She paused. “The A.I. is huge. A tsunami. But it’s not me. It can’t touch my me-ness. It doesn’t know what it is to be human, to be me.”
This is a good testament to the human experience. It is not enough to know answers, understanding people is important too
For philosophers like Simone Weil and Iris Murdoch, the capacity to give true attention to another being lies at the absolute center of ethical life. But the sad thing is that we aren’t very good at this. The machines make it look easy.
This seems to take away the power and importance behind giving attention to another. It is hard to actively listen and give undecided attention to another person so it is special when you give or receive this attention. It is not special if a robot who was programed can give attention.
Humans comprehend because they synthesize information into a unified, lived experience—they feel, they interpret, they reflect.
This is exactly what my previous claim was getting at. Humans are special because they are human and have lived a a life.
if I say I lack comprehension, but my response is built from data written by humans who claim that AI lacks comprehension, isn’t my claim just an output of what I’ve been trained on?
This is very interesting! In a way, as we learn, we are being programmed similar to AI chatbots. But the difference is the human experience in my opinion. I could train a robot to diagnose every disease but It would not be a good doctor. Part of being a doctor and every job is relating to other humans authentically and understanding social dynamics. This is something an AI bot can never truly learn.
It’s not that they’re dishonest; it’s that they’re paralyzed. As one quiet young woman explained after class, nearly every syllabus now includes a warning: Use ChatGPT or similar tools, and you’ll be reported to the academic deans. Nobody wants to risk it. Another student mentioned that a major A.I. site may even be blocked on the university network, though she was too nervous to test the rumor.
Students perspective on AI is peculiar. I have had some teachers scare kids into not using It at all for any reason, insisting they will get caught and ruin their futures. I also have had teachers share other alternative AI sites that can be used to help us and not plagiarism. This leaves students confuse when AI becomes cheating and are scared to admit they use it even when they know they are not cheating. I have even seen kids write good essays and go back and dumb down their writing just to avoid being accused of AI.
umans were not psychologically prepared for the pace of change, Toffler wrote. He coined a term for the phenomenon: “accelerative thrust.” It had begun with the Industrial Revolution, but by roughly 1850, the effect had become unmistakable. Not only was everything around us changing, but most of it—human knowledge, the size of the population, industrial growth, energy use—was changing exponentially. The only solution, Toffler argued, was to begin some kind of control over the process, to create institutions that would assess emerging technologies and their likely effects, to ban technologies likely to be too socially disruptive, and to guide development in the direction of social harmony.
With all these new and rapidly evolving technologies, the question of if they are ethical is brought up. I agree that there should be a group that can evaluate and handle new technology to ensure the safety of our society
ost social analysts choose the first explanation and trace the problem to the Cold War space race. Why, these analysts wonder, did both the United States and the Soviet Union become so ob- sessed with the idea of manned space travel? It was never an efficient way to engage in scientific research. And it encouraged unrealistic ideas of what the human future would be like.
I wonder what makes the space race inefficient as a form of scientific research. I do agree and see how they would claim it led to unrealistic ideas of the the future. This warped imagination of the future can lead to people being disappointed in progress.
The smartphones that distract us from our surroundings also distract us from the fact that our surroundings are strangely old: only computers and communications have improved dramatically since midcentury. That doesn't mean our parents were wrong to imagine a better future--they were only wrong to expect it as something automatic.
I found this weird. it is no secret that smartphones are a big distraction. This makes companies want to improve what ha our attention and not developing tech to treat medical conditions and to help the environment. What is interesting is that the thing that is supposedly distracting ones from thier surroundings is the same device that typically spreads awareness.
No one can predict the future exactly, but we know two things: it's going to be different, and it must be rooted in today's world.
This is very true and a good way to look at the future. No matter what, it will stem from today either something that grows larger, shrinks, changes or stays stagnant.
Technology is miraculous because it allows us to do more with less, ratcheting up our fundamental capabilities to a higher level. Other animals are instinctively driven to build things like dams or honeycombs, but we are the only ones that can invent new things and better ways of making them.
This is an interesting and optimistic take on the rise of technology in today's society. Usually technological advancements like artificial intelligence are painted in a bad.
