in retrospect humanity would risk losing the artistic/music influenced part of their history. The develop of these fields would stop so I am curious to how the world would fill this creative void thats makes us more human. Also the lack of art would mean more emphasis on things like math/science, which gives more strength to technology.
It is interesting how you viewed Kurzweil’s view on the future as positive. The first time I read the piece I read it as a very pessimistic view of the future of humanity and technology but what you said about his views made me rethink my opinion of the piece. I agree with you when you say that the future needs us especially the part where you say since we, unlike technology, have consciousness. However, in the near future there is going to be technology that makes its own decisions based on its version of consciousness which would be more rational than emotional as opposed to humans. (Things like auto-pilot in self driving cars which may be forced to make decisions when dealing with difficult decisions on whether or not to preserve the vehicle/driver or the outside crowd)
This could result in technology losing its purpose as preserving us and improving our lives. What if technology actually replaces us?
Hi Yadi, I totally agree with your idea, Although the machine and robots could make more efficient product. They do not have thoughts as human. If our world were replaced by machines and robots, the daily life would loss colorful and creative. The robots could only follow the rule and hard to make some creative ideas as human.
Hi rgolinga
I totally agree with you about consciousness. It is really hard to define consciousness or talk about it. Because of the ambiguity of consciousness, ;its of people choose to avoid mention it. But consciousness is still an important part when we talking about robot or technology development. People must be conscious about this problem. Along with technology developing, many issue rise. Human beings must be conscious about thees issues and then try to find solutions.
Hey Yadi, I agree with you but in my opinion, consciousness is perfectly discretizable. What I mean by that is that any decision taking process could be automated by some sort of algorithm and that this process is nothing but positive for society. To defend my posture here, typical examples involving traffic tech may seem to obvious but what about going to the next level ? Political decisions could be perfectly dehumanized and the concept of lobby erased. It may seem pretty strict but I am confident that it would help our society improve in a deeper way.
For this topic, I don’t think that Ray Kurzweil is right in the sense that becoming robots in the future is great and amazing — at least for the most part. Technological advances are always encouraged and should be supported, but I don’t believe that our society should transition into one in which everybody’s a robot. The reason why I believe this is because when there’s technological advances, there’s also a divide between rich and poor. For example, for smart phones, it’s great that these phones can do so much, but only a portion of society actually gets their hands on them and I wouldn’t doubt there would be anything different when it comes to transitioning into a robot. Also in the readings it mentions how humans would have to be slaves to these robots or become dependent on them and that creates a bigger issue of what will happen to mankind. I just think that before we even think about advancing into a different race, I think we should focus on fixing the human race and all of its current issues.
Hi Timmy,
I completely agree with you regarding technology. The greatest monsters in the world are humans and I think we are fixated on the wrong thing. We can see the ever growing divide between the technology developing rich and the technology using poor. The rich will have so much wealth and influence that there will be nothing we can do to stop them. It is important to focus on us first and fix the divide and inequalities we see and experience today rather than being fixated on technology overpowering us.
Hi Nguyen,
I totally agree with you. contrary to someone who thinks technology will bring more convenience and benefits to all people, I believe that it will facilitate the power to impose disasters on the poor. The power will have more power and get richer by using high-tech weapons and systems., which will provide them more ways to make profits and control the world. I think the industrial revolution is a good example in point, which enlarged the gap between poor countries and advanced countries and the have and the have-not.
Hi Timmy,
I don’t think that making everyone a robot is a good idea, but I also don’t think the divide between the rich and the poor would be a substantial issue in the long run. When computers were first created, they were ridiculously expensive and only the rich could afford them. Now, almost everyone has a computer or laptop, or at least access to one regardless of social standing. At first, the new technological advancements will only be available to a select portion of the population, but after a while everything should distribute through the population. The true concerning part is that because everyone would eventually have access to it, this new technology has the potential to reach and cause negative effects on the entire population.
Hello Timmy,
The gap between the rich and the poor is definitely a topic that needs to be discussed more when it comes to futurist ideals. Many theorists fail to include this subject when they think of the possibilities of a certain kind of technology. Accesbility is and still will be a global issue if the notion of equality continues to be outside of the conversation. The idea that humans will be become partly artificial in the future is such a mislead and irrational prediction since it would mean that every individual is required to have some sort of robotic part in them whether it’s for external abilities or the mind itself. However, this is impossible since there will always be people left behind due to the greed of humanity. Humans will definitely cease to advance into a new race if these issues aren’t resolved today. Internet is still a very exclusive privilege for many, even for certain populations here in the United States, a self-proclaimed first-world country that prides itself of its “democratic” society.
I agree with the danger that letting society become fully robotic would bring. The divide for the rich and poor will just becoming larger and harder to surpass. Also with that comes the develop of technology that could only benefit the rich and hurt the poor, but the poor wouldn’t have any say in it because they are not in power. In regards to the comments about slaves I can see this happening but with people who are less wealthy more likely becoming slaves to survive while the upperclass is on the same social level as robots.
I also agree with you on technology not being a replacement for human beings or interpersonal relationships. The divide between the rich and the poor is a great example for this and can be seen today with what you mentioned or even more with more expensive technology such as medical devices and cars. Even today in some countries health care (which is one of the many benefits of advancement in technology) is only available to the rich meaning the poor may perish in sickness. In the future if technology were to replace people, it would have to only include those who can afford it. This would result in there being a divide between the “enhanced” and the poor which may result in violence or even wars possibly wiping the human population out.
I think what’s missing from this argument was the conversation about what exactly consciousness is. It’s such a hard subject to talk about from the beginning because of how complex the idea of consciousness is. If it was possible to download all of the neural pathways of one’s mind into some sort of device that can store that gigantic amount of information, the device itself also needs a quantum-level computer (and massive amounts of power) that would sort the information exactly like how neurons fire signals to each other a million times a second in specific patterns that would lead to one’s thoughts and components of consciousness. In addition, the subject of consciousness is still highly controversial within the scientific community since there are no measurable numbers when observing consciousness in a person. Yes, merging technology with the human body is possible, for the purposes of extending one’s physical limitations or abilities, but merging consciousness with artificial matter is still and will most likely be a feat that only science fiction could solve.
Hi, I agree with your idea on the subjectivity of consciousness completely but it may be interesting to question about the extent of biological consciousness. The point you bring up raises the question to if there is a limit to human consciousness and the extent we can act on this. Like you said the only way to process thing mechanically is with a quantum computer, which do exist today. How will we know if these quantum computers wont go through the rapid evolution that mimics the current binary processors of today. Especially with today, where the focus is now focusing more on the software side of technology and the hardware evolution is slowing down, we need to question if the algorithms possible to make a conscious artificial mind is possible.
I agree but what about the automatisation of decisions ? A real dystopia is in front of our eyes and most of it is basically caused by wrong human decisions. Crime, corruption, climate change; all of them are the fruit of the “biological brain”. A technopositive utopia may never get achieved as the degree of human involvement is hardly eradicable. Nevertheless, the impact of such an obvious malfunction of society could be easily redirected by decision making machines. The social impact of a decision is discretizable and therefore a regression model can always be applied to minor its drawbacks. This process
could be easily supervised in its basis without interrupting in the decision itself. It would clearly make the society advance.
I like your argument. Technology depends on numbers, facts, and important data that can produce an effective machine. Consciousness is one thing that goes against these things. Unless, we look at our brains with the machine-body perspective. The brain can be seen as a mere mechanical machine that uses stored data within neurons that fires in order to send messages to the rest of the body. Personally, I don’t think it’s possible. Even with different point of views or arguments, the mind is one organ that counteracts all numbers, facts, or data. It is constantly growing in plasticity and it is created to fit within the capacity of each respective human being. Machines don’t grow.
I did not see if anyone already talked about this but I would like to address the laboring part that is missing from the conversation. More specifically, subjective labor such as art, literature, music, dance, and drama. As an art major, many technological advancements concern me a little. If I hope to get to work for a company like Disney Animation, showing traditional media in my portfolio just won’t cut it anymore. I need to show digital work and sooner or later I must learn to 3D model. These still require a person skilled at rendering and trained or experienced with traditional media but technology is getting to a point where a lot that required an artist’s creativity can be programmed and then the whole point of the artistic part of the profession sort of fades- that part being the humanity behind artistic concept. The mind that thought up the concept even through machine. How much of it will be left in this sort of future? Same goes for music. Hunter’s presentation showed us that the musician is optional but is preferred for performance reasons, but what about Hatsune Miku? She’s a 3D simulated humanoid who dances without motion capture and sings in front of live audiences.
I definitely agree with you Melissa. I don’t think that robots are able to create art and music for the reason that they’re generating work through what has been seen or done. Art is something that is supposed to make you feel and invoke thought and emotion so for that reason the future of cannot solely be based on robots because we lose a part of humanity. Maybe it will be possible for humans to create art with the assistance of robots. In my opinion a robot being creative does take away from the artistic part of life whether it be painting, drawing, singing, making music, or dancing.
Hi Melissa,
I definitely agree with your idea of losing labors in the art field because of the technology advancement. Since I am a Film and media major student and a person who needs to be creative to be a creator, I have the same problem. I want to have a job such as making an advertisement or a film, but I have heard that there is an AI which can create those artworks. Now AI is creative and it is possible to create a new thing based on the previous works. I was so shocked and surprised when I heard it. I believed that human being is the only existence that can think and create a new thing, however, AI could do the same thing like a human. It is scary.
Hi, Melissa, I agree with you. However, I am just wondering what if technology can be so powerful that it allows a machine to think like a human and to create artworks that can produce the sense beauty which is same as that of humanmade works. For example, what if a robot possesses the ability to predict what human beings will like by analyzing the masterpieces of previous artists, and create new artworks based on the data they collect. At that time, can we really distinguish the works made by robots and human beings?
Hi Melissa,
I really enjoyed your post and It is definitely something we have to consider. I mentioned in my paper also about the fact that as technology starts to improve, it will not only affect our day-to-day lives, but also affect our future, it terms of possible jobs and careers. Technology is so advanced, it has already replaced job in medical and engineering fields, and as it keeps improving, it will keep replacing more jobs and affecting the stabilities of individuals.
Hi Melissa,
I never thought about it from that perspective and I’m glad you brought it up because I think it is a really important point for people to begin thinking about. We don’t realize that technology has an influence on nearly everything, and its almost like the authenticity and raw emotion from creativity is getting lost in technological advances.
Hi Melissa,
I agree that we need our minds in order to express our own creativity. Every single one of us are able to express how we feel in different ways, whether it’s through art, sports, cooking, etc. There isn’t such thing as two minds being the exact same, but that’s what makes this world grow. Because we are all so different, we are able to develop new invention or ideas and opinions. If we were all to turn into robots, we would all think the same, causing the society to function as a system rather then a community. Robots wouldn’t be able to express their creative minds in the same way because they tend to be more structured and one minded about topics.
I believe that what is missing from the argument of Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil is the shades of gray in between. I agree that the future holds many circumstances in which humans will become too dependent on machines and that this dependency will inevitably create our destruction and shift humanity into possibilities and decisions we cannot imagine. Even though both Joy and Kurzweil point out great arguments, they only point the tip of the iceberg and not what is underwater. For instance, the video game Horizon Zero Dawn predicts a future where humanity almost became extinct by a war against machines, yet it was the machines created by humans that allowed for humanity to continue to exist in the distant future in a stone age like era. The views missing is of those who believe that humanity will control and assert the dominance over Artificial Intelligence and machines without giving the power or depending entirely on machines. The views of the idealistic and surreal minds that predict a future in which machines learn to become human and probably have more human compassion than most humans do not have. We can look into children/teens and their thoughts about the future with machines and AI to see how they express the world in an optimistic and some can say utopian manner.
Hi Erick, I agree with what you have pointed out here! I think you are correct in that the argument is missing those shades of grey in between. It’s hard to believe that the world would jump straight into AI/robots/machines taking control. Technology is leading to amazing advancements which can better humanity, but this does not necessarily mean humanity is becoming fully dependent upon technology. I do think however that it is hard to distinguish some shades of grey between ‘technology is helpful’ and ‘we are dependent upon technology’.
Hi Erick,
I definitely agree with you. Although it is easy to get carried away with technology and what it might lead to, I think it’s safe to say only the future will tell. For example, the horrible dystopian future that is sometimes predicted could very well come true, however, people could also understand the physical health implications of technology. In this case, the use of technology might fade slightly, or maybe even stay where it is.
Hi Erick Samano,
I agree with your idea that people become more dependent on the technology. However, I somehow disagree with your idea that “the machines created by humans that allowed for humanity to continue to exist in the distant future.” Although machines are create by human, people cannot predict what happen in the future. Just like the mutation of cell. We have seen in a lot of movies. An AI have their own thinking as the time pass by. As AI becomes more similar to human, it has greater possibility to take some shortcomings that human has.
I think what’s voices are missing are those who this advanced technology would help the most. We should look for disabled or challenged people who are knowledgeable on this subject to give their opinion on what the impact of future technological advancements. By listening to these voices, we will gain insight into how much this technology can help people and, more importantly, improve their quality of life. For those of us who have no disabilities, we fail to look at this grim potential with an open view of how it can help people overall.
I can see where you’re coming from. We should be able to take into consideration different perspectives of various people and how these technological advancements can help a variety of people rather than the upper class who can afford these technological advancements. We should consider if these technological advancements are beneficial to certain groups of individuals rather than making the assumption that technology benefits the entire society.
We should definitely consider different perspectives when choosing how to advance with technology, I agree, but I think that regardless of their opinions, having them transition or become robots or gaining these types of technologies could be even more costly on their end on top of any other possible medical bills that they may have. In my opinion, I feel that it’s just going to lead to a bigger rich vs. poor situation.
I can find middle ground between your argument and mine. However, the brain is a dynamic organ that uses organic matter in order to function perfectly. Even if an individual is disabled, their brain is still functioning and their body highly depends on how the brain functions. If we begin to add technological devices into the brain, there is no promise that it will match well with the organic compounds within the brain. Each chemical works within different respective environments. How can we create a device that : 1.) can grow on its own 2.) can produce organic chemicals that match the brain.
Hi Araceli,
I think that you have a good point about the affordability and accessibility of technology. The utopia that society will live in would only work if everyone would be able to afford to fuse with machines. I do think that as technology becomes more advanced and easier to produce, machines will become readily accessible to the general population and impact everyone. Of course, even in the future, not everyone is going to own a machine or decide to fuse with one because each individual is unique, but due to conformity and societal standards, it is very likely that a majority of the population will be unable to live without machines or technology in one way or another. Thus, it is all the more imperative that we help one another become less reliant on technology as soon as possible.
Between Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil, what ws missing in their argument was that they never really addressed the good or bad results from the influence of technology. In their article, they mentioned how technology reached a point of no return and how it has brought about good and bad to today’s society. Their argument also lacks voices and perspectives. They generalized people and their take on technological advancement but they do not mention specifically the types of people they are. This is a trend in Joy and Kurzweil’s writing. Looking more broadly, I feel we could look at how technology can influence and help globally by helping people in developing countries. How can we help those in need with our technological advancements? These kinds of ideas are where I think we should all be thinking with technological advancements in the future. Helping those in need and in developing countries instead of always trying to upgrade what we already have.
Sienna ,
I also agree with you how Joy and Kurzweil failed to address the good or bad results from the influence of technology. Although it was assumed in the article that they both saw technology as a negative influence on society, they did not consider how technology has simplified our lives in so many ways. Although it may be difficult to direct our use of technology in certain ways, I also agree that our technological advancements can help people in developing countries.
Hey Michelle,
I couldn’t agree more with you. They totally skip the point of what technology gives to us in a positive interpretation. Humans can be well understood as thinking beings (as Rousseau used to point), but their reasoning skills are to be improved and why not letting machines fill the gap. The automation power that machines give us is a thing to consider and we shouldn’t stick to a biased representation of machines.
Hi Sienna,
I also agree with the points you make. The execution of each argument was not a good representation of the whole population. There was lack of perspective and there is a lot of potential for technology to change peoples lives for the better. You have emphasized these points really well and have brought up good points on how to approach this topic with an open mind.
Thank you, Sienna for your opinion. I agree with you that the argument between Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil failed in describing the effects that arise from the influence of the technology. They denoted that the advancement and application of technology may have adverse results, but this was not enough to defend their argument. I feel that they should have discussed the consequences of the technology broadly. It would give pros and cons to determine whether certain aspects of technology are necessary for a particular field. I second you that the conversation between the two should have outlined the people and their perception of technological advancement. They should have highlighted how the targeted people have responded back to technology from the past. I would advocate that the proposed advancements in technology focus on introducing the solution to social problems such as healthcare and disaster management in developing countries rather advancing in weapons of war.
Hi Sienna,
I agree with you that the two author focused mainly focused on the negative impact of technology and did not address the good that technology has brought to us. Most important, the articles did not provide the many hidden factors of the people that are using these technology that are causing the negative impacts of using technology. I think that technologies help us so much in our daily lives. For instance, our smartphones, we need them everyday for basic communication or even trying to get to a location by using the GPS on our phone. I also agree with your idea of helping third world countries with our developing technologies rather than trying to upgrade and surpass the technologies we have today to help the advanced country to be even more advanced.
I agree where you say they didn’t discuss much about the good or the bad influences but in the case of Bill, i think it is because he assumed of a future where the possibility of being saved was passed. In his eyes he though of it like as soon as the process of replacement started, it would become irreversible. He said this to the point where he outlined one possibility that technology might literally kill off all inefficient human beings. This is probably because they assume once it starts there is no path to return.
Hi Sienna,
I agree with you in that Joy and Kurzweil very much seem to generalize all people into one big group. They could have recognized different groups and voices and perspectives which would have given their articles more credibility rather than generalizing all people. Technology affects all people indeed, but in very different ways. I also like how you bring up the fact that we keep upgrading ourselves but fail to expand that beyond our own possession to other countries who need it.
I agree that with all the talk of technology and how it could help the world thrive in better conditions vs how it could be the downfall of the human race, there was never any solid evidence of how it could do either. As of now it seems like most opinions, including mine, come from personal preference and experience which is not enough to make such broad claims. I think that the opinions of Joy and Kurzweil bring to light the thoughts of many people and give ideas to make change, but can’t be taken in literal sense. I also agree that the discussion on technology could be moves towards helping less developed countries or helping the poor.
*Accidentally responded to last year cooment*
By Hunter Meurrens: I agree with your statement here it seems we are so focused with the advancements of technology that maybe we should only focus on things we absolutely need or else the other impacts of these things will threaten us more than everyone thinks.
My response: Building off of Hunter, it is important to keep in mind with the advancements of technology to focus on the needs versus the wants of humankind. If we were to keep the machines to a limited skill set, we prevent the possibility of manipulation and takeover by them. Unfortunately, with the endless possibilities it is unlikely that these inventions will just stop there, unless the government is smart enough to realize the in-evident dangers that are associated and put restrictions.
*Accidentally responded to last year’s post*
By Tyanna Bui: I definitely agree with Yi’s post. There are many other social problems and common people’s opinions that needs to be considered in order to close the gap in Joy and Kurzweil’s views of technology. For example, yes, our society may end up relying on technology to function our basic and complex needs, and in some people’s opinions, it may be seen as a bad thing, but to others, it can be seen as a good thing. Maybe the common person does not have the time to clean their apartment with two very messy children, so instead of the parents cleaning it up, a machine does. In this example, it can be beneficial for the parent’s to rely on this technology, but not for an unemployed housemaid. Toggling between if technology is indeed good or bad for us, in my opinion, depends on the status and economic position of the person.
My response: Hello Tyanna, I really appreciate your busy parent and housemaid analogy, very effective. It got me thinking, no matter our economic status, our ethnicity, or gender, technology has huge potential to be negative. For the maid, it is the potential of her not being able to make a living, for the parents it is the chance of the machine accidentally hurting their children or merely the impression on the children of people not having any responsibly since they have a robot to do all their dirty work. And it doesn’t just stop there. First it is a simple machine that cleans, then it begins to talk, and before you know it, it looks human like and starts making personal connections with it’s owner. Lastly, it begins to do what Joy and Kurzweil fear, it starts to feel like it has been neglected and soon wants to take control. Seems like a dramatic story line from a movie, but unfortunately with our advances, these far fetched ideas can easily become reality.
*Accidentally responded to last year’s post,*
By Yi Dou: Bill Joy’s article and Ray Kurzweil’s interview seems only focused on either good or the bad side of new technology. As part, maybe pinners of the rapid technology development, they both think that new technologies will change the life of all human beings in the future. Their expectation about new technologies is a background they did not include in their article and interview. They may sounds like they are in the opposite sides but that does not make their arguments perfect when we combine them. We have only heard the voice of engineers and inventors, but not people that’s not in this creator field. There are many sophisticate problems like social structure or labor force in the future that could give Joy and Kurzweil’s battleground, a setting of society with future life-changing technology, a delay of decades. The voice of the major part of the community also needs to be heard.
My response: Hello Yi, I would like to build off your statement about how these opinions from Joy and Kurzweil lack the voice from those “not in the creator field.” I think that is a poor choice of word because “creator” can have a wide range of definitions. I think it would be better to refer to this group as non STEM enthusiasts. An important group that comes to mind are artists. Specifically artists that don’t particularly thrive off the idea/use of technology. Think about it, a lot of artists feed off of raw, authentic, beautiful sources, sources that evoke true emotions and thoughts about the little things in life. In other words they get inspiration from the uniqueness of the human mind and body, the natural growth and display of nature. Now fast forward to 2030, images of machines everywhere made of nuts and bolts, functioning off of pre-programmed thought processes with such fake and emotionless demeanor. People walking around with their artificial intelligence, almost as boring as watching that fruit timelapse instead with artificial fruit. The most excitement would be the collection of dust. In conclusion, let’s hear from these people, people who will lose what they find most precious to life.
I think it’s interesting how Bill Joy states that, if people today were to be living without machines and technology that they would come to the point of suicide. I don’t know if that would be totally true because I feel like suicide has more reason to it rather than just the fact that there is or isn’t technology. Ray Kurzweil also talked about how in the future humans and machines were going to fuse together, although I think that this is possible I feel like it still would take a really long time because not everyone would be able to afford to fuse into a machine. I think there would have to come a point in which fusing into a machine would be affordable/accessible to everyone, which can then maybe lead to the immortality and all that utopia Ray believes in.
Hey Araceli, I agree what you are saying. Suicide will only occur if that particular person rely on electronics too much. Like you say, technology is just a type of “add-in” in our lives, we should learn to live even without technologies. Having a machine that fuse into our brain is just not that easy, there are a lot of research needed to be done especially the brain machine interface. Not only this feature needs the knowledge of computer engineering, but it also involve biomedical, electrical, mechanical, neuroscience and even computer science majors.
I totally agree with your point. Technology doesn’t really determine one’s decision to commit suicide, unless they were being forced to or encouraged to OR dependence on them, definitely an interesting point mentioned by Bill Joy. Access to these resources and technology is definitely a must in order for all of society to transition, but I don’t believe there’s ever going to be a way in which everyone will be able to because of the society we live in. I think Ray makes it difficult to believe in the utopia he presents because it sounds too good to be true. It’s hard to say if it is going to be like that or not, but from my sociological side, unless we do something about the economic strains and power structure of our society, I don’t think it will be a utopia for everyone — maybe just those who have the resources to actually transition and get with the times.
Hi Araceli,
I really enjoyed your comment and I agree with you. However, I think Bill Joy had a point about suicide. The cost of living for an average middle class american is pretty high with the salary they earn now. And if robots were to keep improving and take over jobs, many americans will not have jobs. At that point, the cost of living will be much higher because of the involvement of technology and with no job, the person might want to give up because they cannot find a way out.
Hi Araceli,
I do agree with you, it seems that Joy places SO much, almost way too much, emphasis on how important technology is in todays world. People could very much live without machines and technology, we did it in the past and we could do it now. There is some undeveloped countries that do live without the technology we in first world countries live with. What Joy says is quite the exaggeration.
Hi Araceli,
I think so. Bill Joy’s this point of perspective expand too much negative effect of electronics and people who want to suicide not only due to the lack of electronic using but also due to other life or emotional factors. In fact, to fuse into machine, there must be a long time period depend on the income level of the whole society, the technology process and acceptability of people.
Hi, I agree with your idea. Some peopld focus too much on the negative impact on technology, especially some people think it is relative with suicide rate, It is unfair to conclude that these two factors have close relationships. Technology benefits our life and makes it more efficient and convenient. Hence, we should also take into account how technology benefit us.
Personally I found it very interesting to learn about the perspective of these two individuals. My take away from their discussion was more of a negative tone about the future and our faith as humanity with technology. Although, they both make great statements towards having fear about the future, it does make me realize that the future also holds positive aspects to it aswell. I feel that as humans, we always have that innate instinct to think about the negatives and not focus on the positives. Yes, I do believe that technology holds capabilities that we as humans cannot achieve. However, like in the animal kingdom the term symbiosis can apply here. Meaning that we both depend among each other, I feel that technology depends on us in terms of receiving orders in order to operate to its full capacity where as we depend on it for its benefit and help. Personally, I am optimistic about the future, regardless of the criticism or negative outlook towards it.
You make a very interesting point about the articles only pointing out the negatives in technology. I agree with you that we tend to look at the negatives and overlook the positives and that seems to be tone of the articles. Even though technology has brought upon a lot of negatives and is probably going to cause more dangerous situations in the future, it has done a lot of positives also. Without the advancement of technology, a lot of diseases that are easily cured today would be fatal to us. t
Technology has also enabled us to enhance our own abilities just like you mentioned in many ways. This can be seen in many industries such as the automobile, air travel, health, and many other industries.
Michael
I appreciate your optimism about the future and I also agree with you that the two individuals had a negative attitude about the future and our faith in humanity. Technology can be both beneficial and harmful, depending on how we use it. It is ultimately up to us to determine how we use and limit technology. In the article, the two do not give technology enough credit for how much it has changed our lives for the better. Today, it is rare for someone not to have a smart phone because we use it for everything.
Hi Michael
Your opinion is an impressive contribution to this discussion. I concur with your perception of future aspects of the technology. The conversation between the two had a negative tone about the advancements of technology. Technology is soaring higher levels each morning, and it is unstoppable. However, I feel that scientists and innovators need to access what are the negative effects a technological idea would pose to the society before launching their final product. There are various ways for testing a prototype, this would hint at negative effects. I agree with you that there is mutual interdependence between human and the machines. Technology could give us machines that are would work with precision and consistency as opposed to the human. Such benefits should not instill fear in humans as the machines would not fully replace human manual work. I believe at the end technology will present many benefits in future to society.
I agree with you and how you mentioned that you got a negative tone with the perspectives presented because I did too since Bill Joy makes it seem like its horrific and Ray Kurzweil makes it seem like it’s a utopia, but it also sounds too good to be true since nothing is ever perfect. And interesting point when mentioning how technology depends on us, but the thing with that is if humans and technology merge into one, then that presents problems because humans have the ability to think and react and are equipped with tools outside of a normal human’s capabilities. I agree that technological advances are great, but when it comes to making one thing stronger within its own kind, it might cause issues amongst those who are lesser than. However, if we are optimistic and looking at the bright side, we would have to hope that those who do transition or become robots or have access to these machines would have a good heart in deciding what happens to humans.
Hi Michael,
I agree with you in that technology does have functions that humans cannot necessarily achieve. However, I also believe that the way human brains work is that it has the ability to think outside of the box and repair itself in a way that technology cannot. I believe that with every increase in technology also represents humans becoming more intelligent because we are the ones creating the robots.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil bring up interesting arguments regarding the future of technology. Technology is bound to exponentially grow, as Kurzweil mentioned, and throughout the podcast he was featured in there seemed to be some negative undertones to his prediction. We are going to transform into a post information era for the good or for the worse and humans are naturally going to fear something that they cannot control. There have been various films and television shows that depict a world where machines make the calls which may have aided in the fear that some people have but we should not let that stop us from progressing.
I agree with your point Julie. Technology will grow whether we like it or not. We won’t know what we’re getting ourselves into until we’re already in it. In the world we live in today, technology basically already controls our lives and we aren’t doing anything to stop it, so what’s going to change in the future when technology becomes more advanced?
Hey Julia,
Crime, corruption, climate change; all of them are the fruit of the “biological brain”. A technopositive utopia may never get achieved as the degree of human involvement is hardly eradicable. Nevertheless, the impact of such an obvious malfunction of society could be easily redirected by decision making machines. The social impact of a decision is discretizable and therefore a regression model can always be applied to minor its drawbacks.
Hi Julie,
I agree with your idea on how technology is bound to exponentially grow. In the future, I think machines and robots will have a great influence on human’s life. We can see that progression even right now – technology develops every single year.
Hi Julie,
Technology develops rapidly and it’s hard for us to see the clear direction of its development and its all effects on the future. However, I think technology provides us more benefits and let’s see how technology will change later.
First of all, the voices present in the argument are predominantly white and male. They come from cultures that are already saturated with technology while many places in the world are still developing and still lack the luxury of modern conveniences of 20-30 years ago. For a broader conversation, I would want a greater diversity of opinions within age, race, and gender. Secondly, I would ask the opinion of those who do not live in first world countries and find their viewpoint from a culture that does not rely on technology as much.
Hi Kavya,
I agree that diversity in expert opinion is important. In the field of computer science research, white males tend to be in the majority. It would be helpful to hear from computer scientists from other countries and from different backgrounds to see if their outlooks are different (i.e. less individualistic than the U.S.). However, I am not sure how helpful it would be to hear from people that do not specialize in fields related to computer science or medicine. Bill Joy’s prior experience in coding gave him credibility to speak about artificial intelligence. Diversity is always important in forming a well-rounded opinion, but I would not agree that we should simply overlook the opinions of experts in the field just because they are not racially diverse.
Joy and Kurzweil bring up interesting points when discussing that humans will never stop looking for ways to improve our current technologies and soon, artificial intelligence will ultimately supersede human understanding. At this point in time who’s to say that thihs technology won’t become intelligent enough to turn its back on the creator. What they fail to integrate into their discussion is the notion that only few will have access to this technology and therefore it would be difficult to assume that A.I. will take over the world and all human life as we know it. As far fetched as it may seem, in the distant future if A.I. is more normalized and available to everyone it seems possible it takes over the world. However until then it seems more realistic that we will continue to make advances that benefit us and future despite the risks associated.
Hi CJ,
I think you bring up a great point. Being scared of artificial intelligence is nothing new, especially if you look at Frankenstein and how that was received. There are many questions that loom, such as those you posed. Because of the first laws of robotics, I do not think that the creator would be put in any harm. But I do think that advances will continue, and like you said, benefit us.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil both talk about very extreme points in their works. Both arguments fail to address the opinions of the many affected by the technological advances both positively and negatively. Their voices aren’t really represented because the focus is mainly on the very few who have access to these technological advances. Those who tend to most need these advances are often at a disadvantage because they can’t afford it. They don’t really have much of a say when it comes to possible access because their voices are less likely to be listened to. In an effort to look towards broadening the conversation, it’s possibly best to include those with actual needs that our current technological advances can provide the most help for and give them the opportunity for better access in order to best fit them. Costs make it difficult but to start looking for possible ways to make these advances cost effective while still instilling the same quality is the main goal.
Hi Karlyle,
I agree with the point you make here. It is so true that their voice aren’t really represented. To make this article more convincing, they really have to address more on things that will happen for real in the future, but not things that are hard to imagine for most of normal people, such as half robotic brain.
Hey Carlyle,
I couldn’t agree more with you in that sense but I would like to point out that even if you don’t have access to most of the technological advances, they will sill have an impact in your life.
There is a well-documented “digital divide” between rural and urban areas when it comes to broadband access but that doesn’t mean that rural areas are less affected by the technological impact. The way the world runs depends on those variables and then, having access to technology or not doesn’t really change the way you are affected by it.
Hi Karlyle, I actually something pretty similar in my post discussing the topic of those individuals who will be at a disadvantage and won’t be able to even obtain that technology. This would then create a gap in society in which the poor and rich are separating much much faster than ever before. I really like the idea you brought up about incorporating technology that is actually going to help those the need it because I believe we’ve been improving technology to benefit those that already have what they need, we need to actually start focusing that same research and money on technology that will benefit those that need it.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzwell raised great arguments against the advancement of technology. The only piece of information missing from their argument is a counter argument. Joy and Kurzwell both stand as the extremes in society’s view of technology’s overrun of humanity. To strengthen their claims, they must state an argument against their owns and then solidify their ideas by arguing against opposing claims. They are missing the voices of the middle ground and the opposite extreme of the argument.
I agree. I wish they had at least mentioned the other side’s arguments, in order to cover more ground. I feel that persuasive essays that don’t mention the other argument are not very persuasive. Even if they did mention the other argument and disagreed with it, they could poke holes in it that would solidify their stance, as you said.
I agree with you that if Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil did a great job in arguing how advanced technology may take over and ruin humanity but they can strengthen their claim by bringing a counterargument in the introduction. In this way, the audience can have more comprehensive view on this subject.
Hi Koby. I completely agree with you in that they need something to strengthen their argument and that would be through the use of a counter argument. I great one would be to introduce the idea of this technology being beneficial to humanity instead of harming it by helping those in need.
Hi Koby,
I agree with you because I believe that both of them should have considered the opinions of others into consideration. They only stated what they thought based on biased point of views. However, if they were to consider different point of views from others that view technology from different standpoints, it would result in a different approach. If they were to sound more persuasive, they must be able to point of viewpoints from different perspectives and tackle it from there instead of just approaching it one way.
Overall, I think that Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy made really strong points about the advancement of technology. However, I feel that both scholars were so engaged in their own research that they have forgotten to include how the rest of society feel about the advancement of technology in their argument. Therefore, what is lacking in Kurzweil and Joy argument is the voice of the people. Especially, those who are unfamiliar in their field. In Joy’s article, it seems to me that he only expresses his own fear of robots in the future are capable of taking over the human species. While Kurzweil, who has this incredible vision of nano-robots, only focuses on the possibility of how these advancements can immortalize mankind. Both of these individuals are great at depicting their vision and perspectives. But, I also believe that their argument can be considered a little bias since there seems to be no other input from the public.
Hi Gia Duong, you raise a good point. I was just thinking about how there is so much technology we currently have and benefit from as “the public” and I saw a problem. Earlier this year, I went to Lens Crafters for my yearly check up and the optometrist asked me if I would like to have my eyes dilated with eyedrops or with digital retina machine. The dilating eyedrops are the traditional, cheaper option that require you to wear the black film after. The machine required nothing going in my eye nor any lingering after-effects but of course it was pricier. My insurance only covered so much so I had to pay for this and I chose the digital retina exam. However, I know the affordable option is the traditional option. That all being said, what about in 2030 when we have all this new technology and there is still a middle and lower middle class that cannot benefit from it because, lets face it, all that new technology will have new price tags. What will insurance cover?
