I think Chiang's warning is necessary - many people have utopian expectations of AI, hoping it will liberate the workforce and make life easier. But the reality is likely to be - if no constraints are imposed and the system remains unchanged, AI will eventually become a tool for capital to enhance control, exploit workers, and exacerbate inequality.

I believe this is the key idea of writing this book: the ultimate purpose is to inform others, even those who haven't read it. The author is actually using the idea of viral communication on the internet. As long as a group of people on social media is educated and agrees on the book, they will spread the book's idea to others in the future no matter unintended or intended.

We can still observe the ideology of white supremacy existing in today's society. Even though most people acknowledge the history of the past, the current protection measures for the indigenous people seem to remain superficial. The so-called cultural protection merely involves establishing museums or commemorative days. However, in reality, fewer and fewer people are using the Native American language because they need to integrate into the white society.

We observe that capitalism seems to lack the long-term resilience needed to address social crises, as its power is highly decentralized and there are many different stakeholders who benefit from it. This results in the situation where, when a social crisis occurs, such as a major epidemic, the government finds it difficult to organize people to unite and work together.

Many people can't even notice the downside of a thing while they're laughing and enjoying. As this prank is an example, the audience who laugh at it can't notice what's wrong with this show, and probably won't exploit the potential negative influence it brought to the kids. In this case, we need someone to rethink this show from another perspective, even though they would be criticized, since they were standing on the opposite side of most of the audience.

It seems that only videos or posts with shaming and can make the audience laugh would grab more attention and have more exposure on the internet. I want to say that watching people criticize or shame someone is a natural behavior among humans, while the “Three Character Classic" suggests that people are kind by nature. Therefore, this remains the question that is our kindness been taught or it's just our natural beings

This is a typical example of the "spillover effect of marginalized communities": a previously secluded, niche, anonymous, and unregulated space on the internet, which treats extreme emotions as a game and uses a "raiding" approach to transfer hatred and harassment to mainstream platforms. Essentially, it reflects two issues: first, the anonymous culture can quickly slide towards extremism when there is a lack of governance; second, the mainstream platforms have limited resilience and are prone to being disturbed by such organized small groups. In the long run, this kind of spillover will make the public opinion space louder, dirtier, and more polarized, forcing rational discussions to be forced to stop.

We have found that such harassment and discrimination are magnified online. People's language becomes more unrestrained because they don't know the person they are interacting with and are unlikely to meet them in person. As a result, much of the harassment and discrimination has gradually become more entertaining online, as if it were just telling a joke, without any need to bear any consequences.

When a wiki or knowledge website is edited by anyone, the information could be wrong or influenced by personal bias. The consequences are catastrophic since everyone is reading it, might citie it to twist the truth.

To notice this is very important. People may feel anxious when they are on social media, watching others showcase their assets, beauty, or grades. However, most normal people are not posting things on social media, which makes users think, "Am I worse than others?" Moreover, sometimes we see numerous complaints about a single product online, which creates the impression that this product or thing is particularly bad. However, people who are satisfied with it often won't post their praise unless it exceeds their expectations.

This serves as a reminder for technology companies, especially social media companies, that they should hire a large number of young people rather than so-called experienced middle-aged individuals to operate. Because they usually do not participate in mainstream social media or belong to marginalized groups. They do not understand the new social media language that has been created, and thus cannot understand social media trends. As a result, they may make wrong decisions and fall behind in the competition.

Bots can massively increase the efficiency of moderations since they can capture the content 24/7 without rest. However, bots might not understand some ambiguous expressions that could contain some harmful information. For example, users could use metaphors to express their thoughts that most human understands, but bots cannot. In this case, either the content will be posted or the work will be handed back to human moderators.

Copyrights are often the easiest thing to ignore, especially for music, videos, faces, etc. Although using these works freely could boost mass communication, the creators would have less income when anyone can use their work. In this case, there will be fewer creators willing to create, since they cannot receive actual benefits from that. To protect copyrights, social media platforms do have the responsibility to preserve and have the right to reveal works that violate a certain copyright.

Many people argue that platform controls are a way that violates free speech, which is considered a kind of human right. However, if the platform didn't regulate what the users posted, the online community would collapse. Just like we have laws in real life, you cannot do bad things offline, also online. A reasonable control could form a better community, but we have to define which action can be considered as reasonable, and who's defining these laws.

It seems that most of the measures to deal with psychological emotions are aimed at preventing you from thinking about the things that cause negative emotions, such as mindfulness and exercise. However, one cannot always avoid the problem. Many methods merely aim to make you forget rather than truly solve the issue. Therefore, I hope to see more psychological treatment plans that help you solve the problem rather than make you forget it.

These audiences are often known as emotional trash bins, hearing negative emotions from others, even from people whom they have never met. Although a large number of people are willing to hear about the emotions of others and are curious about their personal lives, they will also be affected by negative emotions after a long time. That is the reason why most of the social media platforms recommend people to share positive things in their life, and might limit the exposure of negative things.

I've seen this kind of video before and I thought this type of video could enormously improve the depth of communication among people online. Because people who filmed these videos with others need to spend a lot of time. Although their main purpose was to make their videos look good and receive more people's likes, the emotion these videos express followed the virtue ethics to make the platform community friendly and strongly emotionally bonded.

Some of the memes are meaningless, so many of the people are actually seeing memes as downsides to our existing culture. For example, people think that if everyone is using these abstract words to express their feelings, especially for the young generation, they would lose their ability to express their thoughts formally, and not be willing to learn how to communicate with each other offline.

I always believe that apps or algorithms that are related to a person's own health, including both mental and physical health, should be doubly considered before it is published since they could directly influence a person. If a person doesn't like a social media app, they can just delete it, and it will not affect their personal life much. In this case, this app was continuously recalling the user's sufferings, which largely affected the user's life and mental health.