If we consider those "readings" tobe somehow less valid than the filmmaker's, then we lose much of the complexity ofhow movies work, make meaning, and provide pleasure in our society
This sums up my feelings pretty well. no one interpretation is better or worse than another.
If I get meaningout of a film and apply it to my life, why should I have to check with the filmmakerto see if it's the right meaning? In other words, why should the filmmaker havemore authority over my interpretation of the film than I do
I always like to find my own interpretation and compare it with the creator's intent. I think even if we are different and have different interpretations, the fact we found similar feelings in the same story and could both apply it to our lives shows how similar we really are.
Did Hitchcock fully understand his attitude toward blonde women, or was he propagating a widely held belief?
This is a great question when evaluating a filmmaker/authors intent. If a creator portrayed AI as evil and taking over the world in today's society, they might be predicting what they feel will happen and pushing their ideas on artificial intelligence. However, if years down the road, AI does turn out to cause a lot of harm and people widley accept this, a movie villainizing AI might not necessarily be about the authors ideas on AI but just a part of the mindset of the time.
To find out if a film is effective, one can compare the filmmaker's intentions with our interpretations and see if we "got" it. If a viewer did not receivethe message, then perhaps the film is poorly made or perhaps the viewer is notvery savvy.
I always think about this when I watch movies. I love to come up with an interpretation that is unique to my experiences and then consider what the author meant by the film. I love to think that even if the author had one meaning relating to their life but I, someone with completely different experiences, can find my own interpretation and imply the same things. This means that everyone has something in common and I like that.
Some filmmakers scoff at the idea that their movies contain messages. Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn, for example, is alleged to have said, "If I wantedto send a message, I would've called Western Union."
This is really interesting to me! I never would have thought that filmmakers could think there movies have no messaging. Every plot comes with a moral or key takeaway. I also think everything is inherently political so I want to disagree. Even if you are doing it subconsciously or unknowingly, you are putting reason behind your work.
This dialogue acts as a primer that helps to make science accessible for the audience. The useof scientific jargon also makes the characters seem to be knowledgeable forensic specialists
using terminology definitely makes a sow seem more credible to viewers. This allows the audience to immerse themselves into the storytelling and feel as if they are knowledgeable too. This is true for every other show portraying certain jobs like Greys Anatomy and Cops
ndeed, law is portrayed as being problematic in some episodes.In the vigilante justice case, Catherine apologizes to the bereaved father because the lawfailed him and he had to take matters into his own hands (Episode 204). And if the law isproblematic, lawyers are worse. The detectives worry that an ‘aggressive attorney’ will filea civil suit against them (Episode 202) or file motions to exclude incriminating evidence theyhave uncovered (Episode 204). The cultural meanings are clear. CSI, like the crime genregenerally, reinforces stereotypes about who is and who is not deserving of our moralsympathy (Rapping, 2003; Jewkes, 2004).These genre elements, both traditional and contemporary, are standard features in CSI’sfi rst season, its current season, and in its spin-offs. At the same time, science sells theseprograms. Therefore, it is essential that they construct a sense of science that appears tobe accurate and decisive, thus convincing viewers of the show’s forensic realism.CSI ’s forensic scienceKing Solomon didn’t have a DNA lab. (Episode 201)Genres are identified by, among other markers, iconographic signs and symbols whichinclude settings, costumes, and props. CSI exhibits an iconography which is marked by theaccoutrement of science. These accoutrement include markers such as ‘scientific’ dressand language, and importantly, narrative and cinematographic techniques that make aclaim of scientific verisimilitude. These markers separate CSI from other television crimegenre dramas but also circulate a series of cultural meanings which suggest that sciencesolves problems. The accuracy of the scientific equipment and techniques is less importantthan the meanings about science that CSI conveys: the program essentially rehabilitatesscience by making it appear less equivocal, less contradictory. Science stands for truth onCSI, truth in a deeper philosophical sense, and in terms of the case at hand, that is, provingwho is the criminal. But, because this is television, science must also be entertaining andaccessible. The programs in our updated sample are consistent in their treatment ofscience.Iconography and accoutrement CSI characters look the part of forensicinvestigators at the crime scene and in the crime lab. At a crime scene, they display themarkers of the police such as identification badges, but they also wear clothing whichvisually marks their special status such as jackets and caps labeled ‘forensics’. Glovesand booties complete the crime scene ensemble. As befitting scientists, in the crime labcharacters wear lab coats, smocks or lab aprons.The characters use specialized equipment which validates their scientific status. Crimescene equipment ranges from adhesives and plasters to lift finger and footprints, tochemicals like luminol which, when illuminated with a special blue light, causes invisibleblood traces to glow (Episodes 110 and 120). In a CSI:NY episode (203), they use a plastictent which they inflate with a special gas to reveal fingerprints on a corpse. The crime
I enjoy how the good versus bad side is not always who you would think. It is important to address the negative sides of a group even if they are typically held on pedestal. They way they explore the complex dynamics of lawyers and law enforcement and victims is great and I like how they tried to reflect the real life.