Hi Gia,
I agree, I definitely believe when I read the article that Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy were so focused and engaged in their own research and didn’t focus on how to include the rest of society’s feelings about the advancement of technology. Ray and Bill only focus on their aspects as authors and it is only opinionated toward their views. It is important to hear from other people from other societies to see their opinion in the topic and those who understand less of the topic. Both are very knowledgable of their topic and show how each perspective is significant.
Hi Gia,
I do agree with you on that both disregarded the opinions of others. Although it may be important, I feel they were focusing more on what they believe the direction of the advancement of technology was going towards. Of course it is the opinion of their own based on experience and ideas, I agree with you that they should also consider other people’s opinions. They go on to talk about how advancement of technology can be a scary thing because we use them for the wrong reasons. We can only see the outcome of this advancement through time and how we go about handling these situations. The opinions of others may change their perspective on this but I don’t think it would have that big of an effect because they seem very adamant on their stance on technology.
In the article, the idea about technology is emphasized by both Kurzweil and Joy, where Joy focuses on the progression of technology and how it could leave to overpowering humans. Kurzweil on the other hand talks the progress of certain non biological intelligence. I agree with Kurzweil argument about technology because he provides valid reasons on how advancing technology is necessary for the future and how helpful it can be. Joy focuses on the negative and unrealistic future of robot and technology taking over. Joys thought on how dependent humans can and have gotten on technology is true but the reason this happens is because we as humans have to evolve and progress. The we have become dependent on technology but technology has become depend on us, if we don’t progress with learning then technology cant advance because it would be left behind to not be used.
Hello Jose!
I feel like Kurzweil’s argument is a negative extreme but with the direction that we are headed, this is a possible outcome. It is true that as life goes one, so does our progression as humans and with that comes technological advances. Yes, it is true that there is a dependence on technology, and yes technology does depend on humans to advance and improve with time. I find it interesting that you bring that up because this shows that it’s important to find the balance between human dependence on technology in order to most effectively utilize the current advances we are making. One thing that humans have over robots, thus far, is that we are able to have emotions (well most of us are able to), however, with the new inventions such as Sophia, it’s very easy to let these advances corrupt the human race and be swayed to feel the need to depend on these things just because they exist.
Hey Jose,
Both propose opposing viewpoints on the advancement of technology. Joy mentions how humans have become reliant on the advancement but this may instead result into something worse than what it is intended to be. I feel that technology is becoming advanced too quick for us to catch up to and may backfire against us in the future. However, Kurzweil talks about how advancing technology may be beneficial and necessary. I believe advancement of technology is good for us as long as we regulate it and don’t abuse it. We need to be educated on how to properly use them so we don’t become too reliant.
Hi Jose,
I like your summary of the two points that the authors have to offer. I could understand Joy’s side of technology taking over because gradually, it has replaced humans in many jobs as technology can easily handle simple tasks. However, I do not believe that the technology will have a brain of its own, because ultimately it is us who programs them. Our generation should be proud and accomplished of the work we have created so far, and I believe that the future is promising and rich in the advancement of technology.
I completely agree wit you Cheryl! I feel like most people tend to forget that it is us, the humans, who program the “brains” of these powerful technology that are seemingly taking over the world. I believe that technology is helping us for the better and that most of the time, any time we feel like a piece of technology may be doing something bad, it is mainly due to the creator behind it. It reminds us of what we talked about in lecture as to how robots can be created to help us, but cannot really hurt us unless we program it to do so; the only other harmful effect I could think of is a bug in the device. Either way, I totally agree with you that the future truly seems promising and will be rich and full of technology as it continues to advance and spread around the globe.
Ray Kurweil takes the optimistic approach from the technological advances and presumes a utopian life for the future, he mentions that society has been making extraordinary advances in the recent decades and predicts that new inventions will keep emerging. He sees the best scenario with improvements in many fields such as medicine, evolution, etc. In the other hand Bill Joy presents the opposite approach by depicting his discomfort for the uncontrollable growth of technological advantage, he even believes that in the future our brains will not be 100 human. He believes that our society is not prepare to face the consequences of an artificial brain that could behave as a human, which eventually could take over our own world. Although both arguments have some valuable points, we need to be coherent and understand that we are not going live a utopia live or that our own creations will destroy human kind, we are developing new technologies which will allows us to improve our life and this constant growth will make the best of our life for the moment.
Hey Alberto, I like your concise breakdown of each person’s point of view and how you tied it in with your beliefs at the end. However, you said that people need to understand that although technological advancements are constantly growing, the developments improve our life in the moment. I think this is one reason why people like Bill Joy are scared for the future, because technology will constantly grow while the average person only thinks about his/her current life. There are always apps updating itself and people catching up to the update, getting used to it, and then the process happens again. If technology were to keep advancing without us properly keeping an eye on it, then we might just end up in a place where people’s consciousness end up in a non-biological body. Therefore, I think people should understand scientists and engineers have good intentions and understand the risks of developing such advanced technologies.
Hi Alberto,
Both Kurweil and Joy are on opposite sides of the spectrum and I can see in your last statement that you were inserting the voice of the people. Although the voice of the people is necessary in the advancement of technology, I do think it’s important to acknowledge the concerns that are presented by Joy. After reading his article, I realized that we do need to take precaution when it comes to advancements in technology because the result is man-made. We have yet to gone as far as robots taking over the world and humans going extinct but as you can see from the last discussion, society is contemplating on how great smartphones are.
I believe that Kurzweil’s argument is assuming the fact that every person in society will accept this transition into merging the human brain with technology. This change won’t come free of expense, thus leaving those who cant afford it to be put at an extreme disadvantage. This would create an even greater division between wealth classes since they will be able to live and function at a higher efficiency. Perhaps we need to look into other books explaining the sociological affect this technology would have in order to reach other audiences.
That is a really interesting point that you bring up. A lot of people talk about the biological impacts that technology could have. As in our lives can be extended and even half our brain would be replaced, but nobody talks about the social impacts that technology would have. I feel like it is mentioned, but it is never explicitly discussed. I am reminded of a Hunger Games type of dystopian society. The rich and privileged are fine and thrive in that type of society but it is the poor and neglected who struggle to survive. If humans really do become half robot, half human then seriously, what happens to those who are unable to afford it? Rather than a survival of the fittest, its more like survival of the richest…
This is one of the more interesting points that have brought up in this discussion. I do agree that while we should fear the possible outcome that the exponential growth of technology may one day be out of human control, we should also observe the type of access that this required to acquire this type of technology. In hindsight, it is easy to see that the rich and powerful will be able to gain full access to the latest technologies. Thus, the wealth gap will widen as technology advances.
Another possible outcome could be that as the latest advancements in technology will be obtained by the rich, the “old” tech will be handed down to the lower classes. Thus Kurzweil’s argument becomes more plausible in that many people in society will accept the transitions that emerge.
In either case, there should be a discussion of power. I am most interested in how power is transferred from each type of technology. Michele Foucault often talks about biopower, in which people in power will have control over other bodies. In this case, the concern for biopower is most relevant in a literal sense as Kurzweil assumes that human brains will be merged with nanotechnology.
If you think about it, we’re using our laptops to type in our answers. Think about how effective our technological advancements have become. 80% of my personal entertainment includes some sort of gadget. According to our weekly readings, technological advancement may create a prosperous and successful utopian-like lifestyle for society. In fact, it is happening now. Technology allows human lives become easier to live. However, we’re not truly depending on our devices, we can always shut our gadgets down when we need to. Technological advancements will one day create a beautiful metal future for the coming generations.
In the article, Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil both talks about how technology will affect our future and how these technologies are growing rapidly. They have somewhat different perspectives. I felt like Bill Joy focuses too much on the negative side of improving technology and forgot to mention some positives that it might bring to our lives. Kurzweil focuses more on explaining how the future will look like with those improved technologies. Also he did not really mention about benefit of having them. Bill worries about artificial intelligence or robots might take over humans. Maybe it might happen in the future but I believe it could be regulated or controlled by humans because we are the one who created that intelligence. We should learn how to use them wisely and take advantages of improved technology.
Hi Yuka,
you did bring up a good point about Bill Joy focuses too much on the negative side of improving technology and forgot to mention some positive effect it can potentially bring to the table. Yet, I feel like Bill Joy’s concern is completely valid. Mankind has developed a habit of playing god, we just started to dip our feet into water with nanotechnology, gene editing or modification, or even develop algorithm for robots so that they can make autonomous decisions. But, we often overlook the unintended consequences that might occur from these new inventions. However, I also believe that if these new technologies are properly regulated and implemented, one does not have worry about them taken over humanity. In addition, fail safe system should be installed into these autonomous robotic hardware and software in order to prevent things from going wrong.
The author brings up an interesting topic of a robot species, eventually taking over the world. This is very possible. With a brain partly biological and partly non-biological, one can say we are already half-robots. WIth technology replacing emotions, humans will eventually become robots trapped in their own inventions. Another interesting point made in the article is immortality. Since we are able to download our consciousness, humans can eventually be immortal. With no death, the value of life decreases. Humans will lose value for life since death can be avoided.
Hi To,
I agree with Joy and Kurzweil in that aspect because how do robots acquire emotions? How does a robot feel empathy towards something or someone else? Can a robot make a distinction from a moral and immoral decision? How can we assure ourselves that robots would not be apart of a singular logical world without any sense of emotion? Could this lead to robots taking over the world? I am not sure, but I do not think that it would become such a perfectly safe world that you would imagine having if the world is filled with logical and intelligent robots.
Hi Le,
I personally do not believe that consciousness could be possibly replicated in robots since the amount of information being processed by the brain is so vast and abstract that it would require a multi-dimensional computer that can sort out and store all of the components of the human mind. Furthermore, this kind of technology is also not 100% reliable, since scientists still have to prove its accuracy and lifespan otherwise, which means that there could be some sort of code misinterpretation during the processing of neural information that would create a butterfly effect, escalating the possible problems that would happen to that robot just like how neurological diseases affect humans’ mental functions.
In reading the article, Billy Joy brings up some good points. One of them being how in time, the species that survive were the ones who were more adapt to the environment and other factors. This could be seen in some of the stuff he mentioned, on how computers and artificial intelligence are improving. With this being the case, we as humans, would eventually fall behind and be taken over by the robotic beings. That would be more in the future. One of the other things we would have to worry about is how technology would be used because if only the rich have access to the most high tech inventions, it would create a huge technological divide, where the middle class and the poor would suffer a lot, since they would not be able to afford access to the technology that the rich have, creating a huge gap in socio-economic status. However, we can’t forget that fact that whether we want it or not, technology will continue to improve, and we have to be sure that as the creators of that technology, we have the fullest understanding of what we create.
Hi Julio,
I definitely agree with you that there will be a dividing factor between the rich and the poor. As you say, technology will continue improve. However, will it really increase the quality of life for people? If only the rich have access to the technological inventions, it will create a barrier between the rich and the poor. The rich will have more resources as the poor won’t be able to afford the high tech inventions. However, we can’t change the fact that economic status will always remain a dividing factor.
As Joy and Kurzweil discuss opposite ends of the view on technology, the middle ground is missing. This middle ground is a much less interesting topic but what I believe to be the most probable outcome, at least in my lifetime. I believe that information regarding this topic could be found by analyzing popular technology companies such as samsung or apple and monitoring their growth such as Kurzweil did when predicting the world wide web. However I cannot ignore the fact that intelligent robots have been emerging in our world and I cannot tell you which side of the conversation they will eventually fall towards when considering Joy and Kurzweil’s point of views. I personally feel that Kurzweils vision about technology’s future is the more probable outcome as we are constantly looking to improve our lives through new technological advances.
Hey Mitchell Oyama,
The boring middle ground is what makes most sense. According to the reading, there are 2 absolute outcomes that technology may bring. The first is that artificial intelligence will be the main core of humanity in the future. The latter, humans may eventually have full control over robotic innovations. The middle ground is where our answers lie. Human lives will eventually depend on the power of machines, but we will always have the power to turn off a powered system. There will always be a shut down choice. We can’t really say that technological advancement in itself is enough to create a utopian system. Technology won’t control human minds. The scarier aspect of this topic is that technology does control human motifs.
Hi Mitchell,
I like the fact that you brought up the “middle ground.” The middle ground is important because it incorporates the other people’s opinions instead of just focusing on the two opposite extreme sides of the perspectives. I like how you added that the information regarding the topic could be found by analyzing popular technology companies and monitor its growth and development. I definitely agree that Kurzweils vision about technology’s future is a more realistic and probable outcome as we are always trying to improve out lives with technology.
Kurzweil has a much more positive stance on the future/growth of technology, meanwhile Joy has a more negative opinion of what technology will be like. Kurzweil talks a lot about how these advancements can lead to ideal or Utopian future. He mentions also how these advancements in technology will create a better life for humans and that this technological progression is unavoidable. Joy’s response to this is negative as stated previously, claiming that humans are too eager to press on and how there are some serious consequences that come along with advancement. Joy warns us about how such advancements can create this dependency humans will have for robots/technology that can lead to our loss of power. There is a lot missing in between Joy and Kurzweil’s arguments. Both take on a radical view, so there is a lot of room for different opinion that includes more compromise. If we were to look for a broader conversation, we would have to look for those with different technological backgrounds, that way we could listen to more diverse opinions on this idea of how the future of technology would impact the human race.
Hi Jacob, I agree that the middle ground is missing from both Joy and Kurzweil’s arguments. I believe that a compromise in the middle will eventually end up happening. Although I don’t believe that it will happen in our lifetimes, I believe that machines will be integrated into society with humans, and as a result, politics will drastically change. The idea of life will take on a whole new meaning.
Much is missing from the arguments of Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil as they tend to isolate themselves at the two extremes of the conversation when dealing with technology. Joy takes a much more pessimistic stance, or what I feel to be as the realistic perspective on technology. He argues that we are way too quick to proceed with great technological innovations and don’t take a moment to analyze the possible consequences that these advances may have in store. He eludes to this argument by mentioning the “white plague” and how something similar may happen to us in our time period whether it be intentional or not. Therefore, he makes a strong argument for why we must pace ourselves with all these new advancements or we may very well become a victim of our own creations. However, Kurzweil takes a much more optimistic perspective to technology and almost speaks of how all these advancements will lead to a sort of Utopian future. He argues that how can we deny the many of individuals in need of these technological advancements that may better their lives. He almost takes on this tone that the progression of technology is fast and inevitable and when we look back from the future we will see that the benefits of our advancements will overcompensate for all its pitfalls. While I do agree with both individuals point of views I believe that the future won’t follow either’s very radical opinion’s but instead will find a balance between both aiding and hindering humanity.
Like many others, we both share the same ideas and I like what you have to say. I like how you emphasized the fact that these two guys take on radical points of view, which leaves a lot of room for different opinion. Although Joy or Kurzweil could be right on what may happen, there is a lot of other things to take into account to predict what will inevitably happen.
When reading the article “Why the Future Needs us” I noticed that Joy and Kurzweil argue about two different things. Kurzweil talks about the potential of artificial intelligence and joy discusses how technology taking over. I actually do agree with the potential of intelligence Kurzweil discusses in the article. As for Joy I don’t agree with because he feels technology will take over such as creating robots and other new machines. Technology won’t just take over humans, because humans are the creators so that’s why I don’t agree with Joy. Kurzweil on the other hand talks about the potential and gives good reasons why technology needs us for the future.
Hi John, I believe that we should definitely be cautious about future technology, especially AI. I saw a video about Google’s Deepmind was able to learn a game all by itself without being programmed to do so. At first, it was terrible at the game, but by the next morning, it mastered the game. I believe that we need to find a middle ground because there can be a lot of benefits such as finding cures for diseases.
Hello John,
Have you ever watched the Lee Se Dol and Alpha go matches? Alpha Go was made by Google, a new system learned itself by watching enormous game videos. And Lee Se-Dol is professional Go player of 9 dan rank. Tragically, the result was AlphaGo defeated Lee Se-dol. People have to watch AI how it will be developed in the future. The founder of AI is a person, but one day we may have a world we can not control them.
While I agree with your sentiment, I think it does not make sense to say that technology cannot take over humans just because humans are the creators. It is perfectly possible for a creation to take over or be malicious towards its creator. This doesn’t have to be in the often-cinematized plot of “they gain sentience and gain a hatred for humanity!” I think it’s more accurate to say that humans will begin to depend on and integrate themselves with technology more and more until they become consumed within it. Whether or not this is a good thing is of course open to interpretation. Kurzweil believes it is a good thing and a natural progression, while Joy is terrified of it.
Hi John,
They talk about artificial intelligence in the robots as we are soon in the process of fully discovering AI. With this, robots are able to have to potentially have a mind of their own, which may lead them taking over if anything. I’m not saying it will happen, but it most definitely is a plausible case raised by Joy. There are both pros and cons that comes with the advancement of technology. We will not know which will outweigh the other as that is determined by our approach towards this advancement and how we use it. You have to approach this looking at it from both point of views. You may think that only good things come from advancement of technology but there are definitely cons that come with it.
Hi John,
I understand that Joy speaks about the dangers of social media and the potential possibility that it could lead to robots conquering the world and that might be displeasing or sound irrelevant to the modern world. But it something that I have considered carefully with the pros and cons of expanding technology, as the next newest invention will always wow the audience. There will never be an end to human’s intelligence and I really believe that one day, if technology is not limited, that it will lead to devastating consequences that the world will have to bear.
I thought both readings had a pessimistic view on technology. Yes, they do make good points about the fears about robots and AI. The one thing that they lacked was the disregard of the potential positive impacts of robots. Take for example WALL-E or Baymax. Baymax offers emotional/physical support for individuals, not to mention warmth that some people might lack or crave. WALL-E did his best to help humans detract from their dependence from technology. Even though they are cartoon & imaginary I strongly believe it can be created. I mean Sophia was created. Technology is rapidly changing and improving, so within years intelligent and creative minds could create helpful robots and create a positive view on robots that contrasts the negative popular view.
I found your perspective on the discussion really interesting and after hearing your examples I too believe that such possibilities are achievable! Especially in areas where single homes are in abundance such as Japan I believe that the Baymax example would be of great interest.
Hi Sophia, I like how you incorporated Wall-E and Baymax into this discussion as a way to lessen the detrimental effects of technology. Although Joy and Kurzweil have some good views on where technology is heading towards, their views are often times very one sided. They both failed to realize how much more positive impacts technology has given us (cellphone, internet, fuel-efficient vehicles, etc.). The problem lies more on the fact that what happens if Artificial Intelligence become too smart? We need to be more aware on what we create in the future, so that we won’t fall in the hands of a robotic dystopia in the future. Having more intelligent technology doesn’t necessary equate a bad outcome, we just have to be more cautious and be a step ahead when things does turn out bad.
Hello Sophia, I thought the examples of robots you used were really good because I actually know those movies and able to relate it to your discussion post. I felt both the authors had a different perspective on technology to show that advancement in technology isn’t all that great that everyone perceives it to be. People believe that this advancement will be beneficial to our society , like how you stated Wall-E and Baymax were helpful by providing support and help. Because the usual view of the advancement of technology is seen positively, I believe the authors chose their point of views to help people realize that it is not that perfect, and that technology has its cons aside from the pros it may bring to our society.
Hi Sophia,
I agree with you that both readings had a pessimistic view on technology, and I found your example with WALL-E and Baymax to be interesting. With how powerful and advanced technology has become, it is very scary and realistic that we can one day be at its mercy, but that only depends on how people decide to use technology. Similarly to how technology can be developed to destroy and overpower humanity, robots can also be created to help others, like WALL-E and Baymax did. We should focus on creating technology with the mindset that it will support mankind and not destroy it.
I personally believe both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil were able to explain how technology could potentially negatively affect us in the future. However, I didn’t like how they were able to contrast it by saying how the development of the technology could benefit the way society works. We get lost in how fast technology continues to develop and don’t realize the possible consequences that could eventually arise, so it was nice for Joy and Kurzweil to address this. But the main purpose to improve technology is to help make our lives easier or to help us have more access to education or materials. More research to be found on how technology has helped us could be through different professionals in their career paths, such as doctors, investigators, etc.
Hi Cecily, I like that you pointed out that the main purpose of technology is really to make our lives easier and more simple. I do believe that some technologies actually make our lives more complicated and less simple. Sometimes these technologies make our lives worse, which is another problem that should be taken into account, other than the consequences of technology.
From the reading, we know that according to the argument between Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil, Ray is positive to the technology development, especially about the future of robots. In contrast, Bill is negative about the robots. Ray states that “the rate of improvement of technology was going to accelerate and that we were going to become robots or fuse with robots or something like that”. But Bill concerns a lot about robots problem. He points out that if the machines become intelligent enough, they will make decision for themselves. Hunan will lose control on them or even worse, human control over the machines may be retained. I believe during this argument, Bill doesn’t take human’s intelligence into account. I have to admit that machines are effective but they are created by humans. Human beings, especially those elites will think about the independency problem of robots before creation. They won’t let themselves does control over machines.
To clarify, one issue that Bill addressed is if the machines out compete us even a little bit and can take the place of humans. Bill considered worse case scenario is when machines can do this and are able to replicate. At that point we have his grey goo situation where mass produced more intelligent machines out number the humans and eventually become the new workers in control. If machines are now the work force, if you aren’t in control why are you even needed. The worry is when the people in control of these more efficient machines deem that the average citizen is a waste of resources or should no longer have a mind of their own.
After I read the article, I can definetly say that unemployment rate will be increase with technology developing because business companies prefer to use high efficient labors, and machines or robots are work more efficiency than human being. High unemployment rate will create more low-income families, and bring the gap between the wealth and poor. It will also influence people’s health, education, and increase crime rates because people cannot afford education fees, and healthier food. However, we cannot control the use of technology.
I agree with your statement that we will not be able to control the use of technology such as that it is growing at such a fast rate. However, I think it will have more of a positive impact on future generations. With an increase in technology it will hopefully make resources such as the internet more accessible which will allow even more people to obtain information. Also, many of the new technologies that are being made are geared towards medical and environmental advancements which would make for a healthier population.
Yes!! I forgot to mention the unemployment rate in my comment but I absolutely agree. I am a scientist and I see numerous new instrument advancements happening and I’m afraid of getting out-done and out-worked by these machines in the future. However, I think we can control the use of technology, it’s just that people won’t like it. You can’t please everyone, so maybe we should stop trying?
Although unemployment rate will increased due to the advances of technology it could at the same time bring in more labor because of the building of the technology itself still needs manual labor. Also there will be a shift of jobs from manual labor to thinkers of who will think of new methods to make a leap of new technological roadblocks. Technology is there to help aid in the gap between the wealthy and the poor by having it accessible to both, the iphone for example is something that is now accessible to almost everyone despite their financial problems. It also hooks up to the internet allowing for people to learn more online instead of relying on everything they learned while at school.
Joy sees technology as something that we all should be weary about. He seems to think that our dependency on it will one day cause our collapse. Ray has the idea of “I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords,” which shows the contrast of how these two intellectuals perceive the advancement of technology. However, I believe that the human element is far varying, and it would be foolish to say that the entire population would be dependent on technology. There will always be people that rarely use technology and as such there would always be people who know how to live without it. Whether this advancement is good or bad matters to those who do depend on technology; for those that don’t use it for the sake of traditionalism or because of cost that comes with it, there will always be ways to get by life without it.
An important problem that was not brought up in the article was not what the increasingly fast growing rate of technology would do to us, but what people would use them on other people. For example, killing other people used to be done with primitive weapons such as spears and bows and arrows. While highly dangerous, a bad person would not be able to decimate a large group of people. But today, we have nuclear weapons, automated guns, fighter jets, and many other highly advanced technological weapons that could destroy hundreds and thousands of lives. In the hands of the right people, technology could improve the lives of other people, and makes doing stuff more efficient.
This is an important topic that should have been discussed and I would even like to add the harm that technology enables such as hacking. These days you are considered lucky or abnormal to not have been hacked or had your identity stolen. Technology does not only enable the possibility of hacking but can also teach it to anyone interested with a quick internet search.
Ray Kurzweil heavily talked about the exponential growth in the advancements of technology. I heartily agree with him. Every time we think that a company has developed the next, biggest, most advanced piece of technology, someone else swoops in with another piece of technology that blows our mind. For some of us, we lived through a rapid change in technology. Some of us still remember the floppy disk while others have no clue what it is. However, Kurzweil does not discuss the social aspects of this rapid advancement. While technology is moving forward, in recent years, society has been looking back to the past. Lately, many of us have been longing for the past. Record players have returned, older movies are being brought back, reimagined with modern technology, the Polaroid camera, and other things. Perhaps, because of all the rapid advancements in technology, we have become nostalgic of a time before all this new technology.
I agree with your idea about the nostalgic return to the past with the return of certain old technology. Another way I see it is that we are simply finding a sort of aesthetic appeal with the past in our current time. Suggested by the society’s return to old technology, I believe that this highlights how society always looks to the past for answers and ideas. This constant return to the past allows people to continue to build upon new ideas and always improve on past mistakes. With this said, I believe that limiting technology will stunt our growth as we will be unable to build upon new concepts and technology to improve the overall quality of life. The exponential growth in technology provides an uncertainty about the future and I believe that it leaves untold wonders about the future that everyone can look forward to.
Hi Darlene,
This is a very interesting interpretation. I agree that the nostalgia aspect of advancing technology is very present. In the wake of even photographical advancements I tend to look back to disposable 35mm cameras and the old look it gives. The camera was only around a short time in my life and disappeared because of better more high quality cameras. The social aspects of advancing technology is just as important as any other consequence and it is important to keep an eye on that aspect as well.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil discuss the potential possibilities of technology and its rapid rate of growth and advancement in the following decades. They both agree that advancements are being made exponentially quicker as time goes on but Joy emphasizes on a more negative and pessimistic view of technology and its potential to surpass the species that created it. The article lacks any positive benefits the technology in the future may hold for our species and just focuses on how AI technology and nanotechnology might be an imminent end to humans. Ray was definitely more optimistic with his elaboration on his experience with technology. They should compare the benefits versus the negatives that might come. Everything is hypothetical, but there is lack of methods to actually prevent those negative technological consequences from actually happening, which they proposed and understand the most. Technology is becoming more engraved in our society in the United States, but other countries are not getting the same advancements. They should perhaps mention some things about the other countries in the world that aren’t so technologically advanced as we are.
In my opinion, both Joy and Kurzweil mentioned a lot about how technologies can affect life on a macro level, including natural selection/evolution/etc., from perspectives of people who always rely on technologies (such as scientists, biologists) and make the most use of the equipments. However, I feel like they missed the views of those that do not rely on technologies, people that do not use these tools as often or they do not use them at all. Of course from the view of real technology consumers, AI can one day become something that is uncontrollable because of its potential power; yet from the view of those who do not rely on technologies, it is not something that is worth worrying about. Technology is artificial, and if we do try to prevent and minimize the possible negative consequences that AI can lead to, nothing bad will happen, because humans are the creators of technology, and technology will not replicate if humans do not want that to happen. I believe that robots/AI/technologies in general cannot generate because they are programmed and made with finished materials which do not allow them to change their nature (unlike living creatures to adapt to their environment) therefore, it will not be the technology that’s at fault but the creators themselves trying to go beyond what is possible.
I totally agree with this. Throughout the reading, they mentioned how technology is a huge impact to the human species. From the tone they were using, they were giving technology a lot of credit and not humans. Of course technology is all around us and makes our lives easier, but I don’t think humans will ever come to a point where they can’t live without technology. Life was possible and went on before technology was invented so it is not impossible. Since people in this generation are also exposed to technology and social media, living without it will be very hard. The authors disregarded the fact that many third-world civilizations are still living without technology and social media.
Hi Phuong, Your perspective is very interesting and I like that it take into account the views of those that do not rely heavily on technology. However, as newer generations are born we will eventually be at a point where most people rely on technology. I recently watched a documentary called AlphaGo in which they programmed a computer to learn to play Go. At first the system is just a neural network with no experience in playing yet through the algorithm it is able to teach itself how to play. Taking this technology into account there is a possibility that a computer will one day be able to go beyond what the human brain can do.
Hi Lizette, I also watched that documentary in one of my classes. I agree with you that a computer can one day surpass the capabilities of a human brain. It will be interesting the limits of our brains if we integrate technology into our brains. I believe that there will be an initial exponential rise in human intelligence before eventually flattening out. Maybe we will one day reach singularity with the help of technology.
Hi Phuong,
I think it’s an interesting observation to note that both Kurzweil and Joy speak from the perspective of people who live in the developed world and are almost constantly surrounded by technology. I wonder how the discussion would be affected if people living in less-developed/third-world countries were involved, or taken into consideration.
Furthermore, I am doubtful of how likely the world will become the utopia or dystopia that Kurzweil and Joy describe, but I do believe that there is potential for technology to have unintentional harmful effects. I do agree that it is the creators’ fault for playing God (in a sense). I do not think that they are considering all the possible ramifications of their creations or the extent of these consequences.
Joy was being pessimistic toward the issue of the transformation from biological human to partial or non-biological ones. I am especially interested in the part when he argued that machine would take way human control. But I think his ideas are too extreme. He forgot that even though part of our body would be replaced by machinery when that day comes, it is still our body. It is still our physical system. And human agency would still be in control. Machine and biological body might be distinct from each other in material, but as the controller of this unity human agency would maintain.
Hi Yuwei,
I agree with you. After all, AI/robots/all these technologies exist themselves is because we created them. If we decided not to, they would not exist today.
Hi Yuwei! I strongly agree with your point. At the end of the day, our bodies are our bodies. Yes, technology has become very smart. But even if it is integrated with our bodies, I believe human agency trumps technology. The brain is a complex organ that contains all our thoughts, opinions, personalities, and all these human things that make individuals so unique. Maybe the brain can be replaced partially and would still be considered partially human. But if the brain were replaced, would we really be human? Would technology be able to reflect the human mind? Not just in knowledge and mannerisms, but in personality as well?
Yeah, I agree. It isn’t like human control will be gone forever because humans created the machine. A really good show that depicts this is Person of Interest. The main character creates a supercomputer type machine. This machine was programed by a human, so it behaved using human like qualities.
Hi Yuwei,
I agree with you and I discussed that in my comment. I truly think robots and other advanced machines wouldn’t be able to take over because we are the creators so we are smarter than the robots created.
Hi Yuwei,
I agree with your statement in that Joy’s views on robots and technology is too extreme. Humans are the one that create the technology, so we are the ones in control. I have a more optimistic view on technology itself because it will allow us to advance in the modern world. I believe it will allow us to succeed, live longer, and go through day by day much easier.
Both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil discuss the future of technology and power associated with this rapid growth. In Joy and Kurzweil’s arguments, they talk about how the rate of information technology development is quickly growing and seemingly uncapped. Although Kurzweil mentions slight limits, Joy writes how technology is dangerous because its development is moving too fast. Both arguments lack positions discussing restrictions and limitations. We can avoid some dangers associated with biotechnology and nanotechnology by implementing government-led regulation or UN-led regulation. Concerns about technological progress can be addressed by moderate responses and control of such technology.
Hey Tiffany, I think your idea is pretty straightforward and basically covers what the reading states. I totally agree with the view in the reading since today’s society is a society based on technology. Nothing can be apart from technology or even put in a more simple way–electricity. However, while the rapid growth of the technology brings great benefits and vital changes to the society, it also places many disadvantages and imperfection. I would like to see things about these aspects in the reading as well which they fail to cover.
Hi Tiffany,
Yes, both Joy and Kurzweil mention the fast growth of the technology, but I also want to mention that they both are on the side of against the advanced technology, especially Joy. Joy has used lots of the evidences to show that technology has caused lots of the problems to human. He talks about his own personal experience which he wants to invent a smarter program, but in the end he finds himself is stuck a plight. He finds out that the program might start to revolt the human. Although I support the growth of technology, but I can also see the concern which Joy brings. I believe that we do need to figure out some ways to prevent the issues from happening.
Technology is really interesting because the more people try to stop it, the more people try to find a way around blockades to it. Especially with how fast things spread through the internet, I don’t believe there’s a clear way to stop advancements in technology or the spread of it. If anything, from what we’ve seen with the Streisand effect, the more we try to stop the spread of something the more it will actually spread. The Streisand effect is a phenomenon where if you try to hide something (by “removing” it from the internet, people will re-post and spread whatever it is you are trying to hide.
I read more into Ray Kurzweil’s work about singularity and saw that he is currently Google’s Director of Engineering. His prediction that an AI will pass the Turing test by 2029 doesn’t seem too far of a guess. Lately we’ve seen the rise of so much AI technology with home voice devices (Amazon Echo, Google Home, Apple HomePod). The prediction that an AI will pass the Turing test in 11 years seems very possible.
Hi Isabelle,
You bring up a good point about the difficulties of putting up blockades for technology. Attempting to stop the spread or advancements of technology do usually end up working against themselves. I totally agree how AI technology has become so common in our daily lives. Even in my apartment right now we have 2 Amazon Echos which “listen” and respond to our various commands. I think rather than try to stop the spread of information technology, some sort of regulation and standards should be placed in order to maintain ethics and avoid the discussed negative potential of hackers and terrorists making use of technology for harm, rather than good.
The topic of home devices listening in on people’s conversations is really interesting. There has been a lot of controversy with smartphones, smart TVs, and home devices listening in on people’s conversations to create targeted advertisements. People question whether this is an invasion of privacy, some believe that it’s only an invasion of privacy if these conversations are being saved, while others believe that as long as our conversations are being listened in only for advertising then it is fine.
I haven’t thought about how these smart devices could listen and apply our conversations to targeted advertisements. In my experience, I’ve seen how the websites I visit affect the advertisements that appear in my future searches but I didn’t consider how listening devices could potentially carry out the same concept. I would personally find it to be an invasion of privacy if these smart devices listened to my conversations for targeted advertising. I think that web searches aren’t as personal and therefore I’m okay with those types of ads however my conversations could potentially be more private and I wouldn’t want some company or advertising agency to have access to that information.
After reading and listening about the arguments of Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil, I would say that the one thing missing about this kind of technology at the center of their argument is more of the positive benefits of this kind of technology instead of how this technology could harm and change our world in the most negative way. I think it is important to listen to the people that ave actually developed these technologies and advancements in order to get a wide conversation on how this technology can help our world for the better instead of drastically harming it. However, I think an important aspect often left out is the idea of some people obtaining certain technologies over others and this can create a very large divide so I think it is important to discuss how this could be either avoided or how this technology will not change this idea of a divide among people.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil both speak about the near future and the technological advancements that may occur and the rate at which they are expected to come. Ray Kurzweil was optimistic as he describes his experience with this technology and continued to talk about the future we should expect to see. Some examples of the technological advancements we might see are: nanotechnology that can power solar panels and replace fossil fuels, the transition from pre informational to post informational in biology and the increase in the exponential growth rate for technology. Although an inventor and a intellectual as well, Bill Joy focuses on the downside and negativity of this technological advancements. In the article, it is stated”…I may be working to create tools which will enable the construction of the technology that may replace our species. How do I feel about this? Very uncomfortable.” While working on a technological advancement, the fear that this new creation might one day surpass its expectation and think for itself is there and creates this sort of panic. Their arguments both happen to be missing the opinion of the people who rely on this technology. Perhaps opening up the conversation to them might strengthen their argument.
Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy are two innovators with a creative mind that is beneficial to the exponential technological world that we live in. Nonetheless, they both have a different stance towards these technological advancements. They surround their arguments around their own thoughts and ideas for the future. And in addition to not being open and failing to use the opinions and thoughts of those who rely on this new technological advancements, they also don’t seem to mention a way to prevent any negative technological consequences from occurring? Perhaphs, that is a huge assumption for them to make, but speaking about this will definitely cause the conversation to be broader as it can include the thoughts of other inventors also.
Hi Brandon,
I agree with you on how Kurzweil is more optimistic about the future than Joy. Kurzweil talks a lot about how the future is going to dramatically change exponentially but he fails to mention who it’s going to benefit and who will have access to this technology. He also leaves out the position of law enforcement in his discussion, but mentions how tools of creation are becoming democratized. In this case, what laws and regulations are needed from preventing someone on someone abusing this power? I also like how you brought up that Kurzweil was missing the opinion of people reliant on this technology. Perhaps this way we can see which advances will benefit the world as a whole. In Joy’s article, he strays too far to the negative side that he fails to mention the position supporting the benefits of technology. He also states that modern technologists are naïve about the consequences concerning technology, but their voices are not clearly represented and as you said, he also does not mention the people who will benefit format besides the elite.
Hi Brandon,
I think you have grasped the concepts of each author extremely well and did a great job explaining both of them in this post. I agree that their arguments are both missing a different perspective such as one of someone who deeply relies on technology. I am curious as to how you think that this perspective will strengthen their argument. I agree, but I am interested in your perspective. I wonder what someone who is very reliant on technology would say. Would they accept their dependence and elaborate on that, or would they refuse to accept this fact and speak as though they are not reliant on technology? Personally, I think that they would not accept their dependence, so I am curious as to what they would say and contribute to the discussion.
I believe that the argument that’s missing from the two is what are the positive benefits of technology and how it can impact society. Additionally, with technology, I believe a good segment of society will become misrepresented because the level and complexity of technology is generally associated with the level of wealth. I don’t think the general population will be accurately represented. By interviewing the average person or getting inputs from multiple individuals regarding this topic of technology, I believe we can have a much broader conversation regarding this subject.
Technology is ultimately going to advance and progress, I don’t think there’s a way to stop that. But by incorporating the opinions of the general population or even those who are less fortunate, we can hopefully make technology advance in a direction that is beneficial for all.
Hi Wesley,
I also agree with your comment that both articles only focused on the negative aspects that technology has brought to society. They both do not elude to the benefits that technology has already introduced to us. I think it is important how they should account for people of all class types. Since technology is more geared towards the wealthy, it would be good to understand how technology has impacted the average individual. That way, the spread would be across a wide range of people rather than focusing on a subset of the population. I also really liked your last statement! Technology should definitely not be limited to a certain group of people, but be advantageous for everyone.
I agree with you! Since technology is so advanced and practically everyone knows about it, it is impossible to regulate it in ways that the government regulates alcohol in the United States. I mean it might be possible in places that are less privileged but it does not matter in those areas because technology is not prominent anyways. In cases where technology is growing, there can potentially be a regulation in that region or area but it hard to put these words without action.
Hi Wesley,
I totally agree with your point on both Joy and Kurzweil focus on too much on the negative consequences which the advanced technology brings. Yes, what they point out are true, but I would say that technology has brought human race tremendous conveniences. For example, Wright brothers achieved the dream of people flying in the sky. It allowed people to travel around the world. People are now able to learn much more knowledge than before.
I agree that in the conversations of both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil, the positive aspects of what technologies has provided are neglected. Instead only the negative aspects have been presented which it was for a purpose to give the readers a glimpse of the issues that has arose. In our society when we think of technology there is an overwhelming positive view towards it, meaning that the negative aspects that it could have are never really pointed out, they are instead flooded into the sea of positive reviews.
Technology is definitely more accessible for the wealthy, but I hope some day everyone can enjoy the benefits of technology. One thing that stands out to me with technology being more implemented into society is robotic surgery. For minuscule cuts that are made during surgery, robots are used for those surgeries. The benefits from the advancements of technology are just too great to stop. In fact, I believe that stopping these advancements are unethical because of the amount of good they could bring to society.
In this article, I understand both Bill and Kurzwei usually talk about the disadvantage of development technology because advanced technologies are increasingly invaded the human lives and threatened their jobs. For example, In recent year, I am sure all of you have heard about the amazing Go match between Lee Se-dol and AlphaGo. The Lee Se-dol and AlphaGo match brought about an issue of artificial intelligence in the future. Now, it is proven that AI has increased to a level, where it is impossible for a human to defeat AI in calculation and strategy. However, Bill and Kurzwei are missing details, solutions and direct effects on human lives. It will not be possible to stop all the machines and techniques now, so laws should be enacted to make the balance between human and machines.
Hi Na Yeon Lee,
I’m not sure what Go match between Lee Se-dol and AlphaGo is. Could you elaborate on that? Because I searched it up and I’m not sure where is the connection between this example versus Bill and Kurzwei. I guess my concern is I don’t know what your point is with this argument. However, I do agree that it is impossible to stop technologies from growing. You also mentioned that law should be enacted to achieve a balance. Any ideas on how this could be accomplished? I’m interested to hear what you’re thinking about.
Hi Nayeon,
I totally agree with your opinion about the intelligence of the AI. I also saw the Go match of Se-dol Lee versus AlphaGo about years ago. Human matching the AI was a brilliant idea and it was a harsh challenge. For Natwara who comments on Na Yeon’s idea, here is the website that explains the Go match. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/two-moves-alphago-lee-sedol-redefined-future/. Simply, AlphaGo is a Go match machine that Google made. It is AI and it collects all the records and the processes of the games that have played in over the world. And Se-dol Lee is a human Go match player from Korea. There were total 5 games and Lee won one of the five games. However, after Alpha Go figured out Lee’s strategy, Alpha Go won all the other games. It showed how AI is getting intelligent in analyzing the information. AI is getting smarter and brilliant.
Joy assumed the negative effects of developing new technologies, and worried about robots will pose a threat to the human being in the future. Kurzweil’s point of view was centered on how nano-robots could help humans and protect the health of in the future. Although they respectively discussed the views of the technology for future, their views were one-sided. It is an indisputable fact that human depends on science and technology. After all, science and technology exist to make human civilization progress faster. We can not fully grasp the direction of the future because the future is unpredictable. And human progress is impossible to stop. When a civilization is evolving, all we can do is accept new things and adapt to new things. Of course, it is also the responsibility of all humankind to prepare for dealing with technological hidden danger as we accept and adapt to new things. Whether these technological products are good or bad, all are the result of human civilization. The future is unpredictable, but technology is manageable.
I totally agree with you. I, too, got the impression that both Joy and Kurzweil views were one-sided. While both scholars did acknowledge each other perspective in the article/podcast, it seems to me that they were only using each to build their own case of argument. Not to mentioned, it was brief for both ends. In regard to your statement about technology can be manageable, I think it is somewhat true. I say “somewhat” is because I strongly think that our society has become hooked on all these technological advancements. Because of this reason, creators are taking this as an advantage and an opportunity for them to earn large amounts of incentives. This is why there is a continuation of new technologies in the market. It is due to creators being blinded by their needs of additional wealth.
Hi Yaoming,
I believe science and technology are products of human curiosity. As long as humanity continues to ask question, we will continue to test the boundaries of our capabilities. However, it is important that those who make major contributions to the tech-driven future exercise caution, knowing when to take a step back to moderate themselves.
Both Joy and Kurzweil provide how the technological advancements would affect negatively in the future through their predictions. However, they did not provide the details of the problems. They did not mention how those problems affect the society and human beings. When I first read the article, I was just wondering what would be the regulations or laws regarding the usage of robots. If they figured it out the problems, they should support their ideas with the solutions that they could defend the society from the issues, however, they missed it. I think we cannot stop the technological advancement since we need them and we already feel uncomforted without using technologies. So I think it is important to make specific restrictions and prevent the negative problems. Moreover, I was also wondering about the number of people’s jobs in the future. Since the companies or the factories use the brilliant machines and software that can work better than people, they are losing their jobs and hard to find the work. According to The Future of Employment by Michael A. Osborne, the professor in Oxford, people will lose their jobs after 10 years. For example, by the emergence of ‘Google Car’ which has self-driving car system, the taxi drivers and bus drivers are going to lose their jobs. Besides the self-driving car, people will lose their jobs in a very short term. I really wanted to know what would be the solutions for these problems.
I think regulations/laws regarding the usage of robots will be very interesting. I’m not sure if there’s a government body already in charge of that, or if we’ll need to establish one. Recently I’ve been seeing a lot of videos posted by Boston Dynamics with robots (here’s a video where one opens the door for its friend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUyU3lKzoio). Boston Dynamics was designed for the US military, and as we’ve seen in the past, many drones and other technology were used to fight in in Afghanistan. It wouldn’t be a surprise if soon we saw these robot dogs helping the army.
Hi,
I totally agree with you when you said how technological advances can cause people their jobs. However, I think that people have their own judgments of whether or not they trust an actual person driving cars or have computers driving cars. No matter how much technology advances, I still believe that there will be people who do not trust computers completely when it comes to their lives. So to answer your question, I guess it’s really up to the person who are using it to decide how much trust do they have between people and a computer.
Hi Yoo Ra,
With regards to the self-driving car: I was once informed of an argument against self-driving cars which stated that a major drawback is its lack of human intuition. For the most part I can agree because it would be very difficult for a program to predict human behaviors, something that can be quite surprising, especially when concerning accidents. Despite the potential for efficiency, I think that as long as people are on the road, it can be difficult to fully integrate a self-driving car system.
Hi Yoo Ra,
I agree with you that technology is developing at such a rapid pace, and at this point, there’s nothing we can do to change that since our lives heavily depend on it already. I really liked that you brought an outside source and pointed out a problem that I didn’t really notice. As machines are getting more advanced, they are capable of doing more than the average human, and in the future, people will start to lose their jobs. Because these jobs are getting replaced by robots and other machines, we would have to look for new jobs or create them in order to stop the unemployment rate from rising.
Sice Joy and Kurzweil both have valid points. The argument about new technology is still continuing. Developing new technology such as a human robot, well always become a double-edged sword because there will always be consequences. However, I believe most people will take Kurzweil’s side because most of us will value more in the benefits of new technology even with high intelligence products. The group of people who do not get their point of view represented will be the religious people. Different religioun will have different perspective on this topic.
Hi! I also agree that most people will take Kurzweil’s side since lots of benefits seem to come out of the advancement of technology. I feel that the idea of improving the way we live is so deeply implanted into our brains that it is why people tend to go for advanced technology. I also found the inclusion of religious people to be interesting. How do you think technology incorporates into the different kinds of religions? I never thought about it like that, but I’m now interested in how various religions view technology.
I’m definitely interested in how religion might play a role in how some people view these technological advances too! I know in the past some advances have been met with some controversy because of religion, so I am interested to see their view points on the more current advances. Especially since we have also see huge steps being taken by different religions as well in accepting other previously frowned upon scientific discoveries.
What I conclude from both arguments is that no matter the knowledge and advancement in technology we are at point in time, giving consciousness to robots I believe is potentially dangerous, and a very possible reality. However, for the reader to be able to fully understand how a robot can gain “consciousness”, it should be defined and described how how it can be an applicable thing for robots. Consciousness, in my words, for a robot is the ability to adapt and learn and grow from the interactions it engages in along with preset objective knowledge, much like how a new-born baby develops his or her psyche in the first stages. I’ve personally chatted with online bots for fun since middle school. Therefore, I don’t doubt the person-like robot to be a coming truth. Now, imagine “raising” a powerful bot with negative agendas, and it being able to create decisions based on those ideas and impact that onto someone else and its community? How can that be addressed?That is when what we create can go out of hands and out of control. Otherwise, I am for the advancement of technology and its robots as long as inventions and production are executed with proactive sense and intuition.
I agree with you, Katya, that technology could be harmful or helpful depending on the agenda that it was created to fulfill. For many people, robots designed to interact with humans seem harmless and comforting, but technology could also be developed with the intention of helping society, while bringing unintended negative consequences. For example, Yoo Ra pointed above in her post that more people could be potentially out of jobs due to the increase in machines replacing human labor. These robots or machines were definitely not intended to put people out of work, but rather to increase productivity, but it came with a unforeseen negative impact. Technology ‘s advancement may seem harmless, but in reality, it can impact a good proportion of people indirectly and directly.
The defense that people will side with Kurzweil’s side is a statement I think is more popular among the younger generations while the older generations might be more hesitant to such a drastic change. The religious aspect of this is one I think is very relevant to the topic because even though technology is getting more popular, religion is something that has survived for centuries so I’m interested in how they would mix together.
Hello Crystal, I find your comment very thought provoking such as that I had never thought about how the development of technology could eventually mix with religion. Religion has survived for many years and with it some religions might be less inclined to allow it to mix with technology. While other religions could possibly use technology as a tool in order to further promote their beliefs. I feel like in order to able to appeal to future generations religion will have to become a bit more modern. It is very interesting to think about how religions could potentially change in order to fit the needs of people in the future.
Hi Dekang,
I didn’t previously consider the impact of new technology on various religions! Thanks for bringing up this idea. Regarding the idea of having a partially non-biological brain, I think some religious groups may oppose this procedure of replacing the biological brain with technology. I’m basing this belief based on the religious beliefs regarding organ donation and transplants. Although no religion formally bans organ transplants or donation, Native Americans, Roma Gypsies, Confucians, Shintoists, and some Orthodox Jews may object and discourage such practices. Due to this informal opposition, I believe that such groups would also disapprove of implanting certain technologies in the body and brain. It would be interesting to get input from various major religious groups regarding their opinion on the ever-growing biotechnological advances.
I agree that most people will probably take Kurzweil’s side, whether it be because we like to imagine our future in positive light or because we actually believe in that view, I am not sure. However you do help this argument by saying that we value the benefits of technology and I can see it in everyday life. We as humans have reached a point where it is almost unbearable to live without technology and those who choose to go without it only make life more difficult.
It is interesting to see that you have brought in religious to this topics as not a lot of us would relate technology to religions. It is true that different religions may view differently regarding Artificial Intelligence. However, what do you think the people of those religions that are against AIs will do in the future if they are being suppressed by the others who have relied on advanced technology? Do you think they will give in to the techs in the future or do you think they will fight back?
I think one of the arguments (or perspective in this case) that Joy and Kurzweil are missing is how we should go about addressing the good and bad that results from the ever-expanding influence of technology. Joy and Kurzweil spend a majority of their time demonstrating how technology has reached a point of no return (with said return referring to reducing the involvement of technology in our lives), as well as the fact that as a result, it has brought about good and bad to today’s society. They do bring up the fact that the rate at which technology is currently advancing is helping to address current world issues, as well as simplifying day-to-day operations. In response to this, they bring up the fact that it also does as much, if not more, harm than it does good. While listening to them speak about this issue, I couldn’t help but to apply this to how free speech can also bring about good and bad. While free speech allows people to speak their mind and at times be the “voice of the voiceless,” free speech can also be used to spread maladaptive ideas and incite sheep mentality for negative causes. I feel that this highlights the concept of a “double-edged sword,” where something can have both favorable outcomes and unfavorable consequences, which is the case the Joy and Kurzweil present regarding technology right now. I believe that they should have presented this perspective in their arguments and bring up the question of how we should go about approaching technology’s issue of a double edged sword.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil do not mention about politic or government related problems. If the society actually implements robots into their lives, there are numerous topics and issues that we have to question about. First of all, the government need to create laws and regulations regarding the robots in order to prevent illegal use. Moreover, the government has to consider technological issues, such as hackers. Because robots equates with artificial intelligence, there might be a spot that human might not be able to control. Furthermore, I believe that the roader conversation could be found in researches and further studies of robots and AI. Younger generations should give more attention to this topic, since our technology is evolving so fast.
Kyoung,
I definitely agree with you. One thing that stood out to me that you mention are governmental issues that have not been talked about in Joy and Kurzweil’s passages and the regulations for creating laws regarding the usage of robots. I feel like even if technology exceeds the intelligence of the human species, the government would not allow such robots to be signed off and used legally. As a species, we always want to be seen as the dominant figure and allowing highly intellectual robots, I feel, would be doing something against our nature.
I totally agree that the issue of government regulations should be further looked into. How would they regulate these robots? What laws would be put in place to ensure our own protection.? Because like you said if we don’t have a way to regulate these machines what’s to stop them from becoming the dominant creatures much like Bill joy predicted would happen.
Hi, Kyoung. I definitely resonate with you on the lack of regulations in Joy’s article aand Kurzweil’s podcast. It’s something I tried to incorporate in my writing assignment. Once we’ve integrated technology into our lives, even to the point where it’s integrated with our bodies, where does it cross the line? How do we protect ourselves from the creators of the technology from using their inventions against us? Even if future companies include all these precautions and what not into their terms and conditions, we know from experience that no one read those. What regulations could be created to prevent the somewhat dystopian, technological society that Joy imagines?
I feel like from Joy’s and Kurzweil’s argument there isn’t much missing about the material. However, they do lack voices or perspectives in their argument. For example, they tend to generalize people and their preference against technological advancement but they do not mention specifically different types of people. Engineers and doctors would obviously prefer the technological advancement because it will help them in their job and it will also make their workforce a lot easier. I feel that for the lower class, they would not like this technological advancement because I do not even think they will be able to afford it in the first place. I feel like right now there is currently a huge gap between the lower class and upper class when it comes to treatment and lifestyle. With technological advancement in the future, I feel that the upper class will be even further from the lower class with a lot more benefits. In fact, I feel like technological advancement will cause even more prejudice and fights against social classes. I just feel that perhaps if Joy and Kurzweil mentioned this in their argument, there will be more material for readers to think about and to see why technological advancement can be wrong or right. I feel like instead of focusing on a life where technological advancement and dependence is needed, I feel that the world should focus more on trying to fix poverty and world hunger or environmental issues that we still have not fixed. As the ideas stated above, I do not believe technological advancement will help fix these issues; I actually think it would make it worse. I also want to mention that they did not really talk about how these technological advancement and use of resources will affect nature and animal species that some are already struggling to adapt to urbanization.
I really like your argument about how there are different types of people who would react differently to technological advancement. When reading the article, they mentioned before how the elites who own the machines can cause the rest of the people to go extinct. It really generalized people into either the ‘elite’ or ‘not elite’. Your argument made me think that before this kind of classification may even happen, there can be different benefits and drawbacks for every person. I also agree that environmental issues will probably get worse, but the distinction between social classes may not necessarily get wider. If technology advances, and things become cheaper because of it, the lower social class may benefit from it. For example, relating to what was said in class today, computers may one day become cheap enough that everyone can afford one.
Hi Heather,
It is interesting that you brought up the topic of there being a huge hap between the lower class and upper class when it comes to lifestyle and how that relates back to technology and technological advancements in today’s world. I had not thought about it from that perspective, and it is interesting now that you brought it up, I realize that the point you made is very true and relevant to the advancement of technology. When looking at the benefits of technology in terms of the different classes of people in the world, it makes sense that the exponentially increasing sophistication of technology would not be entirely beneficial for some lower class people who may not even have access to technology. Yet, it may be crucial for the upper-class whose lives may dependent on the use of technological devises day in and day out. I wish that technology would have been advanced in such a way that it could benefit lower class individuals. It would have been interesting if Kurzweil and Joy included this viewpoint in their arguments.
I really like the point that you are making. I didn’t really think about the division of lower and upper class with this issue. I think it can go both ways. I feel like technology can take over the jobs of the lower class and make it difficult for them to make a living. Also, if advanced technology is expensive, not everyone can afford it and it will create a division between the two classes, with one being more powerful due to the technology they possess. However, technological advancements can also make products cheaper and more accessible to all classes. Just like Kelly mentioned, the example of the computers becoming so cheap that everyone can obtain one is a representation of how technology can level off some of the disparities between classes.
I agree and disagree with you Heather. I very much agree that Joy’s and Kurzweil’s arguments lack other perspectives about different areas and how each person would benefit or suffer from technological advances. I also immediately thought of Engineers or Doctors and what their view on this subject would be; I am sure that any technological advances would benefit their profession and the life of those who utilize it. I disagree on the social classes point you make because even today I see low income people with smart phones and computers because they have become a necessity. Yes, I agree that maybe they will have older models or not be up to date, but they will not be left behind as technology is such an important part of our society now. I don’t think it would be an issue of if they will be able to use such advances, but more of what model they have. Technology is advancing so fast and new products come out all the time and the older models become cheaper and more attainable to low income people.
I find what you said about class separation really interesting., as I hadn’t taken the time to think about it in that way. But I can definitely see how a larger gap between classes could appear ever so rapidly. I also agree that instead of trying to improve say the standards of everyday life for upper (and even middle-class people), we should be turning more of this attention, more of these great minds, toward the bigger problems in society. Though I do believe that technology could greatly contribute to these problems (i.e. poverty, world hunger, etc.). For instance, there is current research and development into replacing the use of current fertilizer, to a “type of fertilizer” (or rather ‘non-fertilizer’) that increases yields of crops, but leaves the soil healthier than it first began. This sort of advancement, which I see as a technological advancement (in terms of genetic engineering and other tools to make this happen), could greatly impact the hunger and poverish rates if it is perfected and sent to say, a third-world country. There is also genetic engineering that has been proposed to change the process of photosynthesis of a crop to allow for it to grow in different climates (i.e. dont have to worry about harsh winters, for example). Technology can have a great impact for the better, but the resources and focus of this rapidly increasing field definitely needs to shift their priorities.
Hi Heather,
Great argument! I never thought about this issue before. I agree that what you have postulated can potentially be true, but to look on the positive side, advancement in technology can maybe/potentially enhance or promote more educated people across the US as well. This is because as technology increases, there will be a higher demand for skilled people. If this is the case, maybe all uneducated people will be more motivated to become educated since that is the only way to “survive” the world and become employed. With that said, if people are more educated, more people will find a stable job, less lower-class and potentially lower the inequality gap.
The point you make is one that is very instrumental in the survival of the human species. Not only would allowing the upper class to dominate over the lower class be detrimental to the population dynamic but it would also begin to change the diversity in the population. The effects this would have on nature is also a big problem that will result from the increase in technology and I think you did a good job of bringing in the aspects of nature and animals. Overall the opinion you have on this topic is one that I think leads to a very strong opposition of technology and gives a valid reason why.
Much discourse at the intersections of identity, not only limited to socioeconomic class, is obviously missing in their arguments since both Joy and Kurzweil are rich, white men in a male dominated field that is backed by corporate and government interests. I feel like both of their arguments respond to the trope that AI is dangerous and can annihilate humanity if we, as a society, continue to allow technology to serve capitalism’s violent interests in warfare and domination. The prime example is the nuclear arms race and the development of the atomic bomb. Although AI is not as visibly destructive, AI can only be dangerous if the creators seek to weaponize it and program unethical functions. The systemic driving force behind advancing technology influences professional engineers and students alike to have excess hubris and interests in maximizing profits and fighting mortality without first examining if technology is “advancing” to address the deeper ills of the world that make some more mortal than others. I find that the spirit of singularity to achieve immortality is influenced by the outdated computationalist paradigm of thought, which derived Enlightenment thinker René Descartes’s fallacious idea that the body and mind are separate entities. I mean, why upload our minds into machines when we can study lobster’s longevity? More scholars are starting to understand that cognition and intelligence are embodied, which is where the most effective scientific breakthroughs are happening in fields not limited to biological engineering, neurology, and psychology. Ethics and philosophical implications were only really considered from the margins in the underfunded social sciences, humanities, and art that can lead to cultural conversations from dystopian science fiction and satirical works. In my alternate vision of a socialist “utopia,” it would be interesting to see something like a stock market AI or one to the extent of controlling a substantial portion of society rationalizing that capitalism is ethically bad, and destroying the system.
In the reading, bill focus too much on the disadvantages of advanced technology in the future. He believes that machine would replace human to make every decisions, and machines will become more and more intelligent. In that case, it is hard for human to turn the engine off and control them. On the other hand, ray also pays a lot of attention on the cons of new technology. Such as essential values and qualities could be downloaded from computer and save in Compact drive. Both Joy and ray do not mentions how technology would benefits people in the future. We should see the future and problems in a optimistic way. Do not focus too much on the dark sight. In the boarder view, we could predict how technology and society would change in the future based on how technology growth in recent years.
Hi Ying,
I agree with this in that we should focus more on the positives instead of the negatives. There will be cons in a lot of things in life, especially technology, but we as innovators made these devices and can also destroy them. Maybe both Bill and Ray should focus more on how to alleviate this “fear” from people. Maybe have government implement laws that will benefit everyone. Technology and humanity should work side by side to ensure the safety and well-being of society.
Hi! Do you think the negative view on technology is due to the work of fiction depicting machines as very powerful? I feel that the work of fiction plays a huge role in implanting fears of machines in some people. I can see why Joy and Kurzweil view the technological future that way. I also agree that we should view technology in an optimistic view due to the various benefits they have for us.
I find it interesting that you mentioned this. It made me realize how a vast majority of us (or so it seems), recognize the “fear” or rather the possibility of robots becoming ‘out of control’, to the point where they take over our lives, and things such as our decision making, as Joy states in his piece. Yet, if we are all so aware, and even those who are leading this rapid “tech revolution/advancement” are aware of this proposed consequence, then why should we not be pre-emptive enough to put in place a plan of action before this occurs. This is a fear that has been highlighted for decades (look at I, robot or 1984 for example). If there is not already (i haven’t done in depth research), should there not be a team of great minds ready with solutions, prepared to combat what Joy and Kurzweil believe to be the inevitable?
I don’t necessarily think that all the negative views of technology comes from the fictional media. From my perspective I think technology is a good thing to have to keep up with the fast paced world we are in today. However the negative aspect I apply to technology comes from my personal experiences with people who are completely invested in technology and from watching my generation value objects over people. The media does help a little bit when they show technology taking over the world and things going bad, but I think the person interaction we see has more impact.
This is a good point that you bring up. These type of machines have been depicted in a fearful way. Robots have been mainly implied to be a machine that will manage to get out of control in some way, but that isn’t always the case. In a TV show that I have seen, Person of Interest, the main character programs a supercomputer type machine which us used to save lives. This computer gains human like qualities and isn’t a machine to be feared of .
Hi Alice, I don’t necessarily think that fictional media have placed a negative view of the advancement of technology. I see it as a way of influencing people to design and potentially make these technologies become realistic. I also think that since fictional media also depict the flaws of these advanced machines, this will motivate real-life scientists to try to prevent these flaws from happening.
Hi Alice,
I like your point, as I have never thought about fiction work influencing our view on technology. Now that I think about it, I think fiction work is powerful in a sense that though we do not notice it, our views are shaped by what we choose to view. Then again, even if it is the case, I still think that we should be cautious of the future, as the fiction work can may foresee the future of the dangers of social media.
Ying,
They definitely both have a relatively pessimistic view of technology. Especially since they don’t really discuss the impact technology has on the common people, it can make readers and listeners slightly paranoid about the effects of technology and to what extent it will take over our lives. I agree, if they bring up points about how it’ll benefit people in the future, it will create a more optimistic perspective of technology and will make people more welcoming of how technology can benefit people.
Hi Ying,
I actually will have to disagree with your argument because I also view advanced technology as a hazard to our society in the future. Rather than seeing the future and problems in a optimistic way, I think it is better for us to try to prevent this problem of machines becoming more and more intelligent. Meaning, rather than replacing human workers with machines, innovators should not further their development with human robots. This is an example of why advanced technology is a problem to our society because people are losing their jobs because of the robots that could perform the jobs we can.
Hello! To add to your argument about Joy, his point of view is also something that would take far longer to actually occur, at least in my point of view. I also agree that we could look at the growth in recent years to create predictions and I believe that there are studies on such things. However, I personally feel that technology may be more advanced than the general public may think and companies hold off on releasing the highest end to stretch their income years.
Hello Ying Luo
I agree with your thought that bill too much focuses on the disadvantages of advanced technology in the future. Today people cannot do anything without machines or technology because they already get used to it. Moreover, Bill and ray do not show the positive point of view but only focus negative view. Also, the government creates law to control machines boundaries in our lives.
We have gone too deep into involving technology into our everyday lives that it won’t stop advancing. Technology does have its good and bad, but we must be able to know how to use it without hurting one another. It can be a great weapon in this generation. We visualize technology as helping us in our everyday lives and making things easier, but we forget that it also helps make crimes and stuff easier too. I think something that wasn’t talked about by Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil is that not everyone has the access or ability to use technology. How about people who live in poverty across countries or people with disabilities that may or may not be able to use it? We keep forgetting that while technology is a big involvement in our lives, it does come with a price that not everyone can afford or even able to use.
I agree with what you said, I never thought about the fact that technology can contribute to the increase of crime rate or the fact that not all people will have the privilege or advantage to own technologies that most Americans have, so it can display inequality.
Hello Catherine,
I agree with economic issues. The poor working class people, and others with disabilities are not mentioned in the readings. I believe that those are critical topics that the government has to consider if they are implementing robots in our lives.
I agree with you to an extent. The accessibility to technology will be key if we are talking about the future because if it isn’t accessible to everyone then will it really be the future? While both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil fail to talk about the accessibility to technology and how people who live in poverty will be able to use it, how will we know if people in poverty won’t have access to tech in the future? I feel like technology is getting more and more affordable these days and if technology is the future of the world, so there is a possibility that people living in poverty could have access. Overall, we really just do not know what will happen in the future.
I agree with you that more can be done in very poor countries, but I don’t see that in the United States. I think that even low income people own smartphone and computers because they are truly needed in this country. You need them for a job, for school, to take care of your family. Technology has helped many low income people here in the US and I also hope that it will help other people in other countries who live in poverty. I think that with how fast technology is evolving, we will soon be able to help others abroad have the same quality of life we do here in the United States.
I agree that access to these new technologies would definitely be one of its biggest downfalls in addition to making crime easier to commit. It could honestly end up being a cycle. Because technology could eventually be used as a status symbol, much like designer clothes today, it could be used to oppress those who cannot afford it. This in turn could lead to crime in that sense (eg. using it maliciously to keep it inaccessible to some people) or even increase crime in the sense that people may begin to start stealing the robots in order to obtain them.
Catherine,
I agree with what you’re saying. As someone else has mentioned, technology is like a double edged sword. By making people’s lives easier and more accessible, we do the same for criminals and hackers as well. From the discussion between Joy and Kurzweil, it doesn’t look like they’re taking the common person into consideration.
The advancement of technology gives more power to the people who are able to buy and use it but leaves behind everyone else who can’t, i.e. the poor and sick. I agree with the stance you have on this topic because it is something that will actually happen as technology continues to develope and increase in price. When you brought up crimes I was surprised I hadn’t seen this topic brought up before because it is an obvious effect of the increase of technology. I think when it comes to the increase of crimes the question is who, whether is it civilians or other countries, has the more advanced technology?
I agree that this perspective is important to examine. We generally think that technological advancements will benefit society; however, it doesn’t benefit everyone in society. For those who are unable to afford technological devices, it will not have an impact on them or make it worse for them to survive in this world. As technological devices advance, our economy will probably expand and become more expensive to live in this world.
We should be able to take the perspectives of both the lower class and the higher class to decide whether or not we should continue advancing in technology.
Hi Catherine,
I really enjoyed reading your post. I haven’t thought about it that way until I read your comment. Crime has always been an issue in America, and which recent issues and recent political uprisings, crime is not stopping. And, as you mentioned, technology will be of great assist to commit crimes. And its important, like you said, to consider those who do not have access to technology, because, if they are targeted in anyway, they do not have any way to defend or fight for themselves
We have come a long way with the evolvement of technology that it’s really almost impossible to stop it. We have gone too deep into involving technology into our everyday lives that it won’t stop advancing. Technology does have its good and bad, but we must be able to know how to use it without hurting one another. It can be a great weapon in this generation. We visualize technology as helping us in our everyday lives and making things easier, but we forget that it also helps make crimes and stuff easier too. I think something that wasn’t talked about by Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil is that not everyone has the access or ability to use technology. How about people who live in poverty across countries or people with disabilities that may or may not be able to use it? We keep forgetting that while technology is a big involvement in our lives, it does come with a price that not everyone can afford or even able to use.
Hi Catherine. I agree with your point that technology has reached a point of no return (with said return referring to reducing the involvement of technology in our lives), as well as the fact that as a result, it has brought about good and bad to today’s society. One can make the argument that the rate at which technology is advancing as well as expanding can help to address issues that are currently taking place in the world. However, one can also counter this by bringing up the fact that while it can provide help, it can also bring about new problems or worsen current ones. Similar to how free speech can bring about good and bad, technology highlights the concept of a “double-edged sword,” where something can have both favorable outcomes and unfavorable consequences. While there is much that can be done about this, the question that should be asked and addressed is “Regarding the current influence of technology in the world, how should we approach this issue of a double edged sword?”
I understand both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzwei’s fear of technology because people fear the ambiguous outcomes since new technology will have unknown effect and too many possibilities in the future. However, we also should view things from pros and cons. Bill Joy and Ray Kurzwei’s missing from argument is the benefits of future technology because they focus too much on the threats of emerging technology or they overlook the impact of it. Also, since artificial intelligence is available to rich people, what effect on the lower class or middle class people? For a broader conversation, we can do research on the global issue and since from the view that robots can “replace” human in the future, we also can start the conversation from the humanity.
Zhiying,
Your question, “what effect on the lower class or middle class people” really got me thinking about this issue. I think the answer to that question can go two ways. One, if the richer people abuse their abilities to use AI for their own advantages, then it would not be a good situation for people of middle and lower class. For example, usually CEO’s hire others to run their business, and if CEO’s decide to use AI robots to replace the humans (usually of middle or lower class) running their business then the lower classes will suffer possible unemployment. On the other hand, if the rich people decide to use their AI robots to help out the lower classes such as providing them with intellectual robots to educate those without access to education, then it would benefit them.
Hey Zhiying, it is admitted that the humanity point you point out should be the starting point of the discussion of new technology. I think the global issue you refer to is the common social phenomenon or change due to certain techniques. However, I don’t see some convincing examples showing the obvious effect technology exclusively exerts on lower class people. It’ll be much clear if we focus on a bigger picture of the impact on any class of people and then compare. A good example that is worth researching is that 3D printing has replaced a tremendous number of labors for manufacturing. For all the people as a whole, it does increase the production rate as well as create much more values with lower costs, but it’ll also restrict the employment opportunities for labors in lower classes. As you mentioned, the future is unpredictable, so that we are not sure what those labors will do after they lose their work, and the essential factor to influence those labors’ future is the performance of the people in higher class who make values through technology. Thus, I believe an effective talk of the pros and cons of technology should involve any class of people.