We always emphasize how these social media algorithms let people become addicted to scrolling information streams and wasting all our time. However, we should reflect on who's taking the responsibility to manage our own time. The answer is very clear, ourselves. And what we post on social media should also take responsibility for any consequences, even though the algorithm provided the information. Therefore, I believe it is significant to improve the algorithm and regulate our own behaviors online to create a more friendly and moral virtual society on the platform.

Patients with such mental disorders need more respect rather than attempts to make people aware of their need for help through emphasizing. In the section of "Meltdowns" in the article, I fully agree. We need to make them feel more at ease rather than constantly criticizing them. Although these people may want to help them, this approach actually worsens their mental illness.

We have observed that an increasing number of technology companies are now paying attention to accessibility design. Whether they do so for the purpose of corporate social responsibility or to enhance their reputation, these designs have greatly facilitated the lives of people with disabilities. For instance, Apple's voice-over feature has made the iPhone the preferred choice for the blind. However, we also discovered that some designs have flaws. To a large extent, this is due to a lack of understanding of people with disabilities or to meet certain commercial purposes. Therefore, education is of great importance. It is necessary to let more people understand what the specific needs of this group are.

We usually trustfully hand over our data to technology companies, but often overlook the fact that these companies are also composed of people. Since people are human, they always have some ill-intentioned thoughts. This requires more advanced institutions such as the government to supervise them in order to protect people's rights. When such incidents occur, it indicates that there is a significant lack of regulatory participation in this field, and this is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed now.

Not only social platforms, but also the security of the online space has risen to a national level. In recent years, with the development of the Internet, more and more information has been digitized. Even some confidential data is stored in databases. Although these databases are usually very secure, they will be the first targets to be attacked once a war breaks out. For example, before the war between Russia and Ukraine, the Russian Cyber Security Department had already begun to attack some official websites of Ukraine. Therefore, today, cyber security in the network space has become particularly important.

People have always been living in a complex network of social relationships. There is a saying that you can find anyone in the world by just talking to five people. Social media is taking advantage of this by not only creating profiles based on the isolated user behavior, but also obtaining verification and support from the person's social connections. However, is this kind of arbitrary exploration of user information legal? Even though social media has provided their own guidelines, who would then be in charge of enforcing them? The issue of sexual orientation is inherently more sensitive and private than other information. Have these companies gone beyond the boundaries of their proper duties by collecting such information?

I would like to mention the ethical issue that everyone has heard before. How would our data be stored, and is it secure enough that we are keeping our privacy? I know we could find an answer by clicking into the privacy terms, and users must agree to it before they can use the app. However, I don't believe everyone will first check all the terms and conditions word by word; they just click 'agree' most of the time. Therefore, I think there should be a clear regulation published by the government that restricts these companies from processing our data, and every user should also monitor the process.

This article reminds me of "cultural invasion". Sometimes the most convenient way for cultural invasion to occur is through the internet, because most young people are involved in it and they are also the group that is easily influenced. If a certain value is widely promoted on the internet on a large scale, it can easily influence people's thinking. Once such values are linked to national security, cultural invasion will reach an irreversible level. And when there is offline support, color revolutions may also occur.

This reminds me of the online "spearers", who usually, before major events occur, such as a mobile phone launch event or a car launch event, act as competitors of the brand they want to attack and spread false rumors or shortcomings about the targeted brand, aiming to trigger negative emotions in the public towards the attacked brand. In cases where negative news does occur, such as a certain electric vehicle catching fire, they will also make numerous similar comments under the news to magnify the scandal.

That's a pretty interesting topic. Although people say people have the right to choose which type of phones they want, and there's no difference in using different operating systems regarding their perspective, education, and social status. However, sometimes we can see there's a difference between iOS and Android users; for example, Android users tend to know phones better, as Android is an open system. It's very interesting to see why people are posting different persepctive based on their device choice

This kind of relationship reminds me that most online celebrities or social media stars always create a feeling like this. With the development of communication technology, audiences can interact with the celebrities just using their own account online, eg. commenting under videos, making online face-to-face calls, etc. But no longer restricted to TVs, a one-way communication route. However, this may cause some of the fans to interrupt the normal life of these celebrities rudely, and their own life are actually occupied by chasing the celebrity, grabbing their attention at them no matter what will takes.

I would say scrolling is the greatest invention in modern social media, especially for short videos. In the past, people usually chose the video they would like to watch based on the cover page and the title. It's somewhat related to consequentialism, as users have a purpose or expectations before they click into a video. However, the scrolling algorithm is giving users a kind of 'surprise'. The user will never know what video will be the next one, so they will continue to scroll down to find something new and satisfy the sense of opening a mystery box. The scrolling algorithm kept users on their social media for a significant time, but the feature of short videos is lowering the quality of information that the user will receive.

Social media like bilibili were using this strategy (bullet screen) to gather more and more users. Or, in other words, it was a special feature that allowed bilibili to stand out from other video-based social media platforms. The bullet screen is forming a culture and attracting users; however, the way of informal connections may cause some problems. For example, people could easily argue about a specific or minor issue because almost no punishment will be imposed, and people from the two sides will never meet each other offline. Sometimes it's ridiculous that two people who don't even know each other will become enemies online.

It is hard to break something that already formed as 'norm' or usual thing in people's mind. The first reason is that people often ignore something they think that is normal or usual, so the true problem could not be seen by the society. Another reason is that people usually don't want to admit their mistakes even they knew they were wrong. Therefore, we need articles like this to drag the entire society's attention, and then could influence the 'rule makers' to change the current situation.

I totally agreed with this idea. Sometimes people only want to hear what they want or come up an outcome that only benefit to them. In this case, people will try to find a reasonable