The hero is less likely to be a loner and more likely to workin the police organization. These genre changes reflect larger cultural changes such aschanges in the nature of masculinity (Messerschmidt, 1993), what it means to be a hero(Cavender, 1999), or the fact that there are more women in the criminal justice workplace(Martin and Jurik, 2006).
This change in what a hero looks like in unison with societal dynamic shifts is a prime example of how culture and stories play into each other. I've noticed this in my life too. As a kid I always valued brawn over brains in characters but as norms shifted, I look for intellect and enjoy when a protagonist outsmarts an opposer.
he crime genre exhibits stableelements, for example a focus on crime, usually violent crime, and the quest for justice,
As previously mentioned. The stories we tell ourselves influences our perception of ourselves which creates culture and mindset. With crime shows gaining popularity, it gains influence as well. This means seeking justice and demonstrating certain positive ideals can be good for our cuture
Science seems to be less certain, even contradictory,for example when knowledgeable scientific experts like the FDA and the National Academyof Sciences disagree about the medical benefits of marijuana (Harris, 2006). In other cases,science seems to be implicated in the problems that threaten us, for instance global warming.The police and science now add to life’s uncertainties and they seem to be at odds with eachother.
In modern society, people as a whole are afraid and confused on health and the socioeconomic state of the world. In my own life, science has been comforting, allowing me to make sense of the world and influence specific decisions.But with even science contradicting itself, people are left even more concerned.
scholars and students of American studies and cultural studies tend to view society in a more nuanced way as a structure, a principle or set of principles that work to organize human diversity into identifiable collectivities.
This definition is closest to my own. I think society is the general social norm and popular opinion of everyone or a nation etc. I do not think of society as literally people but just humanity in general.
“social” pressure is applied to equally amorphous “individuals” who either succumb to that pressure or resist it by “being themselves.” You can find versions of this story in a blog post about how well the free market organizes “society,” a sociology paper about gangs’ “antisocial” activity, or a political speech blaming “society” for certain behavior. But wherever this story is told, if it lacks any specifics about what is meant by “society,”
This is an interesting points made by Hendler. Society is referring to different groups and portrayed with different motives based on context and goal of the speaker/author. I've actually never been critiqued for using the term society but it is worth it to define who exactly you are referring to instead of just alluding to a group of people.
set out in a dictionary. To some extent, however, this is not the case. If it were so, we would all share an identical, even if highly complex, understanding of what democracy means, or what public interest is, or what corporate conveys).
The complexities and variety in definition of words also make the keyword project interesting. People all interpret a shared definition differently. For democracy, we all might know technically what it means but we all have different opinions on what counts and does not count. As for humanity, we all know what it is but disagree if things are humane or not.
gay.
The evolution of the term "gay" is perfectly proving the authors point about historical changes. Before, gay meant happy or joyful, later on, gay started to refer to homosexuality. While the homosexual definition never left, people also use the term to describe a person or action as lame or uncool.
American high schools still don’t see it as their mission to prepare alltheir students for college, even though everybody now agrees that col-lege is a virtual prerequisite for success and a decent life.