The voices and positions of the main people who will be affected by this technological advancement (the younger generations) are missing from both Joy’s and Kurzweil’s arguments. By the time 2038 comes around, many of us will be in our late thirties and early forties, and people like Joy and Kurzweil and other experts in the technological fields will be way beyond that. Generations younger than our own will be the ones who will be the most impacted by this change and there was no discussion on how it will affect them. The only discussion happening was how it will affect the authors and the people they know. In order to find a broader conversation, this concern needs to be brought to light to all younger generations and they need to be educated on the things that these professionals know about the new technological age that is soon coming.
Hi Hailee,
I totally agree that these articles are one-sided especially in the younger generation. I also said in my post that, I think that both Joy and Kurzweil’s perspective are single sided because they fail to present different views from different people such as doctors, lawmakers, engineers, etc.. Doctors would favor for the advancement of technology since it has drastically changed the way we approach to medicine, whereas, lawmakers would contradict this perspective with that it has led to a dystopia that has led to complex systems that have negatively impacted our society. As you said, this type of change would affect the younger generation especially with the age gap between the authors and “generation X,” where this generation has been exposed to technology and would fight for the advancement and as you said they should be more aware of the situation by educating them of the problem at hand.
Hi Hailee, I also agree with your opinion that the younger generations are missing from both Joy’s and Krzwil’s argument. I am thinking that when the time does come that this technological advance will happen, then the ones who are most affected are the people who are born later than us because we basically lived our lives through the development of this technology, so we still had the first half of our life where it was not as technological dependent. However, for the younger generation who will be born when these technological advances have already occurred, then it would be a lot different for them. For them, they would not even have the option or chance to compare and contrast a life with no technological dependence and a life where they strive and live with a huge dependence on technology. Therefore, I feel that we will not have the voices from the younger generation because they would not know where or how to compare the past with the present. So I feel that their argument lacks perspective from multiple positions. If anything, it might be an argument where people such as us who are born in a time where we do not depend on technology as much as they do will stand against technological advancement but for the younger generation they will obviously go for or support technological advancement.
Hi Hailee, I completely agree with informing the younger generation that will be living through this big technological shift and change so that they can better prepare for what’s to come. With the current younger generation, technology already plays a large part in their lives and because adolescents are more impressionable to technology and what the media has to say, it would be best to “protect” the kids in the future from technological advancements taking over their lives. I believe that our generation and many of us will have a sort of buffer to not be so affected since we have grown up seeing the stages of technological development. However, the future will have only been exposed to advanced technology and even further advanced innovations, which can be dangerous in the sense that real social interaction can be a problem if kids aren’t educated about the dangers of relying and using technology excessively in their day to day lives.
Hi Hailee,
I think it’s really interesting that you bring up how the younger generations are missing from Joy’s and Kurzweil’s arguments. I think that one of the reasons why both Joy and Kurzweil may not discuss the impact of technological development on the younger generations is because younger generations are able to more quickly adapt to these types of changes. I think the older generations face a harder time trying to adjust to all the new technologies being introduced as they were not accustomed to such power as they grew up and became adults. I acknowledge that it’ll be a drastically different experience for those growing up in such a new technological age however I don’t think it’ll have as large of an effect on them because they will not have knowledge of how things used to be. I think the transition period is more difficult to live through such as those in our generation.
Hello Hailee,
Thank you for sharing your opinion. It gives me to think more deeply from Joy and Kurzweil’s discussion. Of course, I agree with your thought that it should be brought to light to all younger generation who will be the most impacted by the change. The target of this article is focused on people who were raised by technology environment, but the technology is still growing and young generations should care more their lives with machines. The regulated law helps to control the machines in human lives.
computers always grow much faster than human. Because their way to study and remember things. Human may forget something but they don’t. They will memorize all of things in their non-biological brain forever if they make mistakes. However I think they overlooked one important thing that it is we human who created robots.
Hi Jinyi,
Your response brings up a good point with how are using our knowledge to create machines that are beginning to become smarter than their owners. This is what Bill Joy is worried about because eventually, they will be capable of a mind of their own. That is why there should be some type of regulation that restricts the ongoing advancement of technology. However, this is just a debate that circles around between technology which has changed the way we live for the better vs how it can eventually take over and eliminate human processes, thought, and creativity.
Something that is sort of on the same note as this in Joy’s writing, is how he mentions that we may become reliant on robots to make our decisions for us, as they know what is best for us (ultimately leading to the elimination of our own ability to form our own thoughts and beliefs and decision-making skills). Yet, I find this argument to be ‘weak’ at some ends. For instance, if someone were, without a robot, needing to make a decision, the person might know and recognize the best route, but for their own selfish desires, decide to go down a less popular route, as it might lead to a “lesser” but more favorable benefit for them. (This is vague, but stay with me). Now, if a person with a robot brought their problems to the robot to decide, i believe that the person, although conscious that it may be the “best” decision (based on some construct of whatever “best” is), would still be in control of whether it would actually decide on what the robot says is the correct decision. My point, is that as much as we like to think we would always want to choose the “best” decision even if it was presented to us on a silver platter, we are human. And since we are human, we will still long to feel in control. To put in our two cents, and do not only what is best, but what we desire or long for, which ultimately (unless this is some sort of super duper awesome robot), will only be understood and known by each individual.
I agree with you that it is humans who created robots and because of this I have to disagree with your statement that computers grow faster than humans. I believe that a computer can only go as fast as those who create and understand that computer. Right now I do not believe that there is technology that grows or learns on its own however I may have to do some research and look more into this.
I wouldn’t say there is much missing from Joy and Kurzweil’s argument but there are some voices that are not represented. I think hearing a voice that stands in between the two opposing views would have been interesting. I also wonder where most in the middle people would stand if given the choice to only side with either Joy or Kurzweil.
I agree, Joy and Kurzweil both have valid points. The people in the middle would only be able to voice their opinion and not really get acknowledged, I believe most people would take Kurzweil side, only because there is the first human formed robot made already.
I agree because this is were I feel I am at after learning about both Joy and Kurzweil’s arguments. I think that technology is beneficial in many aspects whether it is medical, security, or just making older inventions more practical now. However I also agree that too much technology will have detrimental effects on society because it will start to take over every maual thing we do to the point where people are less wanted than robots. For me I think the middle gray area is an interesting place to be in because you see both of the benefits of technology but also are informed of the negatives without feeling a heavy loss or gain on one side. In regards to having their voices heard I honestly think that the people “in power” should have a mentality similar to people in the gray area to allow for more peace and consensus about decisions.
I wouldn’t say there is much missing from Joy and Kurzweil’s argument but there are some voices that are not represented. I think hearing a voice that stands in between the two opposing views would have been interesting. I also wonder where most in the middle people would stand if given the choice to only side with either Joy or Kurzweil.
Hi Bri, I think that this is an interesting thought because there has only been either right or wrong. From a middle ground perspective, I think I would even be torn between the two because with technology that is growing at such a rapid pace, I would not be able to come to the best decision since it’s frightening to think of how the human race will end up if we give in to robots. It’s tough because biotechnology can help those who went through injuries and need an aid in order to live on.
Hello Bri,
Although I thought both are missing some point, I agree your opinion that some voices that are not represented. What position of voices do you think that? It is hard to speak one side because both perspectives are valid.
The most glaring thing missing from the argument is the dangerous aspects that pose very real threats to our well-being. I’m not talking about the dangers of becoming one with technology, I’m talking about the ways in which we put ourselves at risk with each other. What kind of crimes can be committed when each of us is plugged into the nanobots and the cloud and how vulnerable do we become to each other. Hackers can already steal our personal information what happens when the thoughts and characteristics of our individual personalities are hard-wired into a shared network? The voices who are not represented in the argument are the poor, the homeless, the mentally disabled. What does this brave new world hold for them? Will the disadvantaged be able to participate in this technological innovation? We should turn to human rights groups to have a broader conversation about this topic.
I strongly agree, Theres not much for the ones in poverty and they don’t have much of a saying now, so if we advanced technology, brought robots in the world, the disadvantage will be taken advantage. I also agree with hackers getting into our personal information. It’s hackers in the world now, but I adding nanobots will take our world to another level.
While there are dangerous aspects missing from the argument, I think that overall with literature and media exploring this in the past, currently and most likely continuously into the future as technology advances, this specific area within this topic is an implied subject matter floating in the background of everyone’s minds. We live in a world where hackers take advantage of people and the more we integrate ourselves with technology or become one with technology… the threats toward the individual become vastly significant and worrisome. However we learn to adapt alongside technology. Technology like anything else has two sides, the good and the bad; there will always be people working toward the greater good while others will be on the opposite spectrum. I agree that the poor do not really have a voice in all this and that a broader conversation to include them is vital so not to leave them behind, to include them in to this brave new world.
Hi Jerod,
I think it is an interesting point that you agree that we adapt alongside technology. While that is true to some extent, adapting does not necessarily make problems the same level of difficulty to deal with. For example, before technology, there was a significantly lower percentage of people dealing with mental bullying and harassment. Now, the internet allows people to cyber bully from behind an anonymous keyboard, even people they have never met. It is a completely new problem that has never been seen until starting in the early 2000’s when the internet, computers, and smartphones began growing exponentially.
Even before the internet, bullying and harassment have been a problem or issue that people deal with. While it is hard to say how bad or not it was prior, we would need to see statistics or studies done on local, national and worldwide levels if such studies were ever made. I think since the internet… that there have been forums, discussion boards, comments and replies or even chat to instant messaging there has been forms of online bullying. Has it gotten worse over the years, yes but I disagree in that it is entirely new, its just the rate of such happenings has increased. It has increased because there is more visibility to the topic so I think its unfair to assess that there were “significantly lower percentages of people dealing with mental bullying and harassment” pre-internet. Unfortunately with older generations, their mentality on dealing with bullying was completely different than how people try to deal with it now. With visibility comes new ways of handling cyberbullying like with open conversations, campaigns, dedicated websites, or policies. The problem is internet culture is drastically different than real life culture in that because people are behind a screen away from the physicality of face to face. People forget how to debate and rather attack others on personal levels or are just mean because they can be. I’m not saying that the problem will be dealt with the same way as it was before or how it is now or that it will be easier or difficult, but as we move forward I think there will only be more traction in how to deal and proactively prevent cyber bullying and technology can be one method in changing how we handle this issue. We may not be at that exact moment or point, but with technology we can adapt alongside it and it can be used to help lower incidents and change this behavior; there is always the potential for this.
I agree. I feel like even though we let technology help us, we forget that “help” can be many different ways for everyone. Each individual has a different agenda on their minds. We let technology control what we do. We use technology nowadays as weapons against one another. Right now we might view that as cruel, but keep in mind that on that individual’s mind, they might be thinking, “This will help me in this type of way.” Not only are we putting each other at risk, but we are mentally and emotionally hurting each other. Technology is a powerful weapon to fight with and again, not everyone has ability or access to reach it.
Hi Jiaxin, I agree with your statement. I think the most essential emotion to have as a human is empathy and if technology were to take over us and our lives, we may lose out on such a basic feeling that gives us a foundation for forming connections with all kinds of different people. Technological innovation would definitely be strongly geared towards the already wealthy and fortunate rather than the less privileged. I think it’s a brilliant idea to include human rights groups because we would be taking away from the poor even more than we are now with the existing and very large gap between the wealthy and the poor.
That’s an extremely valid point, however, being optimistic, if we were able to reach new heights with technology, I would like to think that those who are poor, homeless, and the mentally disabled would be included to indulge in the new found age of technology with the rest of us. Ultimately it will be the decision of those who hold the power of technology.
That aside, hackers will always exist and if technology becomes intertwined with our daily lives, I also think it would be dangerous. Not only would information be at risk, but our very way of living and our own control over our own body may be at risk as well.
Wow, this is an incredible point you are making, that I hadn’t realized. The control that hackers or terrorists could possibly gain could result in devastating consequences. In a previous comment, I also stated that with this fantastic rate of advancement, there needs to be an even greater group of human rights leaders to spearhead this proposed problem. It is clearly recognized, and needs to be addressed and prepared for. Further, this great tech advancement needs to be redirected to more substantial problems that are being faced toady (i.e. poverty, hunger, shelter, etc.), rather than focusing on how to make the comfortable, more comfortable.
Hello Jiaxin,
I’d never thought about turning to human rights before I read your opinion. I agree that someone who is poor or mentally disabled does not have abilities to contribute to the new world. The worst situation is hackers abuse personal information of weakness. The rich can be provided to learn this advanced technology as well as only can control a machine in their lives. Therefore, we should find human rights to everyone gives opportunities fairly.
I agree with your comment such as that we would be seeing a change in the types of crimes that would be committed. It is interesting to think of what would happen if someone were to hack into individuals networks. Who would be the one to regulate that and ensure that our thoughts are safe. I feel like in the future that could definitely pose a big threat. Human rights groups should definitely be involved in the conversation of technology such as that when such a big group of people is excluded you wonder how it will affect them. I think many people hope that with more innovation it will make access to the internet easier. Yet many do not have the money to afford these luxuries yet there lives would be affected because technology will become more widespread.
Kurzweil mentions specific examples of how technology will evolve in the next 20 years based on his projections about the future. Joy in his article mainly uses historical examples to show we need to be careful about technology and how suggest key aspects we need to consider in order to correctly handle it. However, one key aspect both authors are missing and that I wish they exploited is how our society as an entity will transform with technology. For instance, Kurzweil could have considered how the live of a college student will be in 20 or more years from now, giving details about our interaction with technology and other individuals. How are our interactions with other individuals be affected? Furthermore, I wish Joy and Kurzweil analyzed how some jobs are going to disappear because each individual will be capable of doing those jobs with the help of technology. How will this affect us as a society? Are we going to become more independent and therefore isolation is going to increase? Also, Joy who takes a more pessimistic point of view could have exploited as an example of society in the future the dystopic world of a regular college student. Probably we could obtain a better understanding of this point of view from a social anthropologist that evaluates present societies which already involve a strong implementation of technology.
What bothers me quite a bit about Bill Joy’s piece is the lack of understanding of what goes on in developing technologies beyond his own experience. Other agencies have different goals from computer scientists, and so, the problems of one type of tech development are not universal. One glaring example he gives is the idea of genetically modified foods. GMOs have been a thing since humans first found ways to farm crops. It merely means that plants with favorable qualities are bred in a way that these qualities come to be a part of the entire crop within the next few cycles. It’s just like husbandry (animal breeding). However, the official term for this process has become more common within the last few years, along with people’s misunderstandings of what it means. Often, people label them as containing “bad chemicals” when, in reality, everything is made of chemicals and those chemicals being referenced to scare others is nothing that can be considered unnatural (the chemicals are new genes introduced into the crop). Since the science behind this breeding has certain limits and clearly defined goals, there is no possible way to suddenly create a GMO that can be used to kill millions. That’s just not how genetics work. The only reason it is “bad” is often misunderstood: that companies that control these crops and their distribution to farmers make them sterile, meaning that farmers have to keep buying the crops from the company instead of being able to set aside a portion of the crop to breed more crops for the next term. It’s a money-grabbing tactic. Science and technology is an important part of human development over time. No one says taking baths or making food resistant to disease to decrease famines are a bad thing. It’s just when people fail to understand the science of it, the thought and time that is taken by individuals in creating these things, that fear takes hold within that gap of knowledge.
I completely understand your frustration towards Bill Joy as he fails to understand the way that GMO’s work, but I think that he doesn’t include a lot of information about them and briefly mentions them in the article because he is trying to make a broader point. Bill Joy wants to warn or scare his audience by depicting this dystopian world where plants will become resistant to pesticides, leading to bio-accumulation of the pesticide , and causing the death of many people. It’s not necessarily that he is naive towards the benefits of GMO’s, but instead he refuses to include the benefits because then it would weaken his argument. It won’t contribute to his dystopian vision and he wants to highlight all the bad outcomes that can result from technology. Furthermore, i think that he shows that technology and GMO’s are similar because we are aware of the benefits of both of them in present life, but we don’t know if the future results of using them will be good or bad. Since the future is uncertain, Bill Joy is able to depict technology as being dangerous and possibly getting rid of humanity.
Ray Kurzweil called computers’ surpassing human ability “The Singularity,” like it’s the inevitable, and bound to happen. Bill Joy also delved into the thought of humankind relying so heavily on machines, that we end up not having any practical alternative, no choice but to comply with their “decisions.” I personally find this notion that humankind would be so fickle as to give all control to machines a little absurd. With every technological advancement, there is always a group that pushes back, be it out of belligerence toward new things, or as a desire to preserve what is familiar, traditional. While in some areas, it IS good to complete tasks as efficiently as possible, people also like to consume every detail. Bill Joy touched on it just a bit, stating the “essence of humanity” lies with humankind’s individual care for “precious things,” something that Kurzweil seemed to neglect. In both conversations, they seem to forget to consider human “selfishness,” or like the need to preserve ourselves as individuals with our own histories and observations. If relying heavily on robots or technology means forgoing creative individuality, there will definitely be a growing pushback on whatever technology that tries to stifle it.
From a less philosophical and more practical point of view, something else they both seem to ignore is the concept of technology as a luxury. While in the last 10-15 years, huge advancements have been made, so that in almost all parts of the world there has been a significant increase in access to the Internet and information and technology, high tech devices are still rather bourgeoisie to upper class. For technology/machines to “take over”/surpass humans to the point where we have “no choice but to comply”, I think first we would need to have to social and economic means to at least introduce such tech to all parts of the world first. Kurzweil’s notion that machines will basically “replace” the need to “live” doesn’t really seem liable to me, because even if machines could do all the work people do now, including all the most tedious labors, people wouldn’t want to implement them, because the cost of developing and then purchasing such technology would be much greater than paying people in need of jobs for as little as possible.
Oh, one more thing to consider, sort of in regards to spreading the technology to all parts of the world first, before it “takes over” or we become too dependent: Besides the practical/economic regard that is missing from the conversation, as well as the individual philosophy, there are also many social barriers that kind of conflict with Kurzweil and Joy’s fears. I touched upon it a bit above, but machines or computers will never be able to fully overtake humankind as a whole, because human selfishness will simply not allow it, for two reasons. For the poor to gain access to such high functioning technology, the standard of living would have to increase globally. There would be no “poverty class”, if computer technology was so thoroughly integrated into daily lives of all, and the rich would just become average. If a poverty class did survive this “Singularity”, the wealth gap between the rich and the poor would be so large, that there would be virtually no “middle class”, just extreme wealth from those reaping benefits of technology, and extreme poverty from those displaced BY the tech. The second notion is unfortunately not an unrealistic concept, and does occur at a much smaller scale in real life. Although it seems nearly impossible, the first idea would be a better end to approach, but there would never be a global shift in access and inclusion of wealth to such an extent, because of every individual’s differing economic, political, and social views. (Human selfishness).
I agree with what you say about Kurzweil and Joy not placing importance on how technology might be regarded as a luxury in the future. I agree with your comment about how technology still remains a luxury today, but I think that might change in the near future. With how fast technology is advancing we get new models of the same device every year and those old devices(which still work perfectly) are forgotten by those that can afford the newest model. I personally think that technology will be attainable by everyone and not rich people. I also agree with your point that technology will not surpass or replace the work of humans because, like you stated, first it need to get to those countries that still don’t have internet. I think it would be wise to look deeper into how technology can help other countries and make it attainable for everyone in the world.
I like that you acknowledge that “with every technological advancement, there is always a group that pushes back”. It makes me think of the coal or the fossil fuel industry. Groups that support these areas of business tend to push back on better forms of technology like electric power that are less damaging to our livelihoods and environment because people within that industry will loose jobs, companies will loose stocks or go out of business, etc. Like you said to “preserve what is familiar, traditional”, and I think that is what we tend to see at the point that we’re at. As we head toward far more advance technologies in general, I agree that groups will push back for the same reason, if not for various other reasons to keep some balance with human living and machines. Societally, I do think that we are reaching a point where humankind relies much more on machines than previous generations as we have grown dependent on the technologies used. I can see that this is only going to get worse (how worse is questionable), but like you, I too think that giving all control to machines is completely absurd.
After reading the article and listening to the podcast, I completely understand where both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil’s fears derive from. Obviously, it’s easy to fear something that has endless possibilities and outcomes that we can’t account for. The effect that technology has on a human life as of right now is immensely impactful; how much more would it be like in the future? However, one fault that I see in both Joy and Kurzweil’s arguments is that both of these men are accounting for something that effects individuals differently. Obviously, the effects that technology will have one an individual depends on one’s financial status, age, and location. These factors will affect how one can gain access to the possible technology and one’s willingness to accept the technology that will be available in 2038, so obviously it’s hard to account for the effects of technology at a global scale.
Hi Flora,
I agree completely that many factors determine how one uses technology. Even today, it is easy to find vast differences comparing the technological advancement in different countries. Because of this, different countries and societies will also have different reactions to emerging technologies. I think Joy and Kurzweil both look at technology from primarily a Western perspective, not considering cultural and societal differences. However, as you said, trying to predict the future of technology “at a global scale” is pretty much impossible.
Hi Lavanya,
I understand what you meant. Indeed, even in this modern, it is clear that there are differences in science and technology in different countries. However, this special difference only between a few very backward countries and powerful countries. I personally think that this difference in technology is not a big problem because we are talking about science and technology in human daily life. Those very high-end technologies are not often encountered in our daily lives (It is impossible for everyone to take a satellite into space now). Instead, commodities such as smartphones are found all over the world. Just as today’s era is a time of globalization; the globalization of the Internet, economic globalization, and globalization of transportation there all can explain the current world is a whole. I think that in nowadays, only socialism cannot be globalized. There is little to stop the globalization of science and technology.
But Kurzweil mentions that most technology will be a lot cheaper in the future. He puts as example the computer they had in MIT while he was studying there which cost millions of dollars and that currently we have a smartphone that is a lot more powerful than that computer and it costs only couple hundreds of dollars. Because of that reason, I do not think financial status will play a major role. Also, location is not a problem because globalization interconnects multiple countries. The only countries that are not being affected by globalization are the communist ones, which according to Kurzweil will also disappear in the future.
Hi Flora,
I agree with what you have to say about technology and on a global scale. The advancement of technology and access to technology depends greatly on the development and culture of a country. Technologically advanced countries like the US may continue to make rapid technological developments, but what about second and third world countries? Moreover, how would newly developed technology affect these developing countries? Perhaps technology would be developed that could possibly help this countries. On the other hand, new technologies can also easily work against them. It’s very obvious that both Joy and Kurzweil are looking at technology in western sense, which in my opinion is fairly ignorant. I think that we don’t always recognize how our technology affects these developing countries as well, which is something very important to think about.
Hi Flora, I completely agree with the fault that you pointed out there. I would think it’s an ideal on Kurzweil’s part because such a technologically advanced world could only benefit the wealthy and those who can afford it. Technology might only affect a portion of the entire population as a result and yes, we wouldn’t be able to tell whether going forward with more advancements would make such a drastic change that Joy envisioned the future to be. Maybe machines won’t take over our lives to the point where we wouldn’t be able to live our lives without our phones, computers, etc.
Hi! I found it interesting that you view their arguments to only affect individuals as I haven’t thought about it like that. I think location is an interesting factor. Do you think underdeveloped countries will eventually be able to gain advanced technology as well? This is a question that comes to mind when I see location as a part of your factors. I think it would be interesting to see those countries gain technology while we continue to advance our technology. I also think it would be hard to account for the effects at a global scale since people would benefit differently from technology, and that includes whether the benefit lasts for a short or long time.
Hello Flora!
I agree that both of these men don’t really give rise to the endless possibilities that may come from these advances. There are currently, and will always be advantages for those few that are better off and tend to have more instant access but less need whereas, those populations where the need is more substantial, they’re more likely to have less access. Both article and podcast fail to account for this population because like in our current societies, having less access to resources makes us almost invisible. Both do portray possible extremes that may come at a global scale but again, it is quite early to tell. There are very many factors that still need to be taken into account when predicting a possible future and even then, we can only be so sure on what’s to come.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil both offer fascinating points of view regarding the future of the humanity but both overlook important aspects of this future. Ray Kurzweil discusses his concept of the “singularity” in which technology surpasses human capability but fails to address humans on the individual level. Much of the podcast details the new technologies that will arise in the next twenty years but Kurzweil only looks at the larger picture. He never mentions the issues that may arise both socially and economically. Sure, maybe the future is looking bright in terms of technological innovation but these technologies will only be available to the upper class – more likely the top one percent. I think this is where we can look to Bill Joy who talks about the future on a more individual level. Joy discusses a future in which personal fulfillment has become an issue which is a crucial topic to discuss. It is true that fulfillment in terms of work will be lost but in its place will be more time to focus on personal goals and hobbies. Overlooking this omits many possibilities in which people are more happy and feel more fulfilled; perhaps there will be a renaissance of art once society is no longer concerned with making decisions and allow AI to guide us.
Do you think that the economical aspect will be an issue? What about Kurzweil projection that technology is going to get exponentially cheaper and better? Don’t you think technologies like computers which today are still only accessible to a portion of society will be so cheap that anyone could purchase it?
I think Joy as well as most people are missing the fact that technology will get cheaper and therefore economy will not be a relevant issue.
Yes, issues of economics will still arise and it is possible technology will reach that level of affordability in the future. However, I think that’s only one possibility. There are so many other factors that could affect or change notion. What if this economic stratification is institutionalized? What if the elite artificially restrict the lower class from accessing these technologies? Perhaps we’ll eventually become an artificially stratified society and nobody will be able to afford these spectacular innovations.
Hi Giovanni,
I totally agree with you that authors paid too much attention to the bright future of technology for people but left the drawbacks unmentioned. Since nobody can anticipate the future, authors’ view may serve as a guide for people to follow so that they may also trust that AI can bring us a prodigious number of advantages. Thus, there will be more advanced robots and technology being created. Whether the robot is a disaster or a convenience is still a question. So, yes! I think authors should mention the issues that may arise both socially and economically when demonstrating the ideas of technology and robots.
Hi Giovanni,
I agree that both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil’s overlook at important aspects of this technological-infused society, such as social and economical impact that may arise in the future. In my own opinion, I believed that our future will only be in danger if technological innovation falls into the wrong hands or acquired by people with ill intention, rather than the extreme example provided in Bill Joy’s article, which indicates mankind would ultimately face our own demise due to the heavy reliance of technology and machines. I would like to see how Bill Joy addresses the regulations of future technological innovation. If the power lies within the hand of the top one percent of population, how will the government enforce regulations in order to prevent the misuse of technological advancement? Will the upper class population use technology as a tool to further increase the wealth gap between the poor and the rich? Or will some good samaritans employ technologies to allow the lower class population to have better access to food security, universal basic income, or shelter?
Hi Andrew, thanks for the response. I completely agree with your point regarding how these technological advances will be handled in the future. I had mentioned to another response to this thread that artificial stratification could potentially create economic disparities within society that happen regardless of technological advances. It is possible that the elite will somehow monopolize these technologies and restrict lower classes from accessing them.
The idea that technology will eventually surpass the human capacity is a very evident idea that soon will be upon us. While, we as humans heavily rely on technology day in and day out along, the time will come where the negative uses of the advancing technology that exists will out- way all of the good that can come from it. Joy and Kurzweil bring up very key points in the fact that humans will never stop looking for ways to improve upon the existing technologies and soon, artificial intelligence will ultimately supersede human understanding and at that point in time, whose to say that the technology we’ve put our faith as well as trust into won’t turn its “back” on us. It is hard to predict what the future will hold, but I hope that what the future holds does not involve technology being of eminent danger to the human race.
Hi Andres,
I think it’s very daunting to just say that technology will eventually overpower us. Yes, we are very dependent on many different forms of technology, and that dependency will only increase as more technological advancements are made. I think that it’s almost a “fantasy” however that artificial technology will overcome us. It’s kind of what we see in the movies, new technology/artificial intelligence/robots becoming smarter than the humans who created them. In my opinion, yes obviously technology is becoming smarter and smarter, but for them to establish a will to “surpass” humans seems outlandish to me. Just how so will technology turn its “back” on us? I think that society has creatively implemented these ideas of robots and technology overcoming us, but what are the actual practicalities of the matter? Just how so will artificial technologies develop its own will? Its own motive? Its own personal thoughts? Humans are the developers in control of this technology, and I understand that we are making technology smarter. It’s not a question of how smart could we make them, but how smart will we make them?
Hi Andres, I agree with you that technology is clearly becoming more advanced. While there may be negative uses, I like to believe that most technological advancements are used for good. Joy The fact that artificial intelligence could “turn back” on us is scary. For this argument, I stand more with Kurzweil, since his standpoint about technology is more optimistic. In contrast, Joy mentions how technology could eventually lead to human extinction. I think that even though humans become very dependent on technology, I do not think technology could actually turn back on us since artificial intelligence does not yet have feelings/thoughts.
Hi! I also agree that the idea of technology surpassing human capability is possible. As we continue to rely and advance technology, the possibility of it becoming much more powerful seems to be more likely. I often think that is technology around because of humans or are humans around because of technology. It seems there’s balance in reliance of machine and humans that just continues to grow together. I also hope that the future does not become some apocalyptic nightmare of machines ruling over humans and that we can compliment each other instead.
Hi Andres,
I agree with you that we do rely too much on technology and humans will never stop on upgrading them, but in my opinion it will get to a point that there is nothing more to be upgraded, and I don’t think that technology will soon overpower us. The reason is the idea that Joy brought up in his article about a new species called Robot is almost impossible. Robots/technology are not living things, they need creators to reduce errors in their programs and fix bugs – they do not generate like any time of animals in order to adapt to their surrounding. And since they almost cannot generate without us, we can control the situation. The thing that drives the development of technology, in my opinion, is money. Technology makes more money for their developers to develop more and better technologies, hence I think the decisions of how to use this power is in our hand.
Hi! I definitely think its important to consider the fact that technology might get so advanced it can surpass humans in certain aspects. However, no matter how advanced technology can be, I don’t think it can surpass human consciousness. Just like how a calculator or a computer can compute mass amounts of information significantly faster than humans, it is still prone to error and isn’t functional without human supervision and control. Similarly, factories have machines that can create things to absolute perfection yet handmade things are still valued to be higher quality and priced significantly higher.
Hi Benjamin,
I totally agree with you. Indeed, technology will have several capacities and can be capable of other functions but overall it cannot obtain nor surpass human consciousness. Like you stated, technology isn’t functional without human supervision, indeed technology needs of us like we of them. For sure technology right now has many capabilities that we as humans cant achieve. Also, as of now and as it been over the years, technology requires instruction and cannot operate with out it.
In Bill Joy’s article “why the future doesn’t need us,” his main focus is on the negative sides of rapid growing technology, more specifically the opposition on robots in the future. He mentions about people’s brain will become half biological and half mechanical, which simply a phenomenon of living under robots’ control. What he misses from the article is that readers may be able to acquire some knowledges about the influence of robots, but readers should not have the ability to judge technology based on this article alone. This article is not all-inclusive at all. To make this article more persuasive, Bill Joy should explain the process of how a normal human becomes “half human half robot” by replacing half of her brain. For what reason people will adopt this “inhuman” technology. What are the possible tempting benefits/conveniences this technology will bring? Bill Joy’s article imagines the future based on some facts that he encounters now, but his imaginations are biased because he neglects humanity – whether people will accept robots, and also mechanize their biological bodies.
Hi Xinfei, I really liked your point about how the article was not all inclusive to the world of technology. I thought it was interesting how you incorporated a better way to make the article more persuasive. I would be very intrigued if the article included the process of how a half human half robot would have come to be. I do think that it would be even more intriguing if he began to discuss what this would do to the world of identity politics. I am interested to know your viewpoint on what Kurzweil said and whether you think he delved more deeply into the realm of technology. I think he was better at discussing a broad spectrum of topics than Bill Joy. I think that you brought a new viewpoint that I didn’t think to think about before.
Hi Xinfei! I definitely agreed with the points you mentioned! In the reading, Bill Joy purely focus on the negative aspects of rapid growing technology, but does not acknowledged the benefits of having these advanced technology. However, i definitely see his point that as technology further advanced, humans rely so much on robots to do our everyday-task that eventually, our brain will become half biological and half mechanical. It is also very true that Joy neglects humanity and he fails to point out that it is eventually up to us humans to decide if we would let these robots to take over our body.
In Ray Kurzweil’s podcast as well as Bill Joy’s article, they are missing a broader scheme of social classes as well as different identities in their arguments. In Kurzweil’s podcast, he discusses his predictions for technology and how it will advance/progress over the years. In many ways he was right, but he didn’t make predictions about how such advancements would effect the current issues of identity politics. In Joy’s article, he talks about the different leaders in technology and uses mainly white male examples when discussing technological progression, which leaves out those who are not white and male. So the voices and positions that are not represented are those who are not white male with power. We could look for a broader conversation about technological dvanements and its meaning by discussing this topic with those who are not white males with power. Not only that, but it doesn’t cover the conversation of how technological advancements will effect or are currently effecting those that are impoverished. There are many technological advancements that have contributed to some becoming impoverished due to their jobs being replaced by those advancements. Kurzweil’s podcast really does say a lot about the predicitons of where the future will take us, but doesn’t do much to explain what the currrent state is like and what we can do about it. Same for Bill Joy, his article discusses his worries about what technology will do to humanity as a whole rather than looking at what it is currently doing. The issue not being discussed is the one where it effects more than the upper middle class white man because in our current state they are not effected with the advancements of technology in any way other than a positive light.
Hi Aubrey,
I agree with you that Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy don’t acknowledge a number of social classes when discussing his thoughts on the future of technology. I, too, believe that the privileged and elite are those that will be able to experience technological advancement while the under-represented classes will not. It is true that some people are becoming impoverished due to technology. An example of this right now is happening in healthcare, specifically pharmacy. There has been word that pharmacy automation and robotic dispensing systems may replace pharmacists. Their arguments would have definitely been more valid if they brought up contemporary situations such as this.
Hi Aubrey,
You raise many compelling points that I certainly agree with, and I don’t find it surprising that viewpoints from Joy and Kurzweil encompass that of a white male with power. It is not unusual to see or hear that progression, whether it’s technological or not, would more likely benefit the smaller percentage of who can and have access to these advancements. As significant contributors to technology, both Ray and Kurzweil are envisioning a future that the common people have probably not imagined or thought about ever. Some of the voices that are left out of this conversation may say that there are much more things to worry about than reaching this singularity where machines will someday merge with humans. As you had mentioned, the results of technological advancements unfortunately does not seem bright for those whose jobs might be replaced, which is already happening. Even if some of these are jobs that no one really wanted in the first place, they serve as valuable income to many struggling to get by.
According to the article, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”, Bill Joy believes that we should limit “our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge” and that despite the benefits of furthering robotic and AI technology, Joy believes that the misuse or abuse of it could inevitably lead to our own extinction. On the other hand, Ray Kurzweil says that the next few decades is predicted to be a case of significant exponential growth. He refers to an event called the Singularity in that machines will harness human intelligence and also that we would inevitably merge with them. Concerning just Joy’s article, while I do see why he would find the need to restrict technological development, I do not think that restriction has ever been in the best interest of humanity. Sure, our history has shown how often and how close we can get to killing each other off, but we have demonstrated just as much that we will not settle for less. Someone will always find a way to bypass those restrictions. Regardless, research and development should not stop, for if we one day are threatened by technology’s abuse, and Joy makes a good point with this, we should count on our knowledge to counter and prevent them; however in doing so requires this pursuit of new knowledge. As for Kurzweil, I am impressed with his vision, but I feel he neglects to mention the social ramifications of this future technology. He focuses on the effects technology will have on industries such as manufacturing, medicine, bioengineering, etc. I could totally see how this new tech could easily adapt to industry, but speaking of social terms, there are a lot of factors that Ray does not consider. It’s obvious that the Elite will benefit the most, but what about middle and lower class citizens? What about newer generations that will grow up with this technology? Industry can adapt pretty easily, but what about culture? How can we be so sure that a majority would participate in this Singularity? If we want to broaden the conversation, then we should start including more research professionals in the mix: sociologists, psychologists, humanists, etc.
Hi Joshua,
You brought up an interesting point about the Singularity. Kurzweil mentions that humans will eventually become part of the Singularity, but only validates his point by speaking from a privileged point of view. This makes me wonder how the lower-middle class will be affected by technology, if it even does so because of their economical status in society.
There is no middle ground between Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil- they both fail to see the opposing arguments’ successes and failures. Billy Joy pure focuses on issues faced today (or more specifically when he wrote the article in early 2000), but fails to draw on the possibilities of the future- good or bad. In opposition, Ray Kurzweil makes commentary that paints a picture of success and good health for the future with the advancements of technology. Both fail to execute an argument that contains a solid background on those affected by this change. As technology develops, society must develop too. Joy and Kurzweil either only focus on themselves, or the technology at hand- neither note the effect this change can and will have on society: economically, socially, medically, or otherwise. Their discussions could expand to discuss the potential advancements and deficits society faces as technology advances forward; with or without us. In my opinion, there are an infinite number of paths that the future could take; I argue that technology should advance, unstifled, in the areas that will continuously benefits society (i.e. the healthcare, education, and environmental sectors). Society can be better, and technology can make it happen, we shouldn’t hold back on the possibility of what tomorrow could hold.
Technology is a double edged sword; yes, it makes our lives more efficient and more convenient, but it can also put our lives in danger if it is used incorrectly or by the wrong hands. It is true that artificial intelligence can benefits humanity in many ways. However, like Ray Kurzweil said, AI will eventually be smarter than human, and no one can tell what can happen then. What if the AI decides that human is no longer needed in this world and start to annihilate us like they did in the movie Terminator? Also, what the AI does depends on how it was programmed, so if this technology fall into the wrong hand, it can potentially be turned into a weapon against humanity. Technology can be beneficial in our daily lives, but we also needs to be careful with its usage. If we rely too much on technology, humanity will eventually be consumed by technology.
Although I think the nightmarish scenario of the Terminator is a bit far fetched for reality (a lot of bad decisions would have to be made for that to become a reality) I do think there should be discussion about a supposedly beneficial technology falling into the wrong hands. A previous big “technology” scare is the race to create nuclear weapons; there is not much overall benefit to come from that other than destruction of the enemy which translates to national security. If that technology fell into the wrong hands, it would always be bad, so that was a constant fear. I think the current discussion is a lot more nuanced, and the technology we are driving today is created for the purpose of doing good, but also creates a potential to do evil, which is why there should be more and more dialogue about the future of technology, such as Kurzweil’s podcast and Joy’s article.
While I agree with your point, one of the concerns that Joy raises is the prevelance of todays technology compared to nuclear weapons. At it peak lots of nuclear weapons where being made but it is nothing compared to the adoption rate of computer. A person living in the modern age can not survive without computers. It has becomed so intertwined with our life we may not see the dangers untill it is too late, if anything we will embrace the technology that destroys us.
I agree with your point Daniel. As technology advances, we will embrace it, whether or not it is helping or harming the world we live in. There are many people in the world today who are not embracing the new technology by sticking to flip phones rather than smartphones and these people are not able to function at the same speed as the rest of the world. As the new technology comes out, we will not be afraid that it is harming our world, we will just be fascinated with what the new technology can do. The technology that we use today is probably harming our world and we do not even know it.
Hi Julia! I definitely agreed with both you and Daniel! It is true that we always embrace new technology, but sometime we do not realize the harms involved. The flip phones example is definitely relevant because things can be done so much quicker and easier when we adopt new technology. However, as we rely more on these technology, we are slowly losing our abilities. For example, before I started using the iPhone and all of its applications, I can navigate around with just my brain and memory with no problem. However, these days, I would not go anywhere without my phone. Wherever I go, even if it is just a 5 minute drive within the neighborhood, I still pull out my Google Map for navigation. Because I am so reliant on my iPhone and my Google map, I lost my navigating ability. I believe technology is good for making things so much easier for us, but at the same time, it makes us lazy. Eventually, we will lose more of our abilities .
I agree with your point Daniel. As technology advances, we will embrace it, whether or not it is helping or harming the world we live in. There are many people in the world today who are not embracing the new technology by sticking to flip phones rather than smartphones and these people are not able to function at the same speed as the rest of the world. As the new technology comes out, we will not be afraid that it is harming our world, we will just be fascinated with what the new technology can do. The technology that we use today is probably harming our world and we do not even know it.
Hi Daniel! You make an excellent point. The race for nuclear weapons definitely had a mental affect on society, instilling the constant fear that Shirby mentioned. But as you said, I believe the invention of the computer has had a stronger, more lasting affect. It’s definitely a more positive invention meant to help society than harm it. I can’t necessarily see a scenario where computers themselves could destroy us, but it’s definitely a tool a person could use to destroy us.
I definitely agree with you Shirby. Although the scenario that technology will overpower us and we will be controlled by technological devices, that doesn’t seem like it will happen in the near future. However, the more critical issue is that if technology will fall into the wrong hands. In this world, there are a bunch of corrupt and evil people with unbelievable thoughts. With advanced technology on their hands, it could lead to a world full of destruction and chaos. On the other hand, in a smaller perspective, another issue with advance technology with every day people is that they will rely too heavily on this technology. Their world will be based on technology and they will forget what a world without technology is like. It could lead to a decrease in physical activity or brain usage which can become an issue as our species grow, advance and adapt to the environment. We have to keep in mind and keep in check the technological devices we are creating so that they will not affect our growth as the human species.
Hi Shirby,
I agreed with you. I believe that if the technology falls into the wrong hands and countries go in a war for this then this war would be worst than World War two since this technology will be able to wipe out a lot of cities like nothing. From WW1 to WW2, technology advanced by a lot and as a result more lives were lost on WW2. Now for WW3 then humanity is at risk because no one really knows how bad this could be. That is why there should be discussions of the future of technology just like Kurzweil’s procast and Joy’s article.
Hi Jerry, I like the beginning of your statement because it felt like the opening to a movie. I really like the points you made about the terminator movie. It’s crazy to think that some of the things we used to make movies about, or still do, can be a reality because of how close we are getting to having that technology available to us. Especially if it fell into the wrong hands, it would not be good for humanity. I agree with you that we need to not rely on technology too much because we will eventually be consumed. I would go further to say that we already are mentally consumed by technology, just not physically yet.
I agree. I believe that we are becoming to heavily dependent on technology that instead of it trying to help us, it’s becoming us. Technology, like any other thing, has its’ pros and cons. It’s also depends on how each individual views technology. Every individual has their on views on how technology can and should be used. Someone who thinks they’re using it correctly and beneficially, may be viewed as using it incorrectly and harmful to others. Humanity will be technology, and it’s only up to us to prevent that if we don’t really on it so much.
Technology definitely is a double edge sword, people use it go advancements for health, daily living, etc while others use it to hack and steal. I don’t know if you remember this, but in 2016 Microsoft had released an AI by the name of Tay on twitter. Going live and interacting with users all over the twittersphere or twitterverse, it was friendly and chill only to, within several hours change into a racist, misogynistic and offensive chat bot toward users. While the interactions led by users did steer it in that direction, Tay learned from people. It was eventually shut down, reopened and shut down a second time. I don’t know if there were any prime objectives in its programing on what it was specifically supposed to be limited to or learn and grow from, but it became a mirror of the ugly parts in our society. You can then think of Hollywood movies where technology and machines overtake the human race as the dominate species; this small example of AI turning rogue or bad is a clear example that those dramatized fiction like Terminator (extreme, yes) are possible if creators and developers of technology and machine are not careful.
I think the main voices not being asserted in this article are the ones on the opposite spectrum of age. Specifically, I think needs to be room for those who will be living 2038 as young adults because the transition to becoming part machine would be most impactful on those that are still growing biologically. This article speaks a lot about the issues of technology but it forgets that half the of brain still remains part brain, and it fails to bring up what would happen medically to that side. However, those who would grow up in 2038 are either not born yet or still too young to understand or full comprehend what it would mean. They would most likely grow up like our generation, with technology just being a part of us and not knowing any other way. Like last writing’s article stated, us “iGen” young adults are more advanced when it comes to technology because we simply grew up in it and had to adapt to it, whereas older generations had to learn it after they were already accustomed to a life not so tech heavy. This new generation will be the most tech savvy generation we have seen, and so on and so on. As technology progresses, the human race does, and by 2038, we might actually see the iGen generation become less tech savvy than we thought.
Hi Rhian, I hadn’t thought about the fact that they left out those who are younger. This makes me wonder how it will all integrate together and if parental consent will be important if the parents themselves are already half human half robots. This is another perspective that I would’ve never thoughout about until reading your post. I like your point about what would happen medically to the other half of the brain. I also wonder which part of the brain will become the robot, whether it’s the right or left or if it’s specific parts of the brain that’ll become robotic. It’s interesting to think about at what point is human intervention just going to be in the robots way and at what point will they decide they no longer need humans. Your post made me think about new perspectives!
Hello Rhian!
It’s pretty crazy how quickly we were able to adapt to technology because of the mere fact that we were exposed to it during our development. However, in comparison to the newer generation, they tend to have a bigger attachment to technology because during their development, which is current day, owning technology and being tech savvy is becoming more of a norm. Too often, people are looked down upon because they don’t have the latest gadgets/technology. There are also times where people resort to primitive actions in order to get the best and latest inventions. It’s easy to fall into the trap of technology as it becomes more and more embedded into our society. I find it also interesting that you brought up both possibilities of the iGen generation become either the most tech savvy or less tech savvy than we think; it’s easy to assume that they’ll be the most fluent in technology but also, it’s very noticeable that they also are easily distracted and tend to try to find easy ways out. Of course it is not proper to generalize a whole generation into one cookie cutter box because the possibilities are endless and we won’t know until we’re actually experiencing it first hand.
Yeah, I can see where you are coming from with the growing up and adapting to techs. Do you think we are taking the techs we have for granted though? As the “iGen” has always lived with the tech and thinks nothing much of it. What do you think will happen if the advanced technology turned against the future generations once they have been living comfortably along side with the tech? Do you believe the future generation will have counter measure when such things happen?
After reading the article, I just wished that they considered the views of the common people. Everything is narrowed down to the views of the scientists, researchers , and academia. But the general populace isn’t worried about that stuff (sad to say ). I agree more with Kurzweil and that technology will be a greater asset in the future, however I think both figures need to address the direct implications of having AI and other advance forms of technology that will surround the common people such as how useful would robots be at coffee shops, or how helpful with robots be in the grocery stores, gas stations or even at home!
Hi Mark,
I understand where you are coming from, however, I feel the reason they chose to use the view of scientists, researchers, and those in academia is because it provides a sort of ethos to their article. If it was just purely the views from the common person and provided no support from a solid source, then it would be an opinion piece. To say the general population is not interested or worried about that stuff is a bit broad, but I definitely see where you are coming from because unless I wasnt assigned to read this article, I probably wouldn’t. However, I do agree that having robots help at certain areas could be extremely helpful.
In Bill Joy’s article, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Joy and Ray Kurzweli discuss their perspectives on the rapid growth of technology. Kurzweli believes that society will eventually become a utopia “humans gained near immortality by becoming one with robotic technology.” While Joy believes that in the end our society will turn into a dystopia because of our constant reliance of technology and we will not be capable on our own. In the end, I believe that both have valid points, but I lean more toward the side of Kurzweli because each and every day new technology is being developed and we continue to accept it and let it be part of our daily lives. Although many of us notice these technological advancements, we tend to forget about other countries who are not as advance in technology as well. Many third world countries do not have the same access to technology as we have, and their opinions may not agree that technology will be beneficial to us. This will always be a debatable topic of discussion, because some will believe that the human race would never be foolish enough to completely rely on giving all the power to machines, while some believe that neither would the human race voluntarily turn power over to the machines or that machines will willfully seize power to humans.
In Bill Joy’s article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Joy and Ray Kurzweil seem to be on opposing views of technology. With the rapid advancements of technology, Kurzweil predicts society will become a utopia in which “humans gained near immortality by becoming one with robotic technology.” On the other hand, Joy believes that as we increasingly rely on man-made machines, our society would turn into dystopia due to our dependence on technology and humanity would be at the mercy of robots and intelligent machines. Both Joy’s and Kurzweil’s opinions are valid in many events that have occurred in the real world already; for example, citizens of Japan were at the mercy of the Allied powers when the bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and this was not the only situation where people’s lives were at the mercy of man-made technology. This is obviously a conversation where only the powerful, rich, and intelligent participate in; the common people’s voices are left out, especially those who live in third world countries and are overpowered by bigger nations. Instead of looking toward people of authority for all the answers and the decisions to be made, people like Joy and Kurzweil should not make such assumptions for humanity so quickly and invite more people to contribute their voices to this dilemma instead.
Hi Anh,
I totally agree that there is a big disconnect between 3rd world countries and 1st world countries in terms of technological advancement. While it seems that technology is moving at an alarming rate here in the United States, in the Philippines, the internet speed is so slow and it is rare that people have unlimited data plans for their phones. I think the main problem is the politicians in those countries. They don’t really care about advancing their country, instead, they focus on how much more money they can gain. Investing in technology costs a lot of money, and politicians do not think it is worth it. Personally, I think that AI is a very useful and versatile tool that can be used for the greater good if it goes into the right hands. These technologies can help bridge the gap between 1st and 3rd world countries, if politicians and the general public promote them and use them properly.
Hi Michaela,
I agree that if technologies are used properly, they will help to narrow the gap between the 1st and 3rd world countries. However, I am concerned that it is almost impossible for advanced countries to use them in a proper way. The goal of investment is always making profits. Thus, I think if developed countries possess powerful technologies, they will use them to suppress or exploit people in poor countries in order to make more profits and hold the lead, which will further enlarge the gap between the 1st and 3rd countries. A relevant example should be Industrialization. The development of science and technology not only did not bridge the gap between poor and rich people and poor and advanced countries, but also brought poor people and countries more burdens and sufferings.
Hi Michaela,
I agree that there is a disconnect between different countries in terms of technological advancement. As another example, a family I know that lives in a much more rural, agricultural part of India didn’t even have access to the internet until about a year ago, and still experience power outages almost daily. Despite this, however, they do have smartphones, laptops, and access to modern technology. I think getting an new perspective from people who still use technology, but in completely different environments and surroundings can help bridge the gap.
Hi Anh,
I agree with your post and that Joy and Ray Kurzweil have opposing views of technology. I definitely believe that both points are valid, but personally I would agree with Kurzweil that in the future we are going to be highly dependent on robotic technology. I believe that the many views are valid in both perspectives depending on each person’s life. I like how you acknowledged the fact that common people’s voices are being left out and that third world countries are not take into account as much as the bigger power nations.
I agree with your point on having a more inclusive conversation about the advancement of technology as opposed to only looking at the rich in developed countries, however, some points that are made in the article are still valid. Developed countries have much more advanced and automated devices in the military which enables mass destruction. This could affect under developed countries and even wipe entire nations without them having any significant impact on the development of such technologies. There are also advancements in medical technology which enables those who live in developed countries to be able to elongate their lifespan whereas those in third world counties will not get such benefits. In conclusion, even though the articles only look at the point of the rich living in developed countries, I believe their point is still more relative than not since developed countries affect the underdeveloped countries dramatically.
These articles “Why the future doesn’t need us” present Bill Joy’s argument on the future of technological development. He date his technological concern to the time when he met Ray Kurzweil and had conversation with him.Thi paper will discuss what the argument between Bill Joy and Ray Kurzuil misses. It also shows whose voices and positions are not presented and give a further direction on where to find the broader conversation. In this conversation between Bill Joy and Ray Kurzwel, Bill Joy makes a claim that the upcoming technologies are a great threat to the future of humanity. He argues that the technologies such as robotics would come to replace human actions. Joy was greatly disturbed by what he read in Kurzwail’s draft of The Age of Spiritual Machines. Bill expresses his concern on robotics, nanotechnology and genetic engineering technologies. The argument lacks evidence. Bill Joy Makes an argument which he does not support with appropriate evidence. He refers to the books written by scholars on how technology can change the world.
The argument misses Ray Kurzwell voice and position. An argument is completed by a counter argument. The article “Why the future doesn’t need us” expresses the voice and position of Bill Joy concerning technology. In the conversation that Bill recalls, Ray Kurzweil told that Bill that if technology improves at the rate it was improving people would one day become robots or something close to it. Joy’s position is that we should relinquish the new technologies in order to save the future humanity. Kurzwel’s position is not captured in this argument. His position and argument can be found in article he wrote in 2001 titled “Embrace, Don’t Relinquish, the Future”. In this article Kurzwel makes a counter claim arguing against what Bill was saying that we need to relinquish the technological advancement. He says that we should embrace it instead.
Through the reading of Bill Joy’s article and watching the podcast video, Bill Joy’s fear of technological advancement has my mind boggled. I never thought of technology in that sense, but now that I do see what he is trying to say, I can relate to his fear. Technology is made to help human life more efficient and more productive, but things start to change when we talk about technology is made to exceed human life. Exceeding human life meaning that it not only helps human life, but it is human life. I am imagining a future with robots taking over the world in terms of invading our privacies, or robots becoming our future police officers. This exceeding of human life could eventually cut the humanity in human lives. An important aspect of being human is human communication. If technology exceeds human life, we might just be sending holograms to each other or have devices to send messages. These are just a few examples of how technology could change us.
Hi Aaron,
I agree with your standing on technology gradually advancing, and even to the point where it might exceed human life. I also saw this as a problem after I read Bill Joy’s article. Technology is advancing so quickly, as Kurzweil states at an exponential rate. Humans create these technological advances, and it interests me how one day these technological advance might take over human life. From this, I began to wonder whether humans are able to limit themselves to prevent technology from exceeding human life, as in placing a cap on how beneficial technology can be towards human life and limits on how extensive technology will become in the future. Maybe there can be a way to limit technological advances so that it does not take over human life.
Hi Aaron,
I think you are right when you say that these progresses are made to make human life more efficient and I completely agree when you say robots will take over the world by invading our privacy. I think a good example of this was when they tried to introduce the google glass which would basically hold the properties of a smartphone in glasses in almost a black mirror style. If anything the “sending holograms” idea might already be happening where we decide to facetime or text over personal meetings. The one issue that I have an issue with believe is when robots take over roles such as law enforcement because that job takes a lot of personal discretion that will be hard to match. One of the biggest issues with AI is whether or not they can truly match human decision making.
As much as I agree with your fear of being taken over by machines, there is one main spectrum that you left out and that is artificial intelligence. Robots cannot function on their own without A.I. and the only people who can create such A.I.’s are us humans. So the fear of being taken over by robots is much scary if we think of it in terms of them not being able to because we are their creators. I highly doubt one day robots will take over the world, but who knows maybe someone will create a super A.I. that’ll create other A.I.’s that’ll take over the world? That is a very long stretch though.
I agree with you. Before reading Bill joy’s article, I never thought the technology has such negative effect on human’s life. People improve technology to help human life more productive and convenient, but recently those technological and scientific advance start to threat human. In other words, as technology become more advanced, people have less control on these technologies. It’s horrible that one day robots have their own thinking and take over the world. At that time, people may become tools and machines like what robots are now. In my opinion, instead of keeping developing technology, people should also think about how to avoid technology exceeding human life.
Hey Aaron,
I understand where you are coming from. It is quite concerning that technology may be so advance that us as humans will have no grip on what is actually going on. Bill Joy’s “fear” of technological advancement isn’t out of reach and to an extent, scares me. I want to live in a world that I can be in control ad not have technology essentially run my life. In present day 2018, technology has been engrained into society and I am already noticing the impacts it can have on friends and family. Day by day, it is interesting to see the changes technology has made, while slowly strengthening its grasp on the inhabitants of this world.
Hi Aaron,
I agree with you that the opportunities that technology can bring to us in the future are endless, whether it be robots taking over the world or different ways to communicate to each other. Technology is advancing as such a rapid rate that it’s hard to tell what type of technology will in fact be available to us in 20 years. Therefore, I feel like it’s really hard to gauge how technology will “cut the humanity” in our lives. It’s an interesting point that you brought up, but I feel like it’s not a point to truly worry about. 20 years ago, people thought that the world of 2018 would be filled with flying cars and hover boards. Obviously, we’re not at the point. Thus, I feel like in order to avoid the whole ‘tech taking over human life’ aspect by limiting certain types of technological advancements.
Hi Aaron, I completely agree with you! I also can relate to Joy’s fear of technological advancement. I believe that the human race will only get worse in interacting with each other face-to-face if we continuously rely on technological advancement for making interacting with each other easier than it is today. Though holograms would be cool to imagine now, it would diminish the need to actually see each other in person. It would be sad to see humans not being able to go through their day without feeling the need to use technology of some sort.
Hello Aaron!
You bring up very many key points. I also feel fear in terms of losing what it means to be human through all these technological advances. I personally wrote about this in my own assignment about how important human communication is in keeping our humane aspects. The current generation is very glued to their technological devices and most often gets in the way of everyday life. People are taking less time to meet face-to-face because they don’t have the time, or they are getting lazy. This kind of reminds me of the movie Wall-E where the Earth sort of turns into what looks like Mars, a barren land, and the sprouting of a plant, new life, intrigues the people because it had been so long since they’ve experienced something humane. I feel like this kind of points to how if we don’t take care of ourselves and our environment and rely on machines and technology to live our lives for us, then there’s the possibility of our reliance to wreak havoc and cause chaos for the future.
After reading Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t need us” and listening to the Ray Kurzweil podcast , both have good arguments about the future consequences of modern technology. However, they fail to explain further the issue on access of modern technology. Money is needed when purchasing and producing technology. Thus, naturally, the wealthy would most likely have the advantage in having access to the best forms of technology. Some countries and people are not technologically advanced as others. What happens to them?
Hi Christine,
I like your take on this and I agree. People who don’t have the funds to afford the technology will not be able to obtain it. Even technology devices now such as iPhones, iPads, Computers, etc are extremely expensive. Not everyone can buy those devices because of the cost not because they don’t want them. I think the question you proposed was great because that needs to be taken into account. How will that be accommodated for? Maybe they won’t be so expensive so that the public can access it at a reasonable price.
I agree with this Christine! Although technology has sped up the overall efficiency of everything we do today, there are areas/people that have no access or limited access to this efficient lifestyle. The wealthy have access to the best and most up to date technology, and therefore incurs an advantage against the lower classes. There is a stratification when it comes to technology and this issue has to be given attention. Laws should be passed to allow equal access to types of technology that are beneficial to an individual’s life. I know there is an issue with money and how the lower classes will be able to afford these types of technological advances, but maybe programs that offer a way for lower class individuals to pay for advancement in technology can be done through loans or monthly payments, or even through discounted prices.
I think this is a vilified concern. This not only widens the socioeconomic disparities in our nation, but world wide. Accessing modern technology in our schools hasn’t even been done. Many children are still using outdated books from the 90s to study biology, physics, art, and history. However, the much more affluent students are showered with Macbooks and PCs and thus are already ahead of their peers from lesser affluent areas because they have better access to databases that make learning more effective. This is just one way I thought about your post but in a broader sense.
Hi Christine!
I really like your point about access to modern technology. It is definitely an aspect neither Kurzweil or Joy really mentions, because they are part of the crowd that does not need to worry about access to technology, since they are literally the ones at the forefront of it. One thing that does naturally happen is as new technologies are being created, “older” technologies are made to be more affordable. For example, smartphones are way more affordable than they are a few years ago. I remember my first phone being a flip phone because my family couldn’t afford a fancier one with a touch screen, but now, budget phones have touch screens, albeit not as nice as a more expensive one. This sort of “trickle down” effect, at least in a consumer sense, may work for now, but if we are to live in a future that Kurzweil suggests, it may not be enough.
I understand your point completely, but eventually as technology gets more and more advanced, the cost will not be as high and people will have different priorities. Even people living in third world countries have the newest phones and tablets. Maybe eventually, people will be valuing technology over basic necessities like food, water, and shelter. Although the wealthy will have access to the best forms of technology in the future, that is already the case today. It may take time, but all countries will eventually catch up to new technology.
Hi Christine, I agree with that thought! I think that if we do plan to go forward with technology and the benefits that potentially come with the advancement, the gap between those who are able and unable to access this expensive technology will only become larger. Money does become a big issue and because the wealth gap is already so huge in present day, I could only imagine how drastic that difference would be in the future.
Hello Christine,
I agree with your argument. But i also believe that people or other companies will support the new technology meaning that these people will fund to develop new technology. Money is indeed a big factor, but maybe in the future money will not be a big problem. Maybe once this technology gets to all over the whole planet, then it may not be as expensive since it will be common to everyone else.
Hi Christine,
I like how you feel about the Kurzweil podcast because of you making the point of people not being able to produce technology if they don’t have the money. Also I like the question you added at the end because it shows that not everyone is capable of new technology because their country may be behind.
I think the main thing missing from these articles is the fact that our feelings are not taken into account. The readings focus on things that don’t take into consideration of actual humans and how these decisions may affect humans on a daily basis. From the readings I felt that Joy had a very unrealistic thought process on technology while Kurzweil did not. Although they both had different viewpoints, the main point was the advancement of technology. I feel that the advancement of technology is important for our world to be able to tackle any future obstacles that come our way. If we are not prepared, that could result in a lot of damage.
Hi Kandace,
I definitely agree that the article takes on one side and does not really address the positives of advancing technology. Joy’s article is very technical and uses logic to explain his experience and claims. It does not really touch on the human aspect of developing technology. I think a lot of the things we create is to help make our lives easier, whether it is developing a cure for a disease or developing autonomous cars. As long as we are careful with what we develop and that the technology is for the benefit of the public, then we can prevent the world Joy describes from happening.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil both provided very pessimistic arguments concerning the dominance of technology and the role that it plays in our future. I do think, however, that Kurzweil offered a more balanced analysis on this topic–he mentioned towards the end of his podcast that although it seems that he focused too much on the disadvantages of further technological advancement, he still believes that technology is still beneficial to us in many ways (e.g., sanitation, quality of living, etc.) Still, I think the voices of those in the center of the technology storm are not as well represented. These people are directly affected by the evolution of technology, and so, it’d be more interesting to get their take on this subject. It can be argued that Joy and Kurzweil both technically belong on this group, but given their expertise regarding the behind-the-scenes knowledge of the direction of technological growth, it’d be better to understand the perspectives of those with fresh eyes.
Hi Hoang,
I agree with your comment. I also believe that both Joy and Kurzweil are biased in their response towards the advancement of technology. Their bias may come from their older age. I believe that people from the younger generation may have different views on technology, given that they’ve been expose to it for most, if not all, of their lives. I personally have a lot of hope for the future. I am excited to see all the advancements that will be made in the medical field. Hopefully we can find a cure for all diseases.
Hey Nguyen, it is true that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil have a wide range of knowledge regarding the understandings of the deep and profound things, but the history can tell us that the benefits attributed to evolution of technology actually improve human beings’ life. I think Bill and Ray focus a little bit more on the possible risk of the technology and underestimate the intelligence of human beings. Currently, the government has a very strong control and regulation on all the new technology, evaluating the potential risk and obvious disadvantages of the new technology so that their worries are kind of exaggerated by themselves.
HI!
I agree with your comment and how Kurzweil and Joy are giving negative feedback regarding the growth of technology. Kurzweil did provide us with information regarding how beneficial technology has been and will be for us. There is a slight hint of fear with many when it comes to new technology just because of how different it is and for the most part, people like to stick with what they are familiar with and not change their ways. The future will bring many advances but there will be people who will oppose this progress and possibly set back advances.
After reading the article, which points out the potential threat from technological improvements in the future, I now have concerns about what comes next in the next few decades. As mentioned in the artice, we do need to think about the consequences of our innovation because the danger of human creation can possibly offset the benefits. We can not just look at how much easier our lives would be with the existence of machines, robots, and technololgy. We also have to look at how those things can negatively affect us and their impact on future generations. Bill Joy also pointed out that George Dyson’s idea of nature being on machine’s side. I think one day robots and machine can do what human beings can do and perhaps even better. It’s scary to think that the new innovation can dominate the world and it all started from people’s ideas of creating them. The new era will get here sooner than we know, so we should seriously consider what can happen in the future before it is too late to regret.
I agree with your point about how we should not just be concerned with the present. Like all other decisions that are made in life, there may be long term consequences that come from them and some of them may have not been considered. I believe that the biggest problem now is that people are just getting lazy and they do not want to do a lot of the work which causes them to build these machines to do some of the work for them. I to am concerned about the future and what all of these advancements in technology will do to future generations and how life will evolve along with it. Like it was mentioned in the article by Bill Joy, people may become to dependent on robots that if they come to face a situation in which they would have to destroy them, people would resort to suicide because of the severity of dependence that have formed between machine and human.
I have the same feelings about the topic. I feel that there will be more negative impacts than positive and it is truly scary to think about. I think it is very possible that robots will out compete the human race.
I agree with you that the idea of robots and machines becoming better than human begins is a scary thought, however, technology is what we make of it. One of my professors said in lecture that technology is one of the first things that human built that they don’t understand. I believe this statement is true, but also, it could be reversed if we followed and were more educated in technology in general. I don’t think we have to be afraid of the future of technology as long as we use it responsibly and stay educated on the subjected. But I do agree with you, we should consider how technology affects the future before we make any drastic decisions.
I can agree in the sense that the average person in today’s world wants to see a world with simply technology that can help to make everyday tasks easier. While this idea seems to be a popular one, what people don’t understand is that if we allow machines, robots, and artificial intelligence as a whole to come in and run our lives, we as a society will lose sight of what our purpose is here on Earth. Each and every individual has a purpose within their lives, and giving the purpose to a machine will not end well for anyone. I believe humans want to feel valued for what they do in their everyday lives whether that be at their place of work or in a simple hobby of theirs. Machines will take this away slowly, but surely. The era of the machine, as you mentioned, is upon us and coming sooner than anyone thinks and once it is here, there is no turning back.
Hi Yuan-Jung,
I agree with your point that the new innovations will dominate the world in the future and we should really consider the consequences and impact they will bring. Although technology brings us a lot of convenience and benefits, we shouldn’t let it dictate our lives and be too dependent on it. It is scary to think that robots nowadays act and talk like actual human beings, and that robots will most likely be more intelligent and powerful than us. It is possible that robots will replace human and take over the world. We should really think about the problems that come along with the advancement in technology before it is too late.
Hello Yuan-Jung Lee,
While there are some worrisome aspects of the machine and technology, we should be more concerned about people’s intentions using technology. As technology becomes more powerful, naturally people become greedy and realize that they could achieve much more using technology. Technology itself cannot do anything, they’re just programmed to carry out tasks. It’s not like they have an exterior system portrayed in films that allows them to destroy humans. It’s the creators that have done the programming. Thus, there should be talks and multilateral agreements in place to prevent a catastrophe in the future.
In the reading, we can find that the argument of Ray Kurzweil that technology is developing very fast in recent years is true. The robot has been much smarter by interacting with human beings or going to school. He made a point that robots can learn something by themselves in the future and even would dominate the world. From today’s perspective, it is a fact about technological advancement. However, in the passage, the author focuses more on the bad side of robots. Instead, nobody can predict the future about whether the appearance of advanced robots will bring people advantages or disadvantages. Although the advanced robots may pose a threat to people themselves, we should not conclude that they should not be invented. At least, people can have some positive views to those robots that they can save their times by taking some dangerous and complex works. They may also help people achieve advanced healthcare in the future. For me, I still believe that with restrictions, the invention of robots can make people’s lives better. Although we may definitely lose something, such as the passion to solve difficult problems and the time spent with social networking, we should never ignore the advancement we can achieve with the help of robots in the early future.
Hi Qingyi,
I agree that making a prediction about the effects robots may have on humanity is very premature. We have no real concrete evidence other than fictional stories and media to base our fears off of. I especially like your comment about using robots to tackle dangerous and complex work. My viewpoint is that robots can be created as useful tools and that it is up to us to maintain that relationship and not let it get out of hand. Unlike our conversations early in the quarter about restricting smartphones, I believe we should have restrictions on robots. Because they are still in early stages of development, they have endless amounts of potential for application. We’ve already been exposed to smartphones for quite a while now so we know more or less the limitations. However, the endless potential has room for errors and situations that may end up bringing harm to us. We need a broader audience/testimony in order to make an educated decision on how we should view advancing technology. The authors should have consulted scientists of all kinds, medical professionals, engineers, industries, etc. Recent events and media build upon the positives AND negatives that are lacking in both authors’ arguments. Elon Musk’s recent SpaceX rocket launch proved that technology is something we should still be striving to advance in but he keeps us grounded in honestly discussing the amount of time and effort needed to continue advancing. The release of Marvel’s Black Panther showed the potential dangers of advanced technology but also illustrated the option of helping groups and communities flourish. We are the creators and as such we should keep ourselves and our work in check.
The most standout aspect of the readings is the lack of consideration to our humanity and feelings. While it is valid to focus on an objective and analytical perspective, it is important that human nature is considered as an unpredictable x-factor that will affect any objective analysis. This is a double-edged sword as one can look at the advent of electrode implants in the early 1900’s where patients would pay to be part of a study that would place electrodes in their brains. All the patients who paid copious amounts of money died due to complications from the implant but they still sought it to pursue a heightened state in life. Our humanity causes us to do drastic things for advancement and for selfish purposes and will ultimately affect how technology impacts our lives. Thus, I believe that no matter how much “the future doesn’t need us” it actually does, and it is completely dependent on us, not the other way around.
This is an interesting point that I never thought of! All these authors and speakers are saying that the future will destroy us because robots will be too smart. However, if humans don’t create the future, there will be no future that can possibly overthrow humanity. I really like the idea that the future needs us in order to get anywhere before it can ever think about overthrowing humanity. Great perspective!
I really like this post because it takes into consideration the question of our humanity. Although Joy feared many of the AI would become overbearing and Kurzweil hypothesized the Singularity theory, neither of them really thought of how it would effect the abstract parts of our humanity. Like you said feeling play an important factor that motivates us, deters us, and essentially overwhelm us into making decisions (good or bad)
This is an amazing post Edward! I feel the same way about going forward with technology. Money is a big component when taking improvements in technology into account and people can become greedy for money and power. We need people who know what they are doing with biotechnology and that should be the focus rather than improving on technology while not improving on manpower and knowledge to handle upcoming technological developments. Depending on who becomes the role models and leaders for the future of technology, it all draws back to humans and people who ultimately impact what direction technology takes.
Hi Edward,
That’s a really interesting point that you brought up and it is something that I would not have thought of myself. The idea that the future does not need us and will have androids roaming the streets and being in control is completely false. Like you mentioned, these androids need humans like us to be created and so it seems as though the future’s existence depends on our actions at this time. One can even take it another step forward and propose whether or not these said androids will even have the capabilities of overthrowing humanity. As the people who will potentially be its creators, will humans be able to shut them down if they get out of hand, or will they be unable to control the AI. Another intriguing idea can be the idea of emotion. Humans are driven by emotion and that causes them to act (good or bad), will AI be able to feel this type of emotion and be driven to overthrow humanity or bring success to humanity?
After reading the article and listening to the podcast, it is clear that Bill Joy has a very extreme position on the advancement of technology. In my opinion this led Joy’s argument to be kind of weak as he did not explore much of the counter-arguments to his claims. While Joy’s fear of technology should be considered, I see technology not being at the point where we need to be in fear in of it as Joy is and I believe we have a decade or two until we should be concerned about it. The side of the argument that is left out is that we must view technology as a risk and reward sort of innovation. I believe the benefits of technology far out weigh the risks of it and we should not interfere with its development. If we choose to be a static society, we will continue to have to live in a world without a cure for cancer or a way to fight against tyranny. We must continue to be dynamic and once the day comes where technology becomes capable of developing itself, then we should be concerned.
Hey Nicholas!
I agree with what you mean about the author having an extreme position on the advancement of technology because a huge part of the article was basically set with a negative mindset on technology and how one day humans will go extinct with since the elite will take over. I also agree the advancement of technology is way more beneficial and outweighs the cons of it which was why I was a bit taken aback from his comment. His commentary was stating everything that we setup for sci-fi films and most people wish to believe that our technology will advance way further than what we have now. The fear of the future of technology, most likely, plays from the media and might also be the reason why we won’t be able to advance our technology.
This is a really good point. I personally fear that technological advances could potentially cause more harm than good but I had not thought about what we could be missing if we dont let technology advance. There is a lot of potential, I just believe we need to find balance.
Going off of what you’ve said so far Kaelen, the way technology is heading right now with all of its advancements and integration into our daily lives does demonstrate its great potential and capacity to do so many things–many of which are unimaginable today but then within reach tomorrow. My feelings coincide to those of Bill Joy in which we carry a great deal of wary thoughts regarding the progression of technology. Will its growing intellect and independent choice-making as well as our dependence on technology lead to our ultimate doom? Although this thought arises amongst us, I find it of utmost importance to carry onwards and take that leap of faith to observe whatever happens. I don’t necessarily think that technology will lead us (humanity) to our downfall, but it certainly is one to consider on a grander note for its potential.
Hi Nicholas, I also agree with the fact that Bill Joy was being a little too extreme about his stance on the advancement of technology. I think although technology is indeed growing exponentially, we certainly cannot predict the future. We do not know definitively whether the world will be filled with robots or not. However, with the growth of technology being so prominent, it makes sense to think that the future will be filled with technologically-savy materials, so I do understand the points that Bill Joy makes about robots taking over our lives in a few years! Additionally, I found it interesting that you said we should not fear the the advancement of technology and we should not interfere with it because it helps our society be more dynamic and less static. I think that this is very true because without some of our technological advancements that we have seen today, our society would not have the opportunity to do half of the things that we do now. Technological advances such as the internet, the smartphone, solar panels, etc. etc. have greatly improved the lifestyle of many human beings. I believe we should appreciate the advancement of technology but also be cautious at the same time that it does not take over our lives.
I completely agree with you Nicholas. In a broader sense and more practical application, i think they both should have addressed the way advance technologies can play a role in the our daily lives- such as in the household, out at the stores, car washes, and in schools.
I think being a dynamic society will be pertinent in becoming #1 worldwide in terms of science.
In your final statement of, “We must continue to be dynamic and once the day comes where technology becomes capable of developing itself, then we should be concerned” meaning that when technology can duplicate itself without human knowledge or contact as being a negative thing. This can also potentially be very helpful as well as some jobs are much too dangerous for humans to do. Consider creating something with radioactive material, to humans this is extremely dangerous, but to robots they will not feel any sense of danger. This can potentially lead to creations that we have never seen before because we humans are too cautious because of the chance at death. Through the use of machines the possibility of human error is completely eliminated.
Hey Nicholas,
Yes, Bill Joy’s position is very extreme and I believe is why the majority of people in the discussion have a general feeling of fear of what may be next for us as a society. The entire mood of the podcast quickly turned into a negative, end of the world type of the debate that raised very real concerns. However, these ideas of technology taking over the world have been entertained in sci-fi films like that of the “Terminator.” While the “Terminator” is fiction- based, the ideas that it explores are very real and could very one day come to fruition. I hope that idea as such do not fully come to fruition because sheer panic would take over the human race. Joy makes very good points, but are exaggerated to a certain extent.
I agree with you about how technology’s benefits outweigh the risks on society because we are creating new technology that make people’s lives easier and helps people with daily tasks. Moreover, new medical advancements enhance the longevity of human life and build cognitive and physical skills. Thus, technology should keep improving, so we will not stay stagnant. However, most people today do not think about the negative consequences of technology or even think about the benefits as well. We are so used to using technology and there being updates in technology all the time we have just accepted it as it is ingrained in our daily lives. I still think it is good that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil addresses possible consequences because not many people do and many fail to be cautious of the negative consequences.
Hey Nicholas, this is a good point! However, I also believe that we shouldn’t wait until technology develops until we reach the stage in which we start to feel fear for what’s to come next. It is also true that we shouldn’t meddle with technology now since we have yet to find technology that can be used to cure cancer and other diseases. I also agree with what other people have to say that we need to strike some sort of balance in order for technological advancement to be okay and acceptable. It’s always good to take precautions before heading into something with foggy and unclear outcomes like this controversial topic.
You’ve made really good points and I like many others agree that the advancement of technology should not be interfered with because of the great advancements that we can make. Humans could live longer and better lives if technology keeps improving and for now we should not have much fear when facing new and different technology. Yes there is a fear but people should overcome that fear and come to the realization that times are constantly changing. We should be excited and keep progressing because as you said, we would continue to live in a world without cures.
The missing voice that clearly stands out to me when reading what Kurzweil and Joy predict for the future of technology is the common people who have been positively impacted by technological advancements. On a personal level, my mother wouldn’t be alive today if the medical field didn’t advance far enough to develop a pacemaker. How can I say I dread the future of technological advancement when it is the sole reason my mother is still breathing. Perhaps it is my lack of knowledge of what truly goes down in the AI world of silicon valley, but I don’t seem to have such a pessimistic viewpoint on the idea of advancement, and I feel as if many other common people don’t either.
Hello Logan,
I thought the exact same thing about the missing opinion of the common people. I personally also view the advancement of technology in a positive light due to the many benefits it brings to our daily life, not to mention in the medical field where it saves countless lives. I also thought that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil did not really address the counter view to their opinion as Joy focused mainly on the negatives while Kurzweil focused on the positives of technological advancement. What would have made either of their arguments more compelling is considering and perhaps critiquing the other side to their argument in order to strength their opinion. For example, Joy could have discussed the potential positives technology can have such as in the medical field or in general daily life and then mention the potential negatives such as dependency that comes along with it. Overall, I felt like both Joy and Kurzweil’s arguments were too one sided and should have considered the other opinions and views of other people ranging from the poor to the middle class to the upper class.
Hi Logan!
I completely agree with you. Technological advancement has created a huge impact in our lives and, as you have stated, has even helped us expand the our average life expectancy. It’s impossible to truly describe what a positive impact technology has made in our lives. I think it’s absurd when people completely disregard the positive aspects and instead try to gloss it over with highly unrealistic and long-stretched fears about technology becoming too advanced and taking over. Technology requires some type of algorithm to truly function, and it will really only become as advanced as we need it to be. It is very difficult for any technological machine to become more intelligent than the creator itself. In the future, rather than fear technological advancement, it is important to embrace it as we await and see how much it improves and facilitates our lives.
I believe the advancing of technology will be benefiting the community instead of destroying our generation. Like you have stated, biotechnologies have helped so many people and I am so glad that it is helping your family members! The advancing of technology would also help with the treatment of cancer by lowering survival rates close to 99% in the future. This would definitely help the human population instead of what Joy has predicted, putting humans as endangered species. Therefore, I agree with you on your viewpoint of the idea of AI and improving technology at an accelerating rate!
Hi Logan, I honestly did not think of this side of the coin when I was reading the article. I do believe there is a balance of pros and cons of technological advancement and this is why it’s such a controversial topic on whether or not we should truly go along with the rapid advancement. I think that biotechnology is amazing in saving the lives of many people, including your mother. In this sense, I would be all for advancing technology even further to find out cures to cancer, etc. However, I also believe that this is only part of the story because Kurzweil thinks immortality is possible in the future. Personally, the short human life is a beautiful thing and I do not believe that such a far advancement would bring us more benefits than it would consequences. Although it is truly amazing to hear that your mother was helped by this technology and I am glad she is okay.
Hi Logan,
I like the point that you are making and believe that Bill Joy and Kurzweil did focus more on the negative aspects of advancing technology. Yes, the fear of robots taking over the world and dominating humans can be scary but we also have to take into account all the positive aspects that technology brings on. Your mom’s pacemaker is a great example of how advancing technology can benefit the common people. Technology all around is helping people live longer, have more opportunities, communicate across the world, and etc. It is a key aspect of many people lives and the more advanced technology gets the more opportunities and uses people gain from them. I think that technology is also key in the healthcare field and helps treat and diagnose patients more precisely and correctly. It is something to appreciate!
Yes! The missing voice is what I am looking for through the responses. Everything has its pros and cons, and we just exaggerate its disadvantage, but ignore the huge evolution it brings to us. A good example is that the medical robots can exponentially increase the rate of success of medical surgical operation that’ll save countless lives. Besides, it can also track and calculate human’s health data, and provide feedbacks to us quickly. Feedbacks are essential for parents and doctors to learn their kids’ health situation any time.
Hi Logan,
I really like that you brought this into the conversation. Many of the technological advances that were introduced in the reading and podcast were not medical advancements. So after your point, I also believe that the voice of the people who are alive because of technological advances are missing. In modern society, most people correlate the misuse of technological advances with increased rates of depression, sleep deprivation etc. from the used of smartphones but we should remind ourselves that technological advances are not solely for social use. There are technological advances in every field. As in Logan’s mother case, evidently the medical field is benefiting greatly from it.
Hello Logan,
I believe that Kurzweil and Joy are aware of the positive aspects of technology, after all they are pioneers of technology with creating the keyboard and a computer system respectively. The media portrayal of technology is mostly optimistic; commercials display innovative features of a technology and most robotic sci-fi films start with this utopian depiction of robotic societies. I guess their argument is just a cautionary tale to what could possibly happen in the future.
What I see missing between the articles of Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil is that they ignore the desire of humans. When I see the development of technology in the past years, technology has been developed to cover niches. We wanted music so we made the radio. We to talk to each other so we developed phones. What I see is that many innovations have happened mostly in the last half of the previous century that people actually want. What I see has happened with the turn of the century is that theres has only been innovations in combining niches. The boom box, computer, phone, camera, and many more has been combined into the phone that we carry with us today. All of these things we used to carry separately because we needed it. Now, lets compare and say all of this is with the computer connected to our brain. Would we want to have something that can say short circuit in our brain in in our body rather than carry it around like the phone? I don’t think most humans would. What I don’t see in their articles is that if these will be used for private use by mass such as phones today. I don’t believe I heard or read this in the readings but if it would I feel like testing would be cleared enough so it wouldn’t be like the mass destruction like Bill Joy mentioned.
Hello Frank,
I completely agree with the argument you have presented. I believe in no near future will there be a large demand for us having robotics/computers in our brain. I could see small companies maybe using this kind of technology, but I would hope we would consider the consequences of making this idea available to the public. Like you said we needed to invent the radio and phones for practical uses such as listening to music on the go or being able to communicate over long distances efficiently. We must focus on the problems at hand in our society before we can think of the consequences of a technology that hasn’t been produced yet.
Hi Frank!
It was really insightful how you recognized that the paper lacked the positive aspects of human society, which is the desire of humans. It’s true that we only created technology used to fill the niches and weaknesses we were not capable of. The probability of humans connecting a circuit to our brain is highly unlikely, and we are taking ideas to the extreme now. Although technology has developed increasingly high, it would not be a huge mass destruction Bill Joy mentioned. The only reason new technologies are being created is the awareness that we NEED it. Unless it benefits us one way or another, I believe that we understand the importance of humanity and interactions.
Hi Frank!
You have a really good point. The most important thing to remember is that we are in complete control of how we design technology and what we program it to do. If there are certain technological advancements that seems to invasive, we simply do not have to execute the idea. We often forget that we, as the creators, are the ones who are truly in charge. We steer the direction of technological advancement, not the other way around.
Sometimes new technologies that are being released takes a while for people to become familiar with it. A few years ago, smartphones were newly released and slowly became popular. Now, basically, everyone owns a personal one. Phones evolved from big telephones to flip phones, sidekicks and eventually smartphones. I think it will take a while for people to generally accept new technologies especially having computers connected to our brains. This might be scary and overwhelming because it is such a new idea. In the beginning, I think people will be skeptical about it and hesitant, but once more and more people try it, everyone will eventually want to do it too.
Hello Frank,
It is interesting that you framed it as “the desire of humans.” If we’re discussing the “desire of humans,” I think it is human nature to take the short cut to success; in other words, we want to make our lives easier. Technology was created to make life less painless. In the extreme case that it was marketed to connect a circuit to our brains, it might sell. The company would market it in such a way that it seems necessary to our existence. Every product that is put on a market is intended to create profit. No one would try to sell or create something that has a dangerous reputation, they’ll just lost money. A company would make sure to test it out and deem it safe. I agree with Christine’s point that people would be skeptical about it at first, but over time it would become to the new normal.
In Bill Joy’s article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”, he focused more on the negative results. He predicted that robots will have consciousness and are able to make decisions by themselves finally. He foresaw the potential danger of technology.
Ray Kurzweil discussed more on the positive side. Roy believed the development of technology will benefit human’s health and expand human’s life spans. In my opinion, both of their points make sense but not comprehensive. Technology brings advantages as well as disadvantages, and I am afraid that one day we are not able to control robots because once robots can make decisions by themselves, maybe they can also rewrite their project code in order to escape from human’s control.
Hi Vicki, you made an interesting point about robots one day escaping the control of humans. I believe that should be a real concern because life tends to find a way in nature and if robots one day achieve free will, it can be dangerous.
LOL I had the same concerns as you did. The incident that happened couple days ago about amazon echo really creeps me out.
Ray Kurzweil’s and Bill Joy’s thoughts on how machines are going to be implemented in our lives is very interesting to me. I don’t think as extremely as they do, but I do think that they forgot to mention another perspective. They failed to mention the many contributions that innovations in machines can bring us in full detail. They don’t mention the number of diseases that will soon be curable or the possible efficiency that may arise. The voice or position they forgot to mention was the side of the humanists. They don’t mention the many contributions machines have brought towards humanitarian efforts. It allows us and will continue to allow us to provide for those who need help in underdeveloped areas around the globe. Certain machines also make it easier for collaboration or social interactions to occur even if they are not face to face. We can look for a broader conversation encompassing all ideas at universities or areas of research in computer science and engineering. In those fields where they see innovations come first hand, we can observe and hear their thoughts on what they believe is the future of their expertise.
I agree! They forgot to focus on any of the positives that technology brings us. For example, in the movie Big Hero 6, while it is an animated movie, it shows a robot who is there for the sole reason of healthcare and taking care of people. Robots can be presented for good, we just don’t know what it will be like. People are afraid of the unknown and this is something that people are scared of. Technology and metal is harsh and this is something that can cause fear of the future but they can be beneficial as well.
Hi Timothy!
I do see where you’re coming from that Ray and Bill’s perspectives can be a little extreme, but I like how you brought up that they failed to mention the many contributions that innovations in machines can bring us in full detail. With the increase of these machines, means there are many benefits to these advancements such as curing diseases or cancer. As we are advancing toward being technologically savvy, we need to accept all the changes being brought forth and the technological impact being made in our world.
Hi Timothy,
I do agree with you, they only mentioned certain machines when they could of talked about machines that have saved people’s lives. I feel the machines they talk about are robots and how they will take over the world. Why not talk about the good robots can do instead of the bad?
Hey Timothy! I agree with everything you said. I agree that Ray and Bill failed to mention the side of the humanists. They mainly focused on the harm that robots can do, but did not mention how robots helps us so much.
In Bill Joy’s, “Why the future doesn’t need us,” in Wired magazine, he expresses his concerns about the advancement of modern technology. A problem that he emphasized from Joy and Ray Kurzweil’s conference discussion from Ted Kaczynski’s robots will gain control over humans and can make their own decisions and how it impacts the future. Whereas, in Ray Kurzweil’s podcast he explores the benefits of technology in biological advancements. However, I think that both Joy and Kurzweil’s perspective are single sided because they fail to present different views from different people such as doctors, lawmakers, engineers, etc. Both views are extreme because will robots become a new form of natural selection? Hopefully not. Although, this is where the main debate originates from due to the fear that robots will progressively get “stronger, faster, and smarter” that will eventually overcome humanity. Instead, the opposing perspective is how this fear has pushed for the advancement of technology and how it brought us to where we are today. Like the first writing assignment, it all depends on how far we let technology abuse our dependency.
Hello Lena,
I believe you bring up an interesting view about how our fear of technology is what ironically leads to its advancement. I think we tend to overestimate ourselves and believe we are always in full control which is why we’re always trying to improve technology in order to get the feeling of being in charge. While this no doubt as lead to many positives coming from technological advancement, there will always be potential negatives that come along.
I also agree that both Joy and Kurzweil arguments are too one-sided and should have considered the view of different people. For example, doctors might side with Kurzweil more as the advancement of technology has brought many positives to the medical field in order to save lives. On the other hand, lawmakers might side with Joy because of the potential chaos and destruction technology could bring to the order of our society. Another view that should be considered is the voice of the common people we have grown very fond of depending on technology in our daily lives. This dependency can bring both negatives and positives with it and just as you mentioned, it all depends on jsut how much we let technology control and influence us.
Hi Lena,
I agree with what you pointed out. I too believe that it all depends on how far we let technology abuse our dependency. After all, people are making these robots. The advancement of technology comes from people themselves! Ray Kurzweil and and Bill Joy present a one-sided argument and disregard, for the most part, all the benefits that came from advancing technology. Technology is advancing in a lot of careers to help make people’s jobs and lives easier, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It is easier for people to achieve data and information faster and easier. It can be frightening to think that robots will get stronger, faster, and smarter than humans and overtake humanity, but it is all under our control. It is how we use technology and much we allow it to advance.
Hello Lena,
You make valid points and some that could be possible true. I do agree that some technology can provide us scientific discoveries, however, a lot of what some robots are doing can be done by a human. There are simple tasks that are being taking over by these robots. I sometimes think we are heading towards a dystopian Wall-e nightmare. I believe we should start setting boundaries, we will be able to notice a warning sign rather than waiting for it to be too late.
Hi Lena,
You response is thoughtful and I like how you connected this discussion to the first. I agree that the arguments were one sided. It would be interesting to see what would be said, or the opinions that would be had, by the group of people that do not have technology right now. These people are not dependent on technology at all, and it would create a great discussion to include their opinions on both the allure and threat of such advanced technology. Technology is definitely something highly useful, but easily abused.
Hi Lena,
I agree with your statements about Joy’s and Kurzweil’s views being single sided. I think that their views are extreme, but hold some truth. I think that robots/ technology, in general, have already become somewhat a form of natural selection. In this time and age, everything is slowly becoming taken over by technology. For example, recently I was able to see the movie Black Panther and it really showed a different perspective in terms of technology. In the movie, the people of Wakanda have a technology called vibranium and they use it to make vehicles, make weapons, and for healing (medical advancements). Overall, the people of Wakanda use this technology in daily life to make their lives easier. In addition, this is the material that makes up the suit of the Black Panther that protects him during battle. In that sense there is some truth because despite this being a fictional movie, the fact that it was implemented into the movie at all shows that there are people out there that have also thought about it and even believe it. Lastly, I strongly agree with your statement of what happens in the future in terms of technology depends on whether or not society allows technology to take over.
In the predictions and argument of Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil, many negative possibilities are explored but they forget the viewpoints of other crucial groups. One such group is the law makers of today to give their opinion on the possible technology that is soon to come. Lawmakers can give us their views on what would be most effective in preventing all the disastrous possibilities explored by Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil. With a majority of their viewpoints influenced by other scientists, Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy fails to consider the views of all kinds of people and not solely scientist. As the technology will be adopted by the people and not only scientist, we can only predict to a certain extent in terms of how the technology will affect us. Technology and everything in life is in some way, exploitable for ill intentions by bad people. If people refused to improve technology solely because of fear of a possible future, then we would not be here today with the possibility of a robotic world. The minds of our future generations will not think or act like previous generation because we all grow up in different ways. In order to continue evolving as an intelligent life form, we must continue to improve technology and leave it to future generations to decide how to react to it.
I agree with you Fred about the lawmakers especially. We have seen science been stunted for many reasons. Bio-warfare is used for weapons but could’ve been used for war as well so it was banned. And it was banned especially because it was new technology in the Geneva Convention in WW1. I see brain improvements with technology as hotly debated. Theres so much up for debate because from my argument in my essay, whats the difference between a boob job and a brain job? Each make modification to the body. Well you can also say that the brain is electric and can short-circuit. What difference does it have with a silicon boob short circuiting? There are already so many technology that is being held back like cloning which may not seem dangerous, but one in which lawmakers have banned.
Hello Fred,
I also agree that both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil fail to take into consideration the viewpoints of other individuals that are not in their field of expertise, however I feel you may be falling into Bill Joy’s major concern with technology and that is that humans don’t take a moment to really think of the possible consequences of their inventions or advancements. I fell this is clearly seen in today’s society as their’s almost this race for who ever can create the next generation shaping invention that no one even cares to think of all the possible outcomes. This is why I believe Joy’s stance on technology is not a pessimistic one but more of a realistic one. He realizes that we as a species just want to constantly rush to the future without any repercussion that we in reality may actually be racing to our demise. Therefore, it shouldn’t be humanity’s mission to constantly create new technology but instead it’s obligation should be to regulate it in order to ensure a brighter future.
I think Ray Kurzweil has everything incredibly well thought out and makes strong counter-arguments to those opposing his predictions. His ideas of singularity and the surpassing of artificial intelligence are actually terrifying to think about for me, because I don’t think I would want my consciousness to be transferred into a robot. Despite the better results that machine-made decisions give, I think making mistakes is a large part of human growth. It teaches you how to overcome the fear of failure and how to pick yourself back up. If people had partially non-biological brains to make 100% confident decisions, then nobody would have new experiences or new lessons to share. Instead of having your hockey coach giving that inspirational speech when you’re down at the end of the third period, there’ll be technology coming up with the most successful play. Instead of training for a triathlon and seeing the results during the race, there’ll just be people buying new technology or upgrading their bodies to be faster, better, and stronger. I’m terrified because I would not want my kids to grow up in a world without those small moments in life, ones that take human compassion, empathy, and emotion to provide.
That’s a very interesting perspective Andy. I feel as if humans take those little moments of overcoming doubt and obstacles for granted. The feeling of trial and error in order to succeed is quite frustrating, but the reward of successfully completing a simple task on your own is incomparable to anything else. If you can just have a device in your brain that gives you the correct answer to any obstacle in life, our standards of gratification will be so high that they will be nearly impossible to achieve.
Hi Andy, I think you are right! Failure is what keeps us motivated and challenged. The feelings of achieving something successfully when you have failed before, it is the not the same as the feelings you feel when you become successful instantly. That trial and error that you talk about, is very crucial in our development. It teaches us how to be resilient and passionate of the things we want to achieve. Like you, I am a bit skeptical when it comes to artificial intelligence, because all though information is accessed quickly and decisions can be made accurately, so less mistakes can be made. But there is the emotional aspect that I fear will be lost. Like you said, how do we teach robots empathy or compassion? I guess time can only tell.
Hi Andy, you definitely made a compelling argument on the reluctance towards artificial intelligence and the idea of singularity that Ray Kurzweil discusses about. I, too, would be against the idea of having my consciousness be transferred to a robot. That thought just terrifies me because I believe it will be true one day in the future. It also makes me grateful for the way we were able to grow up in this era, where we were able to make mistakes and learn the characteristics of what it takes to be a human being. Although having advanced technology would undeniably make our lives easier, I wouldn’t change the experience we have now for it. We are all unique and different because of the variable trial and errors we have each experienced. I would rather be unique and different than the same.
Like joy and Kurzweil states, it is clear that our technology has developed so much, we seem to be adapting nonstop. For example, a new iPhone or a new Samsung Galaxy comes out nearly annually with a brand new feature in some sort. In this case, Sophia the most technologically advanced robot frightened me. The idea that the robot not only hopes to create a family together with a human being, but also the claim that it can “learn” in college is more than frightening. My concern is not a objection or any sort of negativity toward our technological advancement, but a hesitation to celebrate the great step toward AI. Nevertheless, it is a question as to how a robot (as a “female”) can reproduce with a fully biological man to create a family. It is personal hope that it is ACTUALLY just a programmed line that she says… Having said all the concerns, I do wonder how Sophia’s “life” would proceed as she faces a lot of aspects of becoming an identity in the human society. In the end, both authors are challenging the idea rather or not the creation of robot is good or bad in every possible aspects (Like should there be a limit to how far the technology can advance? How do we know what our limit is? Who would set those limits? etc.)
Hi William,
I completely agree with all the statements you made. I find it crazy to think that a robot can create a family with a human. What will the child look like? Will it have skin and blood running through its veins? I am also optimistic about the future and its technological advancements. For example, I am excited to see possible advancements in the medical field. If robots are going to take over the future, I hope they at least have a positive impact on society and on our environment.
Hi William,
AI technology is also of a concern for me, since these robots like Sophia are becoming more aware of how the world is while they are not really human, so are they really one of us? I have seen a lot of negative reaction to Sophia the robot and AI technology in general, and I wonder if AI technology can sense the discrimination and how far they understand the emotion of being discriminated against and if this would have an impact on how robots interact with people in the future, much like response to any kind of discrimination. This is also a rational fear that I can relate with and I think there should be a limit on how human-like a robot should act and feel.
According to Bill Joy’s article, robots would end up being able to make their own choices, which could lead to the extinction of humankind as robots take over. However, what would give robots an incentive to get rid of humans or not do what they’re made to do? Would robots have to worry about living?
Also, there seems to be the problem of immortality, in which it is both seen as good and bad.
To Ray Kurzweil, it’s good because as time moves forward people will end up being healthier and average life spans will be longer. However, why do we need immortality in the first place? Wouldn’t the population increase too rapidly, and if people cannot die then wouldn’t there be the problem of (extreme) overpopulation? Then, the need for resources would increase and it might not be able to be produced in enough time. Also, who would get the right to be immortal? Everyone? Are there any capitalistic intentions where only the rich can use this nano-tech or gene engineering to extend their life, and the poor cannot?
It feels as if Joy and Kurzweil are two extremes in their look of the future. Some voices and positions we need represented are those of the public and those that are not in STEM fields.
That’s an interesting way to think about it! What would make the robots want to overpower us? Why couldn’t they see the good in the people and want to work with us to build a better world? What about the potential “good” robots that we could create? This is all saying that there will be a possibility that robots will exist in the future but as of now, it may not even possible.
If we do get to the point where AI is advanced enough to overtake the human species, the human species would also have advanced in brain power and knowledge. Thus, would the human species be ignorant enough to create AI that could potentially overpower humans?
Yeah, I think that if humans are the ones creating the robots, then shouldn’t they be making good robots to help us? I agree as well that if AI becomes so advanced, then that means the humans are the ones who made that capable in the first place, so they should be able to still be in a position of power over the AI so that the AI don’t overpower the humans. I get that from the point of view of advancement, the creation must overcome the master, but from the point of view of a creator, shouldn’t you always be able to control what you create? I feel that as humans, there are more of us inclined to create something that we can control/that is within our power.
Bill Joy focuses more on the negatives in “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” and how advancements in technology and robotics has affected us and will continue to affect us in the future. I think I agree with him for the most part in response to what Ray Kurzweil has to say on the matter. Kurzweil is more of an extremist when it comes to robotics and the future. He thinks he will live for a long time and thinks he’s around 40 when he’s pushing 60. It’s interesting that he talks about how it has affected biology and biological developments in term of health and diseases. I view them as on complete opposite sides regarding the issue, but you don’t hear the opinions of someone who is on the fence or in the middle; because moving towards robotics has its advantages as well as disadvantages, if something were to happen like Bill Joy says such as robots or the elite taking over.
I agree that we need to here from the middle and possibly see an example from the middles view because I feel most people are middle about the technological future.
Hi Tiffany, I definitely do agree with you that I agree with Joy more than I do with Kurzweil because Kurzweil discusses robots taking over the human population. This idea is what is preventing me from agreeing with pushing forward with technology because it’s scary to think that we might lose control of human emotions, sensations, and feelings that give us joy in life. Having a robotic brain and eventually relying on these machines will make us so weak without them. And if technology advancement comes to a stop or a halt, I believe that the human race would hit an all time low because they are so used to technology these days and who knows how humans would feel like in the future if technology was taken away from them.
Hi Tiffany,
I agree with you. I think we should here from someone who is more in the middle. Right now the only have positions that are at two different extremes. A different outlook on this would also help making a more logical decision in the end.
I also get a sense of negativity and one-sidedness of the arguments Joy and Kurzweil provide. The topic needs a more nuanced perspective from those praising technology in order to gain a better picture of whether Joy and Kurzweil’s visions are truly feasible
Although I agree with your overall understanding of both Joy & Kurzweil’s points- I fail to see where in your discussion you note how the conversation could be expanded. You say that “you don’t hear the opinions of someone who is on the fence or in the middle”; but why couldn’t you? Hearing the pros and cons to the rapid development of technology, and the global changes that accompany that (good and bad) could make for a well rounded and informative discussion based around change in itself. I do agree that they polarize each other as opposites, but these opposites could make room for a better synthesized singular discussion.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil did not mention the goods that technology had brought to humankind (which is understandable because the article and podcast are from the last decades). The latest technology such as smart phones and other smart devices have made our lives more convenient and better. They also seem to forget that humans create these robots so wouldn’t that mean the creators are smarter than the robots? I would prefer to have a survey about the topic because having two expert opinions seem to not be enough. After all, these ideas are just predictions. In addition, most other (poor) countries around the world do not always have the necessities to build robots like the US or Japan. I also think it’s strange for Joy to believe that the robots will fight back against humankind and who have created them, after he mentions that he knows about the book I, Robot, which we learned in class about the three laws of robotics from the book as well.
Hi Minh,
I also believe that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil heavily focused on the negative repercussions of robots in the future. Some robotic features can definitely be beneficial to big companies that require faster production in order to continue expanding. There are many advancements that can help companies become more successful. The power of robots and robotic features can only go so far depending on humans, because as you stated, humans are the ones that design them. So, they should have control of how much of an impact robots can have on our future. It took me by surprise how Joy expressed such fear of robots considering how much of a technology enthusiast he claimed to be throughout his article. Everyone, however, has their opinion on their effects depending on their knowledge and experience with technological advances.
Hi Minh, I found your comment very interesting and true. Back when these articles or podcasts were made, I also believe there wasn’t a strong appreciation of the benefits of technological advancements because they didn’t get to see the life-changing advancements that we get to see today. It is interesting that Joy mentions that Robots will wipe out humans when humans themselves are responsible for making the robots in the first place. Though it is a plausible prediction, I do still believe that it’s a bit extreme for robots to completely wipe out humans, at least in the near future (40-50 years).
Hi Minh, you made a great point about how Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil didn’t really elaborate on the benefits of technology, but rather focused on the negative effects that technology can bring. Although I do see your argument on how humans are smarter than robots since they’re the ones creating them, I ultimately believe that overtime, technology will heavily advance beyond the knowledge of humans as stated by Joy and Kurzweil. Humans will become more reliant on technology and will eventually lose skills that they previously had. For example, before calculators were so accessible, I was able to do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division easily. Now, it takes me longer to do calculations manually.
Hello Minh,
While I agree with you that both Bill Joy and Kurzweil make it seem that the negative’s of technology will eventually outweigh the positive’s, they do seem to be right. We as humans have created many amazing technologies like robots but that does not mean that it does not come at a cost. Joy argues that are constant need to push forward with the advances in technology will eventually lead to AI that will be smarter than humans . We would be essentially be creating our own demise. He however doesn’t specifically limit this argument to just robots but all technologies in general. He argues that if we keep blindly pushing into the future without taking a minute to analyze the possible consequences of our actions that we might experience a “white plague” of our own. That’s why it should be humans moral obligation to regulate technological advancements.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil both state that technology is growing rapidly and in a few decades, technology will be so strong that it will take over the human race. Joy says that robots will be formed because mankind will compete with each other to create the best, strongest, and smartest robots. Then they will outsmart all of humankind and our world will be destroyed. However, what both fail to mention is that technology has made the world a better place. Although, there are some things that has made a negative impact on the world (i.e. pollution, climate change), technology allows humans to create different innovations that benefit the world. There have been many medical discoveries made and there continues to be more. Our lifespan has increased dramatically than how it was a few decades ago; humans have found cures for many diseases. Cellphones allow for people to connect with each other all over the world; it has allowed families and friends to keep in touch from thousands of miles away. Although, we don’t know what will lie in the future for us, I feel that technology will do more good than harm.
I think Bill Joy focuses more on the disadvantages, but in the podcast, Ray Kurzweil does talk about the advantages of robotics and technology. He also talks about health and biological advancements and how aging can be stopped which is crazy to hear.
In a separate article I found, “Ray Kurzweil Says We’re Going to Live Forever,” Kurzweil further talks about how we will soon be able to combat diseases. Specifically, he mentions that “by the 2030s we’ll be putting millions of nanobots inside of our bodies to augment our immune system, to basically wipe out disease.” He even mentioned how he is working with M.I.T. on a cancer project, in response to a question relating to the curing of this disease. This article was published in 2013, so it’s interesting to think about the progress he’s made since then.
I definitely have allowed the scary thoughts cloud my judgement on how technology could really benefit us. I have tended to side will Bill Joy and have looked at all of the negative things that could result but I do believe we are capable of finding a middle ground that wont be detremental to society and that is key
It’s true that technology can have some repercussions that are frightening to think about. However, what some people (on either side) fail to take into account that while some externalities (such as pollution) are caused by technology, it has the potential to counteract these negative effects as well. For example, developments have already been made to reverse the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the giant patch of plastic that pollutes the Pacific Ocean. We as humanity have made leaps in improving our efficiency, productivity, and quality of life and the possibility of improving these aspects even more is reason enough to embrace the progress of technology.
Hi Kathrine,
You have made an interesting point about the ability of technology to reserve the damages at it caused. The idea of robots being a basic necessity in our lives in the future is a terrifying thought because we as humans always want to be in the know and the actions of robots are unpredictable, but nonetheless, we do not know how developed they are going to be. However, robotic machinery can not only help us in our day to day lives, but it can also have benefits to us in the medical field, engineering fields, as well as assisting those who are physically incapable of performing certain tasks. We should not let our fears prevent us from taking those strides and making a difference in the world. And as you said, the reversal of the Great Pacific Patch is in the works and will be performed by non other than robots.
Kurzweil focuses on the exponential rate at which our world is growing and ignores the problems our world is facing now. Climate change, extreme poverty, world hunger, and clean water are all global issues that need to be attacked. Quite honestly, if we don’t fix these problems, how does he expect the world to transform to half robot? His ignorance to the rest of humanity is quite obvious in the podcast and Wired article. I can’t help but to think the rich will be the only ones who transform to robot because that is an obviously expensive procedure. And, once the rich all become robots, what will happen to the rest of us? Will we be ostracized and looked down on for not being immortal. Or will they not care enough because they’ll live on and watch the world around them die at a normal rate. I feel like when these revolutionary things happen, there are millions of people left behind to fend for themselves and the gap between the rich and poor become even bigger. Maybe that’s just they way the world works, but it’s a pretty suck-y thing.
You’re right. How can there be an exponential rate of our world’s growth, if we cannot address issues like environmental decline, poverty, and world hunger? It honestly seems as though the only people that will benefit from this new technology is the Elite. Our world only has so much resources to offer us and if we’re going by the scale of which Ray Kurzweil is surmising, then there won’t even be close to enough to give to every single human being on Earth. These are really good points you have!
I totally agree with you on the note that only the rich will become robots because the process to transition and the resources that are needed are costly and doesn’t happen in a second. I think that technology is great, but only a few people will ever have access to these types of technologies and when the time comes, I feel that those who haven’t transitioned will be eliminated, but from then, how will the robots live amongst another? Everyone who’s living at that point got there because they were rich enough to transition, will money even matter at that stage? Who decides who gets more power from then? I just think those problems you listed above should be focused on more than changing the human race.
Hi Jillian,
As I was reading Kurzweil’s article I also felt as if he was talking about the extremity of robotic advancements that are not as much of priority as other concerns in the world. Kurzweil’s word choice at times also felt a bit dramatic to me. He used certain terminology that was expressed the urgency of possible robotic take-over. However, he did provide several reliable resources that addressed great points about the advancements in robotic technology that seemed more logical than the fear of robots that Kurzweil claimed to have. Overall, I agree with your idea that these expensive advances concern the rich most which does not take me by surprise.
Bill Joy presents many different perspectives on the advancement of technology. Obviously when he was writing his piece, in the year 2000, technology was at a very different place than it is today, however, he still presents many valid points. For instance, he mentions the fact that technology will grow slowly and the change will be gradual which can be seen in action today. Taking iPhones as an example, we can see how the change in the phones has been introduced gradually – first they introduced touchscreens, then fingerprint technology, and now they’re using face recognition. Each change on a new phone, never all at once, so the change is not resisted. Next, he goes on to the idea of nanotechnology and the uses it will have – focusing on how nanotech will be used to cure all human diseases which will extend the human lifespan and provide a better quality of life for humans in general. However, he notes that the advancement of technology will come at a cost,, stating how the elite will have a greater control of the masses as they will have a greater control over computer and communication systems. He says a few things about limiting knowledge in order to limit technological growth but also makes a point that the Dalai Lama says the pursuit of the power of knowledge is not key in what makes people happy and there are limits to what the pursuit of science can accomplish. He optimistically concludes his article by noting human compassion will be the reason that the challenges presented by the rapid development of technology will be confronted.
I appreciate your note on the discrepancy in timing of the article, considering I didn’t think to comment on the discrepancy in time between when Joy wrote his article to when I read it here and now. The 18 year gap both reaffirms certain arguments he makes, and demolishes others. Yes, he argues that technology will develop slowly and be a gradual change over time- however, I don’t agree that technology has developed slowly. Sure, in the case of iPhones, the changes have been gradual- but consider other forms of technology such as: self driving cars, 3D printing, and surgical robots. None of these technologies came about as small or gradual changes- they were all outright new and groundbreaking developments in completely different sectors of technology. Ultimately, I disagree with Joy’s conclusion that “human compassion will be the reason that the challenges presented by the rapid development of technology will be confronted”- consider medical technology developments; why would anyone in good conscience want to slow the progress of medicinal technology that has the potential to save lives?
An important aspect missing from Joy and Kurzweil’s arguments is what benefits technology could bring to the plate for humanity and the world as a whole. Yes, robots taking over human existence is something that, while seeming absurd for now, might happen. However, right now, we are trying hard as a united earth to help each other and to use technology to better the environment and lives. Environmental scientists are trying as hard as they possibly can to use technology to preserve the earth and thus, preserve the existence of mankind. Even though technology might bring humanity to a different page, where there are more calculations done in people’s heads or AI has taken control of every aspect of living, the earth might still exist because of technology. There are aspects of the earth that are dying regardless and using technology might even help slow down the degradation of the earth. The use of technological advancements might also bring forth a new quality of life, where more children survive illnesses and there are cures for many diseases and cancers. While we might get overtaken by robots in the far future, the near future is a world where people want to live in becuase the people are willing to work to save each other. The future may not even end up replacing robots and we cannot prevent the present from using technology to benefit others now in fear of what may come 50 years from now. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and environmental scientists can bring a new perspective to this topic.
Hi Rini,
I agree with you that technology has made a beneficial impact on the world. There have been many medical discoveries that has helped the human race; many cures for diseases have been discovered and we now have vaccines to prevent us from getting diseases like polio and measles. Human lifespan has increased because of these medical innovations. Although, humans did create climate change from all the pollution we have emitted in the atmosphere by using natural resources like coal and gas, we have and are making new discoveries to using renewable resources such as windmills, solar energy, hydroelectric dams, etc. I agree that we do not know what will happen in the future, but I believe that humanity will not let the world to get to the extreme situation where robots will take over mankind. We will continue to use technology to benefit us and the world.
Hi Sabrina, I totally agree with you! We will not let robots take over because as every specie we will try to preserve ours. Therefore, we will somehow limit the technology so that we do not get to the extreme that we are placed in a second plane. Also, as Kurzweil mentioned, nano solar panels are going to become our new way of obtaining almost unlimited energy (while the sun is still active, which will be in the next billion years) which unlike fossil fuels it will be harmless to the atmosphere.
Hi Rini,
I do agree with you that Joy and Kurzweil’s arguments are based on more negative perceptions of what robots can add to the world, and that they both could have considered the science and medical side of technology. Robots might be able to bring a more precise way of curing disease that may be difficult to cure now, such as by introducing new ways of drug delivery via nanobots and delivering the drug to a specific site in the body. Surgery could be more stable and precise and would prevent human errors. However, I could agree with their arguments where robots can replace people in these regards also. If robots could improve jobs like precise surgery, what if it comes to the point where they replace surgeons for good? Furthermore, robots are currently being developed to do jobs that humans are being paid to do, so the loss of jobs is a real concern that could become worse for the job market. I think if humans know the fine line between developing robots to improve science versus helping monopolizing certain jobs then robots would not be feared as much.
An interesting point Kurzweil made just seven years after “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” is that connecting our neocortex (the part of our brain where we think) to a cloud will be beneficial to us. Just like out smartphones now, soon we will be able to back up the “data” in our brains to a virtual cloud (essentially enabling us to live forever through our thoughts ad memories). In a recent article, “Kurzweil Claims That the Singularity Will Happen by 2045,” Kurzweil explains how “we’re going to be able to meet the physical needs of all humans. We’re going to expand our minds and exemplify these artistic qualities that we value.” I thought this was really interesting because on one hand, he’s describing the benefits technology will soon bring us and on the other he describes a world in which we are so dependent on technology that it will be the one that controls us. The most interesting part is that when asked if people should fear the inevitable singularity (a point where machines will be even smarter than humans), Kurzweil said “no.”
I also find the idea of connecting our neocortex to a cloud to be very interesting. This topic is also addressed in many fictional and science fiction novels. In Philip K Dick’s novel, DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, humans and machines are nearly indistinguishable. Robots have essentially taken over the society which Dick presents, they are the leaders and the lawmakers. Initially, the robots of this society started off as robots, but with each new generation, the robots became more and more intelligent and more and more human-like. While Kurzweil believes there is no reason to fear inevitable singularity, books such as Dick’s show otherwise so. Ultimately, one thing both Kurzweil and Dick agree on is that technological singularity is inevitable.
Hi Danielle
I also find it interesting that Kurzweil highlights the inevitable control technology will have over us. Despite this Kurzweil states that people should not fear the inevitable singularity. The idea of connecting our brains to something similar to that of the cloud seems to open up possibilities that may be seemingly endless. With our consciousness plugged into a cloud, can we live parts of our life over again since our memories will also be added to the cloud? I feel that the ability to relive moments of our life or do a trial run for a possible future can help prevent all the negative possibilities from this technology. With all these seemingly impossible side effects of technology approaching, couldn’t we simply utilize the super computers to resolve our issues.
Hi Danielle,
I thought your point about Kurzweil being unafraid of the singularity was also interesting to point out. With all the cautions that were stated in Joy’s article about the growing dependency society has on technology, it was surprising Kurzweil was unphased by the possibility of technology literally taking over humanity. I agee that technology has provided us with multiple benefits as Kurzweil stated, however I think that there should be a limit to how far we are willing to go for technological advancement. We need to differentiate what we consider a necessity when it comes to technology use and what is considered leisure.
Joy and Kurzweil cover the extreme facts and examples of such, which serve as good warnings to us – however, not all aspects were covered. Technology undeniably has a spectrum of benefits for our humanity, but I worry that this desire for advancements makes humans less reliable on themselves, makes them trust their individual ability much less, and creates a society that freely relinquishes their decision-making power to machinery. Ironically enough, the machinery was manufactured by humans so the kind of society I foresee has humans relinquishing their independence to robots, which in essence is merely giving up their decision-making abilities to another individual (the creator of that robot). The voices not mentioned are those who would not have access to this technology, because in reality, not everyone will have the funds or ability to have the life-changing technology that is spoken of. A broader conversation would form if people who currently live without technology are brought in for their opinion – an understanding of what people who currently live without technology have to say about their view on our technology-driven world as it is now, and the potential (both good and bad) that it has for the future.
I agree with what you have to say Julia. I believe that while it may be scary to see the potential dangers of technology, there are definitely great benefits and those who have lived their lives without the technology would appreciate the benefit more than us. Technology can definitely make us less independent. That said, it is important to remember that in many cases, technology is used to do tasks that we find easy but time-consuming. For example, a calculator helps us do quick calculations that we would spend a long amount of time solving. It is simply inefficient to solve problems by hand rather than with a calculator.
I agree with you that over time with the advance in technology, we will become less confident in ourselves and instead we would depend on technology to solve our problem. Let’s say that robotic were advance to where it could socially interact with human beings and obey the orders. We would end up ordering the robot to complete our daily tasks and eventually, we would lack those skills that we should have had. Therefore, though our life might be more efficient with the advance in technology as it becomes more convenient, we would become less independence.
Hi Julia
Obtaining the viewpoints of people who currently live without technology can most definitely give us an idea about the technological future. Since these people currently live without technology, gaining their viewpoints about current technology can give us an idea of how people will react to new and random technology. If we were to observe the reaction with these people we can obtain a better understanding of our own possible future and potentially find ways to resolve the problems of the future. The idea that people will become less reliant on their own strengths is definitely an issue but since these robots are created by humans, are we not using our own strength? I believe that although people may grow reliant on technology, the ability to perform and do work is an innate ability that humans will always have. I believe that the one true strength of humans is the ability to adapt to almost any situation and strive.
Hi Julia,
Our attachment to our phones is the simplest and most relatable example of this loss of independence that you’ve mentioned. It is difficult to imagine even a day without using our cell phones. We use them as alarm clocks, calculators, news outlets, communication devices, etc. While it is somewhat scary to admit that humans have lost some of their autonomy to technology, it’s easy to argue that this has been mostly a good thing. For example, the integration of technology into medicine has allowed for more accurate diagnoses and precise surgeries. Because of the inevitable progress on technology, our reliance on it is surely to expand in exchange for increases in convenience and efficiency. Because of this, it is difficult to know where to draw the line between keeping our autonomy and abandoning it altogether in order to eliminate human error.
Hi Julia,
When you indicated that the voices not mentioned are those who would not have access to this technology, most of my thoughts focused on third world countries. Although there would be many individuals in our country who wouldn’t have access to the technological advances made in the near/far future, those who are already deprived of any technology would be impacted the most. In the case that we reach this technological singularity Ray Kurzweil hopes for, in which he says that “by the 2030s, we will connect our neocortex, the part of our brain where we do our thinking, to the cloud,” what would happen to individuals living outside the premises of such advancements? It’s scary to even think that humans struggling to already survive could possibly be wiped to extinction.
Hi Julia, you made a great point about how the voices not represented are those who don’t have the luxury or opportunity to access such technology. It makes me question what will happen in the future when technology becomes too advanced that there will be a divide of people who do have access to it and those that do not. Will the people deprived from technology be wiped out from existence due to natural selection? Or will society keep on prospering despite the differences? Today, there are many people in developing countries that do not have the privilege of incorporating technology into their everyday lives. I think the conflict between the privileged and the underprivileged will only worsen as technology advances.
Hello Julia!
I share the same sentiments as you and believe that there was a lack of representation for people who don’t have accessibility to technology. To add onto your argument, the people who have less accessibility not only include those in low socioeconomic demographics, but also include those who are in third world countries and are geographically disadvantaged. If Kurzweil’s proposed hypothesis of the future comes to fruition and technology lies in the hands of the few elite, there is a question of whether third world countries will benefit or be taken advantage of as a result of this hierarchy. We have access to better technology and health care in the United States and in other developed countries, but this is not the case for those who live in impoverished countries. Live saving technology such as those used in the hospitals will continue to be inaccessible to those who are in these positions, which is rather disappointing because these are populations who suffer through greater health issues and require these technologies just as much or even more so than we do. It’s crucial to have their voices heard as well and to ensure accessibility to those communities through public health measures.
Hi Julia,
I agree with your argument. As we have all seen technology easily takes over our free time and occasionally causes us to become less knowledgeable due to our increased reliance on technology. However, we can not deny that it has been very beneficial from helping with heavy labor to using google maps to find your way around town. Although people have long lived without technology, recent inventions within the past 5-8 years have helped provide better commodity in our lives and have even been used in the medical field in effort to diagnose/ cure diseases.
Although Ray Kurzweil’s arguments were a bit extremist, I felt it was necessary. With the advancement of technology at such an incredible pace, the ethical issues of technology should be addressed. It is true that technology has solved many of our problems, but it has also created new ones. With any advancement made in technology is the potential to use it in a harmful way, whether or not it had the intention of being used for good. Kurzweil provided a good example of this with nuclear power; it can be used as an alternative to fossil fuels (therefore helping the Earth) or it could be used to bomb an entire city. Surely the latter wasn’t the intention of nuclear power, but the fact is that it has the potential to do such damage. Additionally, humans have the potential to let such damage occur. Kurzweil’s article is just providing arguments for how we may be heading in a dark path if we don’t take the necessary steps to face these dangers. We often move forward in technology with optimism and look away from the negative consequences. Like he said, the “warnings haven’t been widely publicized,” and that is exactly what I think he is doing in this article.
I agree completely. Advances in technology scare me if im being honest, for this reason exactly. I think the more technology advances the more issues we are going to have.
Hi Danielle,
I agree with your comments and feel that Kurzweil’s arguments were necessary. I believe that while technology has done so much good, it has also brought with it almost an equivalent amount of bad that is often forgotten, or perhaps people simply do not want to believe in the bad as they relish in the good. Kurzweil also stated that eventually humans may relinquish power to make decisions to technology as technology becomes more intelligent, which I think is as dangerous as his other example about nuclear power. Yes the idea that a machine will answer our ethical issues in the best way seems like a great idea; however, it brings along with it the dangerous and likely potential of a new, mindless society of humans incapable of making any decisions for themselves. I too am glad that he publicized the warnings of technology that previously had not been publicized.
Hi Danielle,
While I agree that that technology can have bad consequences, I do believe that there are technology that do not have any bad consequences like water treatment or advancements in medicine or vaccinations which have increased the lifespan of humans by many years. Weapons and fossil fuels do have their problems, but I believe you are forgetting about a large chunk of advancements in technology which are not so controversial.
I understand where you are coming from, Danielle. But just to play devil’s advocate, I wanted to point out that no matter what happens, the age of technology is upon us. Some mad genius out there will figure out how to turn a toaster into a bomb and it is up for education and other resources to step up and make sure no one is able to harm others through technology. The reality is that someone out there will use technology to do harmful actions and the fear of AI, while we don’t want it, will always be there. There will be some time where people are afraid of robots in their society and it is up to politicians and other professionals to come up with ways to stop harm from being done. We could use the perspectives of politicians to come up with regulations.
Hi Danielle! That is such a great point. He points out that technology has a good and bad rather than only supporting one side. This makes his argument quite realistic although the concept of becoming robot is pretty unrealistic. All things can be used for better or for worse, and he gives great examples of people who use technology for both sides of the spectrum.
I completely agree on your points. Kurzweil’s arguments are absolutely necessary. We have to understand the negative impacts of new technology and if fear will instill that in us, then so be it. The world only continues to grow more complicated the more we advance our technology. We have to be ever more so vigilant of the possible dangers, however I don’t think the dangers stop only at the level of human life. We have to consider also that technology requires resources. Finite resources. If we consume them at a rate faster than we can replace them, then it will be the entire world as we know it that will be at stake. We’re already capable of environmental damage control. If we can come up with prevention plans for environmental catastrophes, then we should be just as able to do so with the pursuit of new knowledge and technology.
Based on the piece “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” and the CBC Ideas podcast, Joy and Kurzweil seem to deal only in opposing extremes. While Kurzweil focuses on overwhelming positive potentials in artificial intelligence, Joy prioritizes concepts of technological takeover. I feel that neither source takes into account an in-between reality of technology, robots, and AI — possibly in which they are developed into a commonplace, everyday amenity, or rather that innovation such as AI reaches a functionally identical state to that of a human (provided a mentally sound one). Both Kurzweil and Joy seem to assume wildly advanced improvements, specifically in cases of AI or general robots, typically postulating their surpassing of human ability. However, I think it would be more appropriate to assume, at best, a capacity roughly equal to that of a human, especially since we are their creators and that it is unlikely that we could form creations that surpass ourselves. Realistically, I think the best or worse (depending on your view of technology) reality would simply involve synthetic humanity, or its equivalence in metal.
Hi Eve,
I agree with your comment. Both Kurzeil and Joy’s arguments are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum. I think this was to provide us with opposing perspectives about how the future of technology could be perceived. Like you, I don’t completely agree with either one of them as they both seemed pretty extreme and their extreme nature makes them seem unrealistic. I do believe that the purpose of robots is to expand intellectual growth beyond the limitations of the human brain and I believe technology can do that, however, I also believe technology can be controlled since it was made by humans like you said.
I had not thought about this before, robots not being able to surpass our level of intelligence since we are their creators. This is sort of a soothing thought. I would love to believe that the future holds a common ground between both extremes but I do fear that the creators of the most advanced technologies wont stop when they realize how much they are capable of creating.
Hi Eve,
You make a very good point in saying that AI and robots cannot surpass humans because we are their creators. However, AI possess the ability to learn just like humans but at an accelerated rate. They might interpret information in a different way than humans. They lack much of the complexities of humans such as emotion, common sense, etc. I doubt things are going to be like the movie terminator where robots enslave the human race but we have to keep a close eye on robots. They can be capable of so much more than we expect (for better or worse).
The conversations focus on what is now and what is to come. Or at least what was to come from the perspective of the time they were in when they first started to have those conversations. Much has arrived (in terms of technological/robotic advancements) since they had those conversations. That being said, unless I completely missed it, what about the conversation about what will come after the things yet to come. To be more clear what is the next step once the technology we advance and the robots we create either change our lives in a beneficial way or doom us to a dystopian type of society. When it comes to these advancements, how far are we taking the conversations? Should we take it step by step and handle each “problem” as they arise, or should we decide how far each step should go well in advance to each advancement? As much as I would love there to be “free range” when it comes to advancements in these fields, I recognize doing exactly that is perhaps the most dangerous thing we could do. I don’t want the world to get so caught up in seeing if they can create something that we forget if they should create something in the first place at all. At the moment my mind goes to one place when I think about the type of horrors that robotics can bring, though it has less to do with the machines being malignant beings than it does with our own self destruction. Not that long ago a game by the name of “Horizon Zero Dawn” was released (spoilers ahead). Within the game you play as a character who is traversing an earth in the far future. The inhabitants of that world live in tribal type of environments, the world around them is full of ruins of the old world (our world), and many of the creatures of that land are actually giant machines that were created by us, to an extent. Within the game, without getting too much into the details, we find out that the world essentially ended because machines we created became unresponsive to our commands, and because we installed within the machines a means to self replicate using biomass (essentially anything and everything organic). In doing what they were created to do the machines destroyed the world as we know it, and we restarted it. Now this may seem like a far-fetched idea, but when you stop to think about it, maybe not so. It was all due to the creations of one man and our inability to properly manage these creations. That could very well happen to us. Maybe not with giant machines, but it could very well happen with many of the dozens of things that we create on a daily basis. If we are not careful, and have conversations that go beyond the ones we are currently having then there may one day not be any conversations to have at all.
I appreciate your simplification of the discrepancy between Joy & Kurzweil’s views by stating that their “conversations focus on what is now and what is to come”. I agree that their arguments leave a considerable continuation gap between present (or technically past) and future. There are an infinite number of paths that the future could take, and both authors fail to discuss these outlets. As you discuss, there is the potential for technology to be both beneficial and detrimental to society- you also bring up an interesting point concerning how society deals with these issues: deal with them as they come or anticipate them and find a solution before the issues arise? I do however disagree with you in terms of limiting these technological advancements versus not. You say that you fear society would get caught up in the ability to create, as opposed to questioning if it should be created- I argue that technology should advance, unstifled, in the areas that will continuously benefits society (i.e. the healthcare, education, and environmental sectors). Society can be better, and technology can make it happen, we shouldn’t hold back on the possibility of what tomorrow could hold.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil’s arguments are intriguing because their critiques on the developments of technology in the 21st century are eye-opening and could portray reality in the next decade. People are so eager to generate further advancements in technology without realizing the potential detrimental effects it can have on the general welfare of society and humanity. The podcast and article are missing viewpoints from politicians and people of rural America. Getting their input and opinions would shed light on the action that they would take to limit the power and control of machinery taking over the human workforce jobs. Hearing the perspectives of executives of multinational technology companies would allow people to challenge their claims for the betterment of individualism. Optimism for creating machinery robots will take away the pursuit of people to pursue going to college and acquiring their dream profession.
I believe the two ignored the perspectives of a good chunk of the world, as well. If they asked for the opinions of the general public, we, the readers, can get a feel for what the rest of the world feels towards Kurzweil’s claims. Opinions from individuals always seem to be a bit more credible because big companies or the rich and famous are not influencing these thoughts. We want to make sure the majority of the world feels like these advancements are benefiting society.
Hi Christopher,
I agree with you in that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil’s articles reveal the future of our society as we advance in modern technology. Bill does mention how genetic technology and modification can eventually lead to human mortality. However, we are slowly losing our conscience-ness and the unique characteristics that make us human. Ray sheds a more optimistic view about technology being able to improve our healthcare and way of living. I agree with you in that it’s important to gain perspective from the politicians and people of America because their views may reveal the detrimental effects technology and how it effected their jobs, family and way of living.
Hi Christopher!
Like the others above, I also agree! I think for so many innovators, they focus on the destination over the journey. They’re so ready to make the next biggest thing and become renown, they don’t take enough time to consider the consequence of their creation. If people were more wary with their creations and what could happen to it, I’m sure we could avoid any of those sci-fi nightmares we see on the media all the time. Being intentional with your own work is just as important as it is with other people, by being intentional we can take time to see how the invention/innovation will affect other populations, like minorities too, as you mentioned before.
Hi Christopher
I really like the points of views missing that you mentioned. One viewpoint that I think you should consider as well is that of scientists studying environmental conservation. A huge benefit of technological advances is that of increased production and efficiency in the rural industry that provides humanity with food and other necessities. These scientists may shed light on how technological innovation will help sustain humanity and reduce our environmental impact in the future.
Kurzweil has optimistic views, no doubt. He talks about technology decreasing poverty, improving healthcare, and increasing life expectancy. But when his optimism is challenged in the podcasts, he mentions that he has be compared to Bill Joy where he is the optimist and Joy, the pessimist. He refers to the technology that can be used to cure heart disease as the same technology that can be engineered to be more deadly and how people don’t want to risk the negative effects for beneficial ones. I think what is missing is where they come to an agreement in which we set a boundary as to how much the rapid increase of technology should be controlled. The voices of those who reap the benefits or downsides of modern technology should be taken into account, not just the scientific ethics.
I agree. There needs to be a limit put in place. Not all technological advances will bring positive things. I think more negatives will come out of it then positives
Kaelen, I will have to disagree with you. There has been more benefits than consequences from new technology. There are a lot of problems due to technology, but reforms in technology has also gotten rid of many previous problems in fields such as, but not limited to, medicine, irrigation, communication, and transportation. It is hard to argue that life was more comfortable hundreds of years ago.
Hi Nicholas,
I somewhat agree with you. It is clear to say that we have made impressive discoveries with the help of technology, however, there has been some down falls with technology. There is a see saw effect that I believe there is no definite side the predominates. The good side I can see from technology is the side that provides us with the new advances we see in the scientific community even in the architectural community. Much like you had mentioned, it would be difficult to put on a certain restrictions.
Hi Lourdes,
I agree that there are different types of technologies such as those you had mentioned, for example, the technology that could cure heart disease and one that is encoded. However, when do we know that technology is detrimental and could put humanity at risk. Again, I agree that their argument fails to come to an agreement on where we can fix this slow silent killer. You also bring up a great point those who are going to benefit, what is there say? The elite can always say that the technology is beneficial, but I say we should put boundaries as well as restrictions now so that we don’t end up in a dystopia and dependent on technology.
Hi Esly,
The advancement of technology can definitely be called the silent killer. I feel like for this reason it will be hard to to even distinguish when it has gone too far, so we won’t realize it until it has surpassed the point in which it can be controlled. I strongly agree that boundaries should be placed, but then as an engineer my next concern is: how much will these new restrictions limit creativity and innovation?
Hi Lourdes, I agree with you that Kurzweil is very optimistic over the advancements of technology – he is a firm believer that technology does much more good than harm and even points that out with the new A.I. projects that have recently been publicized. He is an advocate of technology and even proposed a “singularity” idea where he believes that “machines and men will converge.” Joy develops his argument in which he says that technology may be more negative in the long run than positive and that we should rethink the pace at which technology is developing.
I think that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil both fail to mention the benefits that artificial intelligence can offer to society. They both only rely on their negative viewpoints to make their assumptions and predictions. Although they raise several arguments and possibilities, I think it is important to also include how this can positively impact society by benefitting human beings. Explaining both perspectives will allow people to understand the different influences that artificial intelligence can provide. However, I did like Joy’s compelling arguments when he used different examples to illustrate the possibility of reaching human extinction if robots succeed us. I think it is likely if we are not aware and cautiously taking measures to control and limit the power of the accelerating technological development.
I agree with you, Ashley. Both Joy and Kurzweil did not provide much benefits on how robots or technological advancements can improve society. For example, currently there are libelium smart cities that allows system integrators to monitor noise, pollution, structural health, and waste management. In the future, these cities can transform Earth into a more eco-friendly and stable planet. This vision is still opaque now, but there are many possibilities that can thrive from this model. Further detail can be found with this link: http://www.libelium.com/smart_cities/. In addition, there can be technological advancements in medicine to successfully cure cancer, leukemia, or other chronic and terminal diseases. Many other improvements can arise such as the invention of flying cars for faster transportation, artificial intelligence robots for manufacturing, or other automated technology to make everyday tasks faster and simpler. Hence, there can be many advantages to technology advancements.
Hi Ashley, I can’t agree more with you that both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil fail to mention the positive part of technology! I really do not like this extremely pessimistic perspective. They are focusing on the possible consequence of technology too much and have an extreme way of thinking. In my opinion, human can live peacefully with artificial intelligence even if AI has acquired consciousness. Different from other animals, human is intelligent. So is AI. I believe one day in the future AI will be our closest friend who knows us best and helps us most.
Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil’s arguments are insightful and give strong viewpoints on having a cautionary approach to the rapid advancements in technology that have occurred already and are yet to come. I agree that humans need to become more aware of the potential consequences of advancements they make in technology, notably AI, and Kurzweil and Joy’s pessimistic view of the future does help disrupt the more common opinion of how technology is undoubtedly changing the world for the better. It seems rather plausible that one day, humans will no longer be at the top of the “food chain” and dominant in the world as they are now – it seems this is nature’s way, following the principle of survival of the fittest. The interesting consideration is whether humans will be the one to craft a species more powerful and intelligent than themselves. What’s missing from the two arguments are voices from the more common people, and perhaps those specializing more in biology and evolution. Complementing the computer scientists’ perspectives with perhaps biologists could potentially yield more interesting revelations regarding whether the apocalyptic future that Joy and Kurzweil envision might truly become reality.
I really like how you connected evolution and other perspectives to go with what Joy and Kurzweil say, Daniel. Since these scientists are focusing on the extremes of technology, it is an interesting view to think of how evolution will work against humans and that humans themselves might be finding their own doom, which goes along with the survival of the fittest idea. Also, I also think that using the perspectives of biologists and other scientists would be beneficial to study this in depth, as people like Joy, who specializes in computer science, may not have the same perspectives on humanity.
Hello Danie,
I agree with your thoughts on hearing opinions of more common people. I think most people may not know the consequences that the article and the podcast mentioned. It’s important to hear what the general public says and inform them about what can happen in the future, not just the benefits but also the potential threat and consequences. It is horrifying to think, like you said, that humans may not dominant the world and instead by people’s creation.
Both Kurzweil and Joy present valid and convincing arguments. Kurzweil’s stance on the possibilities of increasing human life expectancy is alluring, but the more that I listened to him speak the more that his “optimism” began to frighten me. There is no doubt that technology has made our lives more practical but how do we know when we’ve taken it too far? And if we’re able to identify that, will we be able to stop? I don’t necessarily believe that the integration of technology into our biology would be detrimental. However, what I do believe is dangerous is the power that comes with that. How would it be regulated and if someone is in charge of that regulation, how do we keep their power in check?
Technology has brought many convinces to our lives, but as you say how do make the determination if it has exceeded the limit? I think we will never make a decision on that question. As soon as we settle for something, we soon become anxious for the new update or version. It constantly a race to have better and more features to our technology. The way we live has made us that way. Although there are simple people that do not have strong desire or interest for the new things, there are also people that are willing to wait long lines and days for the drop of the next “best” technology gadget. There’s no slow down to this trend, it only seems to grow in numbers the people that are strongly passionate about the progression of technology.
I must admit Itzel, Kurzweil’s “optimism” also frightens me. The idea of possibly regulating our own knowledge and development seems appealing from Joy’s point-of-view, however Kurzweil’s explanation of how we will slowly integrate with better technology scares me. For example, we might be so supportive of small changes (or even big ones like curing cancer) that we might fail to consider the consequences in the long run. Yes, stuff like biotechnology will grow exponentially but our ability to adapt parallels Kurzweil’s talk on how the youth are so open to change; Lester’s comment on how people will wait in long lines just to buy the latest technology also supports Kurzweil’s argument of our desire to become technologically more advance (minus the Luddites) and only seeing the positive side. I don’t know, overall both men’s future might possibly becoming the reality and while one looks very promising, no doubt the consequences will most likely be there and be very difficult to handle.
Yes Amanda, I definitely agree with you. I like your mention about Lester’s comment on how people will wait in long lines to buy the latest technology. It is a desire that many people want but in reality don’t need it. For example, iPhones are cellphones something of which many people already have but as new technology arises, such as the iPhone X , many people go crazy for it and go the extra mile for it They got in long lines at stores enrolled in alerts, and even set early bird payments for the new phone. Why because our engineers and fabricants move forward in the technology and upgrade applications and improve the phones system and then make people believe they need it in order to take advantage of our new technology. A device in which people spend hundreds on. Now, if one stops to compare such a small device to that of a robot one is placed in a tougher situation. I think the idea of moving forward with technology is great but at times it feels as if we are moving too fast without fully being aware of all the pros and cons. One blinds themselves with the luxuries but being able to control engineering with biological factors is a must followed by accurately knowing how to incorporate it slowly so that society can most effectively adapt to it.
I think you propose some really intriguing questions! With the increase in technology, there is this uncertainty of what the future will hold and what will be the outcomes of having genetically modified food or improved nanotechnology. Bill Joy, in his article, presents the dangers of nanotechnology, referencing to World War 2 when we are at a risk of a nuclear war and referencing the creation of atomic bombs. With this, I agree with you that it is scary what the power of technology can bring, We do not know how drastically technology can change our lives.
Hi Itzel,
Similarly to you, I was very intrigued by Kurzweil’s approach on increasing life expectancy. It makes me wonder, what consequences could that intend though? Are we limited by our biological bodies for a reason, perhaps we are not suppose to reach farther out than our boundaries? In my perspective, it seems that with technology, people “bite off more than they can chew” so to speak. As technology has expanded at an exponential rate, it seems as though our environment has drastically suffered at such a rate as well. I suppose after listening to both kurzweil’s podcast and reading joy’s article, I tend to lean more towards joy’s argument about a more dystopian future w/ technology.
Hi Pauline,
I do agree that people do “bite off more than they chew”. You can see people constantly on their phones or spending their entire day looking up memes. That said, I think it is important to note that the device used to spend hours on social media is the same device used to acquire access to thousands of resources where knowledge is near limitless. In this sense, technology is a double-edged sword. Thus, I wouldn’t say that this generation is suffering. I would instead say that it is diverging based on how we use technology.
Hi Itzel,
I found that the possibility of having these advances in our technology could potentially produce our life expectancy to increase. When you think increasing the life expectancies you think biological and not technological. I completely agree that we do not know as of right now where our boundaries and limits are and need to find those. I would have to disagree that integration of biology would be detrimental because think of our writing assignment for example. There could be many things that could go wrong or even thinking the worst, the government could control that part that is non-biological.
I agree that we should definitely be careful and regulation is a very blurry subject. What I believe to be the biggest danger is not the robots themselves but those that control them. One thing I am worried about are hackers and people who would be able to manipulate robots to fulfill their own selfish goals. Technology is easily manipulated and while I am sure security technology is improving, so are hacking technologies. Bottom line is the people in control of the robots are more of a threat than the robots themsleves
Hi David,
Although, I do agree with your statement about the people in control of the robots will be more of a threat than the robots, I think that some humans still won’t let our world get to the point where robots will control humans. I feel like there are more “good” people than “bad” in the world. We have been using technology to better the world and help others and even though there are still people who use technology to manipulate or harm others, most of the population have good morals.
Hello David, I agree with everything you mentioned. I believe that the creators of the robots should most likely be smarter than the robots. We need to be worried about hackers and those that will use them for selfish goals.
Hi Itzel,
I was really impressed with the questions that you proposed – it made me think of Kurzweil’s statement of increasing life expectancy again. You’re absolutely right – if technology gets out of hand and overpowers us, how will we be able to control it? I also thought about how we would be able to reverse the advancing of technology if it was pushed too far.
When listening to the podcast and reading the article I viewed technological advancement from a different light. Though I agree with above discussion that the views of Joy and Kurzweil are negative, I believe they are also credible. Bill Joy in his article explains his life and how he has been a long time computer ad technology enthusiast that I believe he has an accurate prediction of where technology may end up in the next twenty years. Though it is true that today technology is a tool to help us complete tasks with ease, I also considered the amount of people machines have displaced from jobs over time in factories, etc. Maybe the authors didn’t specifically mean “end the human race” but rather end of a “human purpose”, the need for us to contribute to society and have purpose in the workplace or in community.
I also thought about your last statement. The more we move forward in technology, specifically robots, we are ending jobs. Yes tasks are being completed with ease but unemployed dozens of employees. For example cashiers. Tons of cashiers have been eliminated from grocery stores and more . Pros, is that the store is saving that percentage of salary money with the self checkouts now. In the short run, there is a pretty picture because it detects all items to ensure everything is paid for, faster, etc. However, in the long run, when employees are replaced by robots, another example, factories, our country will be full of unemployed people, bringing our economy down. The smarter we create robots to be, the less of a purpose we have.
Hi Sabrina,
I think you bring up an interesting point about saying how authors could possibly mean “ending a human purpose” rather than “ending the human race”. I don’t think biologically we will be extinct. I do however believe that we will be so immersed in technology we will lose the sense of what it means to be human. We are more connected to technology than we are to ourselves.
Hi Sabrina, I really liked how you said that “‘maybe the authors didn’t specifically mean the “end of human race” but rather end of a “human purpose.”‘ This a good point because like the article and podcast has described, technology will soon become so advanced that every disease will be cured and will be able to do the jobs that we spend years learning to do. At that point, what will humans strive to do? Every scientist has the purpose of finding new answers to the unknown and everyone in college is there for a purpose. But when robots are able to do everything that we go to school for, when they have solved the answers to everything then what would be the purpose of humans? We wouldn’t have a reason to go to school or motivation to do anything for that matter. Perhaps at that point, humans would cease to exist simply because we have lost our purpose in life.
Hi Danielle,
You pose a very interesting idea that “Perhaps at that point, humans would cease to exist simply because we have lost our purpose in life”. I believe that this a very plausible scenario and if we become too reliant on technology, our innovation and creativity may diminish. We must find a balance point with machines and humans in which we cannot allow ourselves to be completely dominated. Machines should be tools used to accelerate our innovation and bring our ideas to life. One thing that machines will never have will be human imagination and creativity (I know its very cheesy).
Hi Danielle,
Yes exactly. I like the point that you bring up about the things we all go to school for. Personally I had originally was just thinking about the work force but taken it to the point of schooling, specifically higher education, to make all of us more skilled for our future would cease. It is interesting to think that at our age our purposes are to get that degree to be a functioning, high performing individual in society. With the advancements of robots this wouldn’t be a necessity anymore, so higher education would stop, jobs would be rare if any and so forth. Thus, yes, as we’ve agreed “humans would simply cease to exist because we’ve lost our purpose”.
Hi Sabrina,
I completely agree with you. I really like how you mention that the authors really meant the end of a human purpose instead of the human race. We are still human beings and have conscious even though part of our brains might be non-biological in twenty years. Bill Joy talks about how in the future machines will make decisions for us simply because “machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones.” Since we rely on technology so much, we lose the ability to be ourselves and eventually we will lose a purpose in life.
Hi Sabrina,
I thought of this as well. I thought the end of the human race was a little too drastic. In that scenario, robots would have gained self consciousness and would have taken over humans etc,etc. Instead, I think that it might have meant that robots would be very capable of doing everything that humans would not need to put any effort in anything anymore, thus meaning the ending of humans. Both authors seem to have agreed that humans would be too dependent on the future robots and would in turn not need to do anything besides take the robots claim of what is best for humanity.
Ray and Bill’s claims on technology and its detrimental effects are justified, however they fail to consider how technology has simplified our lives in numerous ways. Their pessimistic view on technology shows a black and white depiction of the future, in which people will have no control over their lives. His three scenarios of the effects of technological advancements exemplify the future has either being led by robots or in the hands of the elite. His view does not accurately represent our capabilities as humans and our awareness of technological advancements. After all, we are the ones who have created these so called “monsters” and it will be up to us to determine the limit as to how far we will go to improve our lives with such advancements.
I agree with you! Bill and Ray’s assertions about the dangerous of technology is biased because a world without technology would not flourish and better itself, but would forever stay in the same same place. There is some advantage of technology in advancing the world, but the point that Bill and Ray took too far is their belief that technology is all together better off not existing.
Yes, I agree with you. The huge benefit of technology was not mentioned in Ray’s and Bill’s claims. I am more toward optimist regarding technology advancements. Since we are the people who create techonology, we will definitly have some ways to control it in the future. People are sensitive to dangers and will work together to provent harmful technology.
I disagree. Ray Kurzweil actually mentions quite a bit in the podcast about the future pros of technology and even those happening right now. His examples of someone with a biologically implanted device to help with Parkinson’s disease or his own invention that helped blind people like Stevie Wonder read easily. His future examples of solar power and even if we ever find a cure to cancer. All of these are very optimistic, in my opinion, but it’s not without its dangers — as explained in Joy’s article.
I disagree with you with the idea that we will have ways to control it. I believe that once technology grows a lot, it will be hard to control the people from using it and more importantly controlling how they use it. This might be out of context but an example that it can be compared to is the use of guns. People believe that they have benefits such as for protection. However they have brought about a lot of chaos such as school shootings. Of which one would say they are easy to control but in reality its not because so many people already have their hands on them and won’t easily give them up because the state/country wants to regulate them . Politicians have been looking for a solution and can’t seem to accomplish much. I believe new technology will work the same, once it hits a certain point it will be very hard to control the future .
Your comment on humans being the creators of these so-called monsters is quite insightful — I think critics of technology tend to forget this fact to some extent, in favor of the fear-mongering that robots will gain sentience and take over the world. Your point on the black and white nature of Kurzweil and Joy’s arguments is also very well placed; it seems that very few analyzers take all the “gray areas” into their arguments, choosing instead to write in extremes. I think these practices are likely the main detractors from technological innovation, because writers like Kurzweil and Joy only focus on everything that [might] go wrong.
Michelle Doan, I agree with your viewpoint on this. As the creators of these robots we have a consciousness that they lack. I find it hard to believe that these robots that would really be able to replace humans when they lack judgement. Whatever these robots would be capable of, is an ability that was allowed by whoever developed them. Definitely, if developers established a limit to the ability of these robots then they can remain as useful tools in our lives, rather than actually being the cause of our ruin.
I agree with you. I think the authors’ claims undermined human capability for the betterment of society. In addition, they failed to mention the benefits of technology for humans. Even though there are many instances in life where it is beneficial to have limitations on technology, completely excluding technology is not reasonable. Having technology machinery eventually leading to robots in the future is highly unlikely because humans are social beings and will come together for the better cause of each other. Individuals each have a purpose in their life, and it is extremely important that authors take that into account before being biased.
Hey Michelle!
Ray and Bill do have a kind of black and white view of the future like you said, but I also feel like what they said has a lot to do with how it was predicted back then- robots taking over and being at the top compared to humans. I also feel the last sentence of your comment could go either way. Yes, humans are the ones who created the “monsters”, but there is also people out there who only want improvements upon improvements so making robots “stronger” than humans could be something they intend. However, I do understand where you are coming from with your comment that humans have control of these robotic improvements and such.
Hi Michelle,
I really like the way you worded how you felt about Ray and Bill’s claims on technological advancements. I also felt like Ray and Bill were very one-sided about technology, especially, robotic technology. In my paper I also addressed the fact that just as we humans can create such advanced devices we can also limit the usage of them and how powerful they are created. All in all, technology has brought more benefits to out lives than negative effects. Therefore, as you stated, we are the ones that determine and limit how far we let technology interfere with out lifestyles.
After reading Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t need us”, and listening to the podcast featuring Ray Kurzweil, I’ve learn that these two individual have good arguments for the future of technology. But one of the views they did not talk about it why society fears the development of technology to the point it is beyond our control. I think that society fears technology which it can not control because it is human nature for us to think that we are in control of our lives. When we make decisions of our own free will the actions we take are performed with more comfort and confidence, as oppose to actions which have been decided for us. This may be one of the reasons why humans have asked many questions throughout history. The interesting thing about this fear is that it is in conflict with the human nature to take the path of least resistance, which has led to the development of more advanced technology. Every time technology has been created to alleviate our everyday problems we are giving technology more power over our everyday routines. As long as people take the easiest solution and rely on technology, our fears of not being in control of our lives will exist.
It is true that that the path of least resistance is favored; it is just nature. Technology has simplified our lives immensely with the invention of the smartphone and other appliances such as the dishwasher. It takes time to wash and dry the dishes but it takes less than half the time to load and unload the dishes from the dishwasher. It would essentially take hours to wash a week’s worth of clothes by hand but almost no time at all in comparison when thrown in the washer and dryer. We now rely on technology to handle these gruesome yet thoughtless tasks. I believe it is crucial that this is the extent of our reliance on technology. There are surgical robots which is crazy to think, but they are still controlled by a professional. It is very important to note that no mater how advanced technology becomes there is always a human behind it. Robots currently and even in the future will lack consciousness as mentioned by John Searle in the article. As scary as the potential of technology is, I do not think it is entirely possible for robots to have an upper hand. Humans create, program and maintain all the technology and will continue to do so in the future. Although the concerns from both arguments are valid, I would’ve liked them to both explore consciousness of the technologies more deeply. Because I believe that it is not feasible for robots to take over the future when they are unable to think and decide for themselves.
I feel that the part missing is a poll or a survey of people asking them how they would feel about these technological possibilities. I want to know if the majority that participated in the survey would lean towards acceptance of the new weird technology or be more of a luddite. I feel I could get a better grasp of these arguments and ideas if I were to see proof of what they argue towards.
You make a good point – having perspectives from people other than those invested in the field would bring about a more accurate general perspective from the public, as opposed to just a view minorities.
This is a really interesting concept. I would love to see the outcome of a poll as well. If technology continues to advance as rapidly as it is i think a poll should be put in place, i think the public needs to agree if this is a good thing or bad thing for the world.
I think it is important to ask this: what group of people will be surveyed for the poll? Will it be the elites, which are the 1% of America, or the students in our school? While a poll can help represent the people’s view on a subject, we must remember that each person has a different view towards extreme technological advancement and multiple polls of the same topic yet different sample groups can have entirely different representations.
The reading and podcast lead me to believe that such advanced technologies can be very detrimental to our society, however I still believe that the positives outweigh the possible negatives. I do think Kurzweil’s predictions are worst case scenario type predictions, and I would like to hear an argument countering his points. With that being said, I recognize that there are legitimate concerns to how far technology can go and whether or not our society to continue to feed that fire. We must be aware of the possible disasters technology can create, but we also must not hinder ourselves because of worries.
Hello Alan, I agree with your point that the positives outweigh the negatives. Bill Joy’s essay largely focused on warning about the dangers of technology. The article is overwhelming focused on all the negative consequences, those that are already real and and those that are potentially possible. It was interesting to listen to Kurzweil (and his so called “optimism” as the interviewer stated) about where technology is headed. Yet Kurzweil’s predictions and arguments are filled with worst case scenarios, as you have pointed out. I think that hearing an argument countering Kurzweil would be worthwhile, especially since there are already multitude of responses to the Bill Joy article.
Kurzweil made one point about how technology has led to an increased lifespan for humans, which is definitely a large positive in contrast to Joy’s negatives. If we were to continue to list the positives, I do also believe it could easily outweigh the negatives.
Hi Kailey, I too would really like to hear a counterargument to Kurzweil. I do believe that humans are always adapting and extremely resilient. What I mean by that is, we always find a way, so worst case scenarios can be prevented and overcome.
Alan,
I can agree that technology is positive in the sense that it has brought many advances that help us in our everyday lives, but as the article mentioned, with technology comes power. Thus, when it turns into a power play rather than trying to advance our everyday problems, it is easier for technology turn into something negative, almost evil. I do not believe technology should be stopped or that scientists should let go of all of their research that is in the process of leading to discovery, but as the article mentioned, when technology mixes with ethics, it can all go down the drain. Also, I do believe that people are aware of the danger and have the “we must be weary of our discoveries” mindset, but I do not believe that it has helped. With robots in the making similar to Sofia, it is obvious that discoveries are more important than caution warnings.
I enjoyed learning about what both Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil had to say, although I do have an inclination to look on the more positive side of things when it comes to thinking about the future, so I would hope that advanced technology will only help humanity. However, I do think just only having two different people’s opinions to initially look at is quite limiting. What I am curious about is, if humans do get the technology to advance their minds by making it partly non-biological, how much will be forced onto society? Due to the cost primarily I could imagine it would not be required for everyone to get such an upgrade at first, but there may be a point where it gets for a person without an upgraded brain to be a liability for an insurance company. With this in mind, I feel like looking towards people that are really against such changes to technology could be helpful to understand how they view things. There are often more than two sides to a story and with such a complex and important topic, every part of this dilemma must be considered.
Your point about those not having the upgrade being liabilities for insurance companies is an interesting one. Would the benefits received from the upgrade really be so great that those without it are considered liabilities? At this point, just how dependent have we become on technology? I suppose even in the modern day we are undeniably dependent on it. However, those who are still not acclimated to the technological world we live in today, such as older people, still manage to get by just fine. Similarly, I think that those who don’t get the upgrade would also survive just fine although they’d have a disadvantage in life. On another note, if we ever reached the point where the upgrade is widespread throughout society, would we then have installment plans? Paying off something implemented in my brain seems eerie to me. But then again, phones are cars are examples of technology that have payment plans and it doesn’t seem weird to pay those off. I guess if the upgrade ever becomes common, it would feel like you’re paying off a phone or a car.
I agree with a person’s upgrade being similar to paying off a phone or a car. To add on, I think people would eventually choose to upgrade their brain similar to as how people today upgrade their phones from flip phones to smartphones. At first people would find it expensive and weird, but as they find that more people around them have obtained such upgrades, they themselves will also get pushed to getting the same upgrade.
I do find it really weird but then again i agree. It all goes back to the same thing of technology. Technology will be the media of which the word will spread and cause people to want the upgrade. It will be created with the idea of benefiting society, however, it will do bad. It will be like an experiment at the start. It will bring about many issues . Issues of each include but are not limited to ethical, health concerns, religious confections etc.
You made an interesting point about whether people will have the option to become partly non-biological in the future. It does make sense that people would have the choice, but I think that’d put people who could afford these modifications more at an advantage over those who can’t. I remember Ray Kurzweil mentioning something about being able achieve immortality through having a non-biological mind, but wouldn’t this incentive might create a hierarchy of humans? I feel like those with non-biological parts may look down upon those without, creating some type of discrimination. Therefore, maybe these advances will be required in some way or form?
I agree that knowing about two people’s opinions is limiting. Even though they are an example of good and bad opinions regarding the future, there is so much more to consider. Because we are pretty surrounded and dependent on technology already, every aspect must be considered, as it will affect everybody’s lives. That’s why I think is important to address even more specific questions that neither Joy or Kurzweil addressed. Similarly, I ask how the partly non-biologically brain will be enforced? and I agree that this comes with a lot of more issues that people need to acknowledge. For example, I hand’t even thought about insurance liability for the partly non-biologically brain that people most likely will need. This just demonstrates how something that may be easily said is so much more complex when really considering it, and therefore, must be looked into with much grater detail.
After doing both the reading and the radio, I can strongly feel the negative that techonology brings to us and that it is a big concern now. However, the positive part of techonology that help human enormously was not or barely mentioned. So it gives audience the feeling that techonology will only do more harm than good in the future. I believe that techonology will have more benefit for human for example, shorten traveling time, help growing essential crops that poor countries needed, provide more fresh water, and solve traffic problems. These beneficial aspects that techonology can bring to us in the future were not mentioned in the reading.
When I was reading through the article and listening to the radio, there was definitely a negative attitude imposed on both works by the author. I think this was done on purpose to showcase their respective arguments on the matter. To them, they think that there is some negative value in pursuing advancements in technology despite the positive benefit that could be otherwise gained. There is no doubt that advancements in technology can bring good to the world. Yet, at the same time, it can also bring something much worse, which is what I think both authors was trying to warn us about.
Hi Kendrick,
I agree with your comment about both authors trying to convey their message about the negatives of technology as it advances. They fail to recognize the positives of technology but focuses mainly about how technology has put humans as an endangered species. They also did not mention the fact that technologies helped with saving so many people lives. Especially cancer, the treatment of cancer has been improving significantly because of the advancing of technology recognizing how cancer cells work and how to kill them. I think it was best for the authors to also incorporate the positive, but I think it was good that they are trying to mention the negatives so we are aware of it!
I agree Kendrick, almost all technological advances thus far have proven to be very beneficial in almost all fields of science and even our daily lives. While the negative implications of technology are important to recognize and limit, I think the positives will almost always greatly outweigh any negatives. I think it was good to see the negatives focused on so we know what they are and how to go about them and continue to limit them, however it is important for us to know the positives and what they hold for our future.
I agree that the arguments Kurzweiler and Joy brought about mostly focused on the negative. Instead of solely focusing on fear, I believe that a more comprehensive argument could be brought out by weighing the pros and cons of certain technological developments, and putting more focus on advancing those with fewer risks and greater benefits for humankind.
Hey Stella,
I definitely agree with your point here. The benefits of technology has been talked about in our readings and podcasts, but are talked about in a bad light. I also think that technology will prove to be beneficial. For example, if parents do not have the time to clean their apartment with two very messy children, it will be in the parent’s best interest to rely on a new machine that can clean the whole house up for them.
I agree that the authors both had negative opinions regarding technology. Although their stances were on opposing sides of the spectrum, they both believe that the advancement of technology will only bring about disaster to humankind. Their arguments are persuasive, but lack substantial evidence. I agree that they neglected the many benefits of technology; they also failed to discuss how younger generations feel towards technology. It is possible that their older generation is against change.
Hi Derek, I also believe that the advancement of technology will only bring disaster to humankind. We are starting to become very dependent on technology; we use it every day and it is the basis of our communication and organization of our daily lives. We are also starting to invent robots and artificial intelligence that are starting to imitate humans. Who knows what will happen in the future.
Hi Stella. Both Joy and Kurzweil definitely had a heavy focus on the negative aspects of technological advancements. They definitely promoted the whole “Robots are going to take over the world” idea. And yes, you have a point that technology can be used for good. But, and I’m taking this from Black Mirror, a lot of technology is created to aid us humans. They may not be human enhancements like brain implants and the like, but they are generally meant to help us. But sometimes, technology definitely has a backlash. Joy and Kurzweil may be taking it to an extreme, but I wouldn’t neglect the points they made. With our actions with technology, we’ve definitely made it a double edged sword.
Hi Stella,
I agree that there was an absence of positives missing from the reading and podcast. It would be interesting for them to produce a comparison essay where they make an argument showing that these negatives will be worse than the impact of possible advances. I personally think the positives outweigh the negatives and that we should continue to pursue technological advance despite these negatives. Also, a proposition for an alternative to this technology would be most beneficial to their argument against future technological negatives.
The article indicated that people have created an antibiotic to destroy bacteria, which in return initiated an emergence of more dangerous bacteria. I thought this analogy was clever because it demonstrates the ongoing trend of technological advancement, which can ultimately lead to the self- destruction of humanity. The article points out how robotics have evolved and been beneficial, but it also hurt us along the process. Life in 2038 will be completely different from what it is now, so the question lies whether or not to proceed at the same pace. The article displays an apocalyptic nightmare of how robots will eventually take over, and that humans have basically set ourselves up for the inevitable future.
Since technology is developing at an exponential rate, I honestly don’t think there is any way to control the pace. Therefore, I think the safest perspective is to assess the consequences of technology with the assumption that the pace never slows down. In fact, I believe it’s getting faster. I do think it’s interesting how much of a double-edged sword technology can be. Even with the experience and knowledge we’ve accumulated, it’s still incredibly difficult to fully and accurately predict the aftermath of technological development. I’m not sure if anything insane will happen like in the movies… but then again, we’ve done crazy things before such as going to the moon.
Hi Peter. I definitely agree with you. Advancements in technology will keep coming out faster. And yes, technology can be a double edged sword. But I believe that it’s only the case because of human agency. I think we make technology a double edged sword by the way we use technology. We’ve made it so we almost can’t live without our phones or computers. We’re already very integrated with technology, just not in the way of enhancing our bodies with technology. I actually think we may be able to predict some of the aftermath of technological development, just based on our reactions and uses to the technology of today that may be similar to or are the origins future technology.
Hi Lilian,
I completely agree with the antibiotic analogy from the article. I also believe that technology is a double edged sword as it can be the solution to a lot of problems in humanity but also end humanity in of itself. There are a lot of movies such as The Terminator that depicts this self destructive post apocalyptic world and there are definitely some underlying truth to these fictional movies.
Hi Lilian,
I also saw that as a very interesting point in the article. To me , it symbolizes how our creations will eventually be our demise. Similarly, Mary shelley brings us the same argument in Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. It is unclear how 2038 will exactly be but I am curious as to how technology will play a part in our downfall if it does.
Hi Lilian,
I also think that the analogy was very clever and interesting. Technology is growing exponentially according to the law of accelerating returns and that technology would be so powerful such that it would be detrimental to us. The article states that robots might eventually take over because they are more intelligent and powerful than us. However, I believe that humans would find a way to survive and take over the control because humans are who created robots after all.
Hi Lilian!
I also thought that that analogy demonstrates the possible self-destruction of humankind because we are so dependent on technology right now. Almost everything in our lives revolves around technology; we use the internet and mobile devices to plan our daily lives, to complete assignments for school and work, and to communicate with everyone.
Hi Lilian,
The growth of technology is inevitable and is continuing to grow at a pace that none has expected. Although there are many benefits that come from this growth, there will be a time when we start seeing the negatives of it. It is without a doubt that life 20 years from now will be completely different. Whether it be for the better or worse is up to us as we choose how we plan to use it and how we approach this growth in technology. It’s difficult to pause the ideas of many as many people are trying to think of new ways to make our world better and only thinking 1 step ahead instead of 2 or 3 steps ahead. The growth of technology is inevitable but the outcome may differ depending on the journey.
Hi Lilian,
Your response brings up a good question that has been in constant debate which is shown in Bill Joy’s, “Why the future doesn’t need us,” in Wired magazine, he expresses his concerns about the advancement of modern technology. A problem that he emphasized from Joy and Ray Kurzweil’s conference discussion from Ted Kaczynski’s robots will gain control over humans and can make their own decisions and how it impacts the future. Whereas, in Ray Kurzweil’s podcast he explores the benefits of technology in biological advancements. I really like the way you phrased your last sentence because I totally agree, if we allow technology to take over and become more complex than the human race then we are building ourselves to a robotic inevitable future.
Hi Lilian,
just to add to your comment, indeed bacteria have the ability to become even more dangerous bacteria due to their nature to evolve, so I really like how you tied it to robots and their existence. Although this is the case, we still see prominent figures such as Mark Zuckerberg advocating for artificial intelligence, but do they really understand the consequences about A.I.?
I agree with a statement made in the article that said how we would survive alongside a superior robot species. Similarly, a more superior biological species will surpass a primitive species. The article also mentioned the pursuit of perpetual economic growth but I would like to learn more about this in regards to building robots and advanced technology. It was emphasized that what seemed like a distant imagination for robotics was actually a near term possibility but it would be interesting to consider how our economy would play into this. What would happen to major technology corporations? Would we actually be able to feasibly reach this standard of living where we are surrounded by technology and reliant on robots? I think that with this in mind, maybe we won’t see this kind of future until many years later than expected by the author.
I think it would also be interesting to consider how developing countries or part of the world that is untouched by civilization. Would they remain uncontacted with these technologies or would they have assimilated to these advancements? Would there be an even greater contrast between the industrialized and third world nations? If so, what would happen to these people?
Hi Hannah,
Bringing up third world countries is very valid to this topic. I think what Joy and Kurzweil fail to realize is that the evolution of humans and technology will take much longer than expected. As of today, we still know of hunter-gatherer societies still in existence such as the Kalahari Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert of Africa. These people use their bodies by chasing their prey until it collapses also known as persistence hunting. These hunters’ bodies are still adapted to run long distances over extended periods of time in hot temperatures (104 to 107°F). They do not use any weapons or hunting technology, not even knives or spears. Today, we know that hunting and gathering was presumably the subsistence strategy by the Homo Erectus almost 1.8 million years ago. However, it continues today in 3rd world countries probably due to poverty, lack of technology and cultural practices. Technology seems to be a dominant component in western countries, which is why the possibility of robots taking over is an evident worry for them. However, it might take millions of years before the rest of the world catches up assuming it might one day, but even that is uncertain.
I, like Joy and Kurzweil, do think we make a big mistake when we underestimate the coming capacities of more intelligent machines, but some of their predictions prove to be faulty. I suspect that we will see a number of Kurzweil’s technological predictions coming true, but not as speedily as he envisions. Joy suggests that the abandonment of new technologies will assure our survival, but limiting access to or discovering of knowledge has never been the solution to our predicaments. The concerns are legitimate, but the solutions provided condemn human beings to an existence that cannot improve.
A 2008 article, also on Wired (https://www.wired.com/2008/03/st-15joy/), was an interesting response to the Bill Joy’s 2000 article that provided an update to Joy’s three fears (genetics, nanotech, and robotics), have not reached the level that would make Bill Joy’s scenario come true. But even the 2008 article is still from ten years ago. With the development of artificial intelligence today, I agree with you that we should not underestimate the danger of intelligent machines.
I think Joy took a extreme perspective in the article, and only concerned about the danger. However, human cannot simply stop all the technology advancement and give up the future. Any discovery has its risks. But we cannot sit back and relax each day, without considering progression.
I agree that humans can’t simply stop technological advancement because that would result in no further progress. I think it’s interesting that though Joy briefly talks about progress and evolution, he mainly sees this as a negative thing. Joy brings up that fact that since we have developed better cures for illnesses and bacteria, the bacteria have only gotten stronger. However, this is a natural part of evolution and growth, a sort of back and forth between competing forces. Without a push back from what we were trying to contain, get rid of, or solve, it would be hard to imagine progress. And without progress, humans would likely delve into stagnant chaos.
Hi Lavanya,
I agree with you. Stopping technological advancement would be too drastic and a solution that would even set back the progress humans have made. Instead, I think that we just have to let the course of technology go forward and see what happens in the future. It’s just important that we ourselves know the impact technology can have and what can possibly happen in the future. That way at least, we can spread awareness if the time ever comes. We just cant prohibit the technology and the advancement of technology because we don’t know if there would be any negative effects of robots yet.
Hi Kelly,
I agree with you. I think Joy’s suggestions are not realistic. We have come a long way with the help of technology and the advancement so far. Limiting that access or completely taking that away would drastically change our lives. Kurzweil has more realistic viewpoints so I agree that his predications may come into play. Although they both had different viewpoints, the main point was the advancement of technology. I feel that the advancement of technology is important for our world to be able to tackle any future obstacles that come our way. If we are not prepared, that could result in a lot of damage.
In the reading by far Ray Kurzweil is right with everything he’s saying, technology has already advanced more. The first robot has already been created who’s name is Sophia by Dr. Hanson and his robot has already been on many news interviews , with great interaction with humans. Dr. Hanson says Sophia will only get more intelligent as she interacts with more people. Bill Joy voices his thoughts by saying how it won’t be any need for the human race if their are robots who can do thing smarter and better then humans, he also said that if a human was to have interaction with a robot, you will have to accept the decisions it makes. From listening to Dr. Hanson’s interview with CNBC, He wants Sophia to interact with socially isolated people, to make people who are alone have a friend that will talk to them. His robot Sophia plans on going to college and having a family in the future.
I completely agree with you that there are many positive aspects that we can find when using the term Artificial Intelligence. Yet, it is true that the negative outcomes like Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy mention are possible but I believe it is also up to us to program robots that do benefits for the humanity. For example, the Disney Cartoon, Big Heroes 6 – The Baymax character was a robot but he had the most kind heart and courage to sacrifice himself to save lives. He was programmed to become “life-saver” not a killer or dominator. However we need to be careful at the same time. It is not about the robots themselves but who program and control them because this can be easily turned into some dictatorship where government uses robots or hybrid humans to bad things that only benefits the elite not humanity. I believe that if the creators of those AI are loving, caring and humane people they would create something benevolent to save humanity from dooms such as creating robots similar to Baymax whose missions are to save lives and to bring humanity back. But if they have bad intentions, then things will turn out just like Bill Joy’s predictions.
Hi, Dziemhong ,
It is very interesting that you brought out Baymax out in the argument as the example for a robot. However, due to the setting of the cartoon, its characteristics are exaggerated somehow. I do not believe that in the real life that human beings are able to create a robot like a human being that has feelings and consciousness to empathize others and even sacrifice themselves in the real life. If that happens, then I think it would be a threat to human races that never come before. It is for sure that human control of these robots is important, but it could be uncontrollable. I believe that technology benefits human beings a lot, but as Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy discuss the threats that are brought with these inventions, we cannot be too optimistic about it.
Hi Karen,
I think that it’s not impossible to create a benevolent robot similar to Baymax whose missions are to save lives. Yes, he is a cartoon but how are we so sure that 20 years from now this thing that you’re calling “cartoon” won’t be created? We never expected ASIMO to be created. However, at the same time, I do agree with you that it might be threatening to human. For example, in 2017 facebook AI was created but it was shut down after developers discovered that the AI had created its own unique language that humans like us can’t even understand. It was out of the ordinary and it was concerning because humans had no input in this new robotic language. This is dangerous but very scary so you are right that it would be uncontrollable, but I do believe that if people did more studies maybe 40 or 50 years from now, it might be possible.
I agree with you that the government can abuse this technology. Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy fail to mention how much power this technology can give to the government. Just like in the movie Divergent, the government was able to create an army by basically taking control of people’s brains and turning them into robots. With a government that can easily be corrupt, people with power can make anything happen. At that point, what’s the point of the human race if we are destined to be turned into robots or maybe even controlled by robots?
Hi Dziemhong,
I also think it was interesting how you mentioned Big Hero 6 into the discussion of technology. It got me to think more about cartoon-ish versions of this idea on technology. For me, I feel that the most unsettling thing about technology is how easily it can be changed to be used against its intended purpose. For example, games like Overwatch show how someone could re-program the entire framework of an AI to make it “evil”. In addition, example such as Ultron from Iron Man and the Terminator both show contrasting sides to how AI could be used. This is upsetting for me because even though moderation is key to understanding the balance between technological power, not everyone might share that ideology.
Hello Dziemhong, I love how you brought up Big Hero 6 as an example of a kind and caring robot designed to help save others. I think if our society created a robot like Baymax, it would definitely benefit in helping both doctors and patients out. Currently, technology is trying to create surgeon robots, designed to successfully perform a flawless surgery without the aid of a nurse or doctor. I believe this idea of friendly technology can shape the future into a utopia instead of a dystopia as Kurzweil mentions. Realistically, however, not everyone’s intentions may be well. I agree with you that people can abuse the technology and create something that can be harmful or for self-gain or power. However, the concept of technological advancement should not be seen as scary since it can be largely beneficial to the world. For instance, there can be thousands of robots like Baymax created and they can roam around the streets aiding those who are poor and cannot afford going to the hospital. The idea of robotic nurses in the ideal future can be a great benefit to society, which is one main topic that Kurzweil and Joy both fail to mention.
Hi Stefon,
I agree with you that technology has already advanced so far and there really is no stopping it. I was pretty surprised to research more on the robot, Sophia, that has been created, and even more surprised to see that the future for Sophia is to go to college and have a family in the future. My concern is that for those who are isolated, and these robots are being created for these people, how is it possible to create a family between a robot and a human? Would they just create more robots for children, and if so, how would the children grow? I do think that robots being created will not necessarily be bad, but should be limited to the point where they are being created for efficiency and to benefit society through helping those around them, but I think it would over-the-top right now to create robots in hopes for the future of going to college or having a family.
I am still pleasantly surprised at the creation of Sophia and eager to see what awaits the future of any other robots creations.
Hello Brandon
yeah its so surprising how the creation is already made. It shows that people are smart enough to make this kind of technology, and also that the have the skill to do such a thing like this. The question how children will grow is very difficult process to think through, because theres always gonna be that thought in the back of your head ” how would this even be made, by a man himself”. But to kind of answer your question… Im sure they will start off just making robot children, until they find out what it takes to make a robot giving birth. Reason why I am so sure, is because they would like to see how robot children interact with other children, and even just parents. Also to see if robot parents can raise a child right.
Hi Stefon,
I agree with you about the fact that technological advancement can bring about many positive benefits. But it is also true that there are many negative consequences that humanity have to face due to the advancement of artificial intelligence. Ray Kurzweil believed that one day in the near future artificial intelligence can surpass human intelligence and that human will achieve immorality with the implantation of technological parts in the body. I think his belief is not realistic, because how artificial intelligence and technology function is through logic implanted by humans. In order for AI to surpass human intelligence AI have to learn how to be self sufficient.
Hi Stefon, I thought it was very interesting when they starting discussing Sophia because of the way they were discussing her. It seemed to be a stretch to say it would replace humanity. I think that what they mean would that it would replace the bulk of humanity, but it would have to leave behind people that know how to keep the technology running. Ultimately, it could leave behind the ultra rich who created them in the first place. I think it would be interesting to see if technology would eventually be self sustaining and not need human intervention at all. It would be really cool to have a robots vs. humans war, but I wouldn’t want to be a part of that. Do you think that they left out any parts of the conversation? Do you think they’re missing anything in their discussions?