Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet – The Digital Age

Who is responsible?

Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet — Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:16:09 +0000

Our ethical discussion on Monday spanned many ethical issues, with consequences varying from companies being able to better target advertisements to Facebook users to technology potentially redefining the way we conceptualize war. I am consistently realizing that to refer to “ethical issues of technology” could mean almost anything.

Many of the morally dubious developments we have discussed remind me in some way of Caleb Thompson’s reflection. When Amazon markets facial recognition software to state law enforcement without testing it for racial bias, developers were on the other end coding small parts that built up to the final product. Individuals develop algorithms to collect your information from the internet, and others design advertisements specifically targeted at your psychological profile. Engineers build robots with the capacity to kill people autonomously. In these situations, who bears the responsibility to ensure that technology is developed in an ethical manner? Should individual developers, coders, and engineers be responsible or everything they create, or do those with broader views of the projects bear responsibility? Clearly, government regulation would help define some of these questions. However, the government often doesn’t fully conceptualize how technology is developing. Or sometimes, as in cases of weapon development, they are the ones creating the dangerous technology. Finally, what is the role of the formal computing profession? We read the ACM code of ethics, which provided some helpful guidelines for its members. Should groups like these be doing more to establish the norm that individual computing professionals are in some part responsible for what they create?

Luerweg: The Internet knows You Better Than Your Spouse Does

Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 21:54:20 +0000

“The Internet knows You Better Than Your Spouse Does,” by Frank Luerweg describes how internet algorithms use psychology to identify personality traits of users. One algorithm used a small number of Facebook likes to pinpoint the “Big Five dimensions of personality.” With only ten likes, it could describe someone as accurately as a co-worker of theirs. This type of technology extends beyond internet algorithms. Studies observing participants’ eye movements were able to accurately describe their personalities based on where they look when walking around a college campus and shopping. Cameras on our computers and smartphones have the potential to read our emotions.

Even though the algorithms are based on personal information, facial expressions and psychological traces are maliciously and commercially used, there are some cases for which algorithms were used to better diagnose and treat psychological disorders and prevent suicide. In some research, the language that people typed and spoke on the phone were gathered and analyzed through the algorithm and it could determine the precursors of suicide and severe depression quite accurately. Moreover, a research team gathered every data from a tester from GPS data to phone calls and what he read on the phone. The team precisely analyzed and could better treat the patient with the result in which level the patient is suffering with a bipolar disorder.

In spite of potential positive effects from such advancements in technology, there are still potentially great drawbacks towards the Internet’s ability to recognize a user. While recognizing a user is mostly used towards commercial matters such as advertisements to suit the user’s preference, such information can result in modern day machine’s being able to use the algorithm in order to correlate further into a person. Such can include personal information such as using photos as facial recognition, with common photo algorithms pointing towards people in manners such as personal information like their orientation, or in certain cases, to recognize if a person has potential criminal tendencies. All this however, comes down to correlating through the given information, but as technology advances, they can lead towards further accuracy, and can reveal more of a person than what was intended by that user. In the end, even the slightest comment or photo on the Internet could open a book into a person’s world.

Paragraphs, in oder, by Georgia, Sean L., and Gabriel. Compiled by Georgia.

Many approaches to ethics

Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet — Thu, 11 Apr 2019 03:03:02 +0000

In class on Monday, we found many ways to approach ethics and very little consensus. Each of the three main areas of ethical reasoning seem to disagree with each other, and within each area each approach has something different to say. I was struck by the sheer number of ways to be ethical in any given situation. In one small group, we talked about utilitarianism, attempting to apply it to the case study Caleb Thompson shares. The most good for the most people seems straightforward initially, but in practice it presents difficult questions.

Who counts as the ‘people’? Do we factor in that Caleb felt guilty about his work as causing harm? How do we measure good? If Caleb had quit his job, wouldn’t someone else just have taken it and created the same result? Through the singular lens of utilitarianism, we came up with justifications for most of the possible actions he could take. If there is that much divergence within a single ethical framework, imagine how many perspectives there are when opening up to other consequentialist approaches then adding all approaches.

Maybe this multitude of views mirrors how we make ethical decisions. Personally, I can think of a time I used almost every framework to make some decision. Sometimes it seems very likely I can control the impact of my actions, so a consequentialist approach seems appropriate. Other times ambiguity about the consequences leads me to rely on general principles. Other times, especially in new or unfamiliar situations, I feel compelled to look to others who may be more experienced as role models. Each of the theories offers a unique perspective and seems to apply better to certain situations.

From Operating Systems to Marxism

Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet — Wed, 27 Feb 2019 23:00:29 +0000

Our class discussion this week, like many of our past discussions, seemed like a tailored argument for a liberal arts education. Our discussion focused on operating systems, which, on its face, is a straightforward computer science concept to be understood and then applied. However, even a concept as technical and practical as the development of operating systems is a product of social circumstances and even an opportunity for applied theory. What struck me most about the article I read, a fairly dry explanation of the evolution of operating systems, was the economic forces that shaped the trajectory of software development. Apple competing with Microsoft, motivated by the tastes of the consumers. Without a doubt, there are countless economic forces at play.

More directly, one article applied Marxism to software, crafting arguments about human species being, the impacts of labor, and humans as inputs rather than individuals. Maybe considering operating systems, with their full context and implications, is not as straightforward as a series os inputs and outputs. In fact, in considering this computing principle, the interdisciplinarity is overwhelming

O’Reagan: History of Operating Systems

Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet — Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:00:58 +0000

Operating systems are collections of software programs that interact with hardware and allow it to be used. The earliest systems arose in the 1950’s with batch-processing systems running single jobs at a time and data being turned out in groups (or batches). During the 1960’s MIT developed the CTSS system, which IBM used to develop OS/360 for their System/360 line of computers, a multi-batch system featuring a standard program interface and file management system. They later introduced Multiple Visual Storage (MVS) in 1974, which greatly enhanced visual storage and memory, allowing for more complicated programs to be run.

Virtual machine operating system allows multi-users to see a “single machine as several real machines” by allowing numbers of an operating system to run at the same time. This is useful to save any files for backup and prevent any mistaken failures. The other kind of operating system, VAX Virtual Memory System (VMS), was made for solely VAX family of minicomputers. Vax was useful that it was flexible among the users to develop software due to its easy commands, scalable, and balanced features.

A group at Bell Labs developed the Unix operating system in the early 1970s. It was able to multitask and host multiple users and was written in the C programming language. This language made Unix portable and popular, initially with the US government and later with a broader user base. Unix had three levels of computing targeted at different types of users. In the 1980s IBM introduced a personal computer, outsourcing the software development to Microsoft, which reaped huge benefits from the partnership. The software went through multiple stage of development, which eventually led to popular personal computers that ran on Microsoft software. Now, Microsoft windows rather than the original MS/DOS system is used on personal computers.

From the matter of between Microsoft and MS/DOS Operating Systems, the two showed great differences between their states of development. Windows were not actually considered to be fully completed, but rather were on par with “graphical shells,” in which they were actually a sort of extension to the MS/DOS Operating System, in which it would connect to such in order to help boost the ability together. MS/DOs, however, lost their claim to such credit in the business due to Microsoft’s own hold on the market, and more advanced work.

Paragraphs written by (in order) Charles, Sean, Georgia, and Gabriel. Compiled and posted by Georgia.

The Integrated Circuit in Social Context

Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet — Wed, 13 Feb 2019 22:11:40 +0000

In class on Wednesday, Professor Rodriguez asked us to think about how each of the three articles we read overlapped. Two of the articles had significant pieces in common. They were more traditional pieces: one was a history of computing, the other a Nobel lecture by Jack Kilby, the inventor of the integrated circuit. The piece focused on technological development, invention and innovation. They depicted men alone in their workshops taking up ideas and crafting hardware that would fundamentally alter the trajectory of computing. History was linear and glorious, and prestige was available to those who worked hard enough in the right industries. The third article had notably little in common with the other two, which was to me the most notable and the most important answer to the question of overlap. It described the way Navajo women were exploited in the mass production of circuit chips. Men like Kilby and these women stand in stark contrast. Kilby is an example of why we see the American dream as unlimited social mobility. The women are examples of the harsh limitations of this dream, and the barriers in place for those who do not start in a place of relative privilege.

Kilby: Turning Potential into Realities: The Invention of the Integrated Circuit

Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:52:54 +0000

Today, computers have their basis on electronic circuits. However, far before computers and electronic circuits were invented, vacuum tubes were used as basics for electronics. People were able to use vacuum tubes in more advanced machines like computer, but constraints of vacuum tubes limited their further usage. Therefore, miniaturization of the electronics system, as an alternative of vacuum tubes, was led by military and space agencies.

The concept of a monolithic piece contributed to how the circuit was developed. Jack Kilby (whose Nobel Lecture was the reading this post is based on) saw that semiconductor materials could be used to make transistors and diodes, ultimately leading to a circuit built from a single material. He used germanium (and later silicon) to build first a chip out of discrete components, then one that was completely one piece.

The integrated circuit was far from an instant success. Many in the computing community expressed concerns and critiques. Some believed no single material would effectively support the integrated circuit. Others thought it would simply never be profitable. Aside from these practical concerns, there were concerns about the human implications, a reminder that computers are fundamentally a human output. The integrated circuit could put circuit developers out of work. As the technology developed, however, it became apparent that it created more, if different, employment for such workers.

Despite early doubts about the practicality and use of the integrated circuit, endorsements by the military for the Apollo moon missions and Minutemen missile program proved a huge push. Soon, the technology made its way into civilian goods, with Texas Instruments producing the first handheld mechanical calculator. Today, the production of and the actual performance of integrated circuits improves drastically with each year. With this, the technology may soon be reaching its natural limit, in which case new innovation might be necessary.

Each paragraph was written by (in order) Sean, Gabriel, Georgia, and Charles. Compiled and edited by Georgia.

The humanness of computing (discussion reflection 1)

Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet — Wed, 30 Jan 2019 22:59:00 +0000

In our discussion on Monday, we talked about the humanness of computing. The first computers were humans who were able to perform complex calculations. Once we developed machines called computers, they remained an output of human developments, closely tailored to the needs of individual industries like business and the science. We often view technological developments as something that will drastically alter our way of life, revolutions that will change how we relate to each other and the world in an instant. Instead of remembering that humans developed them, we view technologies as independently imposing themselves upon society. As Mahoney puts it, “there is society strolling along, minding its own business, and, wham!, it gets impacted and is left reeling by a revolutionary technology, which changes everything overnight or in some similarly short time” (121). He proposes that history is actually much slower than instantaneous breakthroughs and dramatic effects. This is true; everything cannot change in an instant. However, the slowly building computing developments do still have drastic impacts on the way we live. The world may not have changed much the day the first iPhone was released, but my life is significantly different than it would have been 10 years ago due to my owning one. How does the speed of adoption of new technologies impact how they change our lives? Does the slow build of increasingly advanced technology mean that it becomes gradually irreversibly built into our lives rather than becoming a fad, briefly impacting our lives before fading away? Regardless of the pace at which we adopt new technologies, they will always be the result of human innovation.