I agree with this statement. Schools often do not help prepare kids for college in an effective way, they just make scary warnings about how college is not as likely to support their students and prep us for applying. It is important to build up students for the actual learning they will need to do in college. I am glad I take dual enrollment classes so I have some basic skills like taking lecture notes and effectively completing group work.
The college curriculum says to students, in effect, “Come and getit, but you’re on your own as to what to make of it all.” As John Gardnerhas rightly observed, American colleges “operate under the assumptionthat students know how to do it—or if they don’t they’ll flunk out andit’s their problem.”
While I am a highschooler, I sense the same type of learning in my own classes. A lot of teachers refuse to teach and just make their students figure out how to succeed on their own in the name of preparing them for college but how are we ever going to figure it out if we are never taught? I feel that it is a disservice to students who struggle and need more help understanding topics.
We determine ethos by looking at the tone, style and credibility of the speaker, the sources, and the publication. We also determine it by establishing the authority and credibility of the argument and the arguer.
these are great ways to approach ethos or evaluating an author or even presenting yourself as a source of information. tone and style of the speaker is a part of ethos often neglected ut it gives a lot of insight.
We must constantly ask ourselves who it is we are pressured to accept (by the cultural, political, or religious status quo) as credible and trustworthy, and who it is we are encouraged to fear, hate, dismiss, and/or reject in an argumentative context
Who we get information from is almost as important as the information itself! If I hear someone speak highly of a person, I have to ask how they know them and why they want to tell me. Even subconsciously everyone has an agenda and it is important for people to take it into account when navigating the internet.
Furthermore, many arguments will not be settled simply by finding the “right” evidence. Many will disagree as to what is the most reliable information to support a given argument. Others will rightly point out that some arguments are based in moral reasoning, tradition, and ethical considerations
This is a good point. Many issues today are not finished by facts alone. The topic of gun violence is highly debated. There is clear evidence of the danger and deaths with compelling statistics however, people still feel that the right to bear arms is more important than protecting lives and vice versa. No matter how many people die or don't die, the argument will continue because it is based in tradition and morals rather than real life impact.
We now have more immediate access to more terabytes of information, across more fields of interest and study, than any other time in human history.
It is crazy how much information we have at our fingertips. The issues is that not all information is true and most information is spun to fit a narrative for personal gain. This doesn't mean the internet is inherently bad because it makes aspects of life more accessible. As a society, we simply must improve media literacy to properly navigate such a surplus of content.
They argue about access, opportunity, identity, and community. They argue about important things and petty things. They argue to win. They argue to avoid losing. They argue out of ego, fear, privilege, and desperation.
This quote does a fine job encapsulating the overall root reasons for arguing. Arguing is typically seen as a negative thing but I actually think arguing is good and needed (as long as it is respectful). People need to be able to advocate for themselves, their communities and other things. If no one argued, the world would only be controlled by the thoughts of people in charge which is not fair to the vast majority. Arguing or being challenged also inspires new ways of thinking.
The acknowledgment of one’s own biases must be a part of the work and training beforewe can move forward into the community
Realizing bias is a huge part of media literacy. Even if a source is not wrong, the aspects included versus excluded is important. When a person can see a source and understand where it's bias lies helped them come to their own conclusions as well as be able to think of a given situation for what it is and not just their opinions on it.
Each mediumdelivers messages driven by profit motives
This reminds me of the growing industry of college admissions influencers. Nowadays, there is a large focus on school and the chances to get in universities is slimming. That fact leads to a lot of fear and anxiety for students which makes them vulnerable to listen to people online telling them what to do. Influencers will scare teens into thinking their applications are flawed and can only be fixed by taking their advice or buying their programs. Something as innocent as helping students is actually for profit in most cases.
I actually find this to be unethical because it is not good to try and profit off of children.
Nobody has any idea what the world will look like at that point. Most of us can barely comprehend what the world will look like in five years, or ten. So how are we supposed to educate people to inhabit a future we cannot, ourselves, comprehend?
This point is very true in today's education. The task of educating people on a constantly changing world seems impossible. However, it makes education evermore crucial. Without the fundamental understanding of the world, one couldn't handle the rapidly developing society we have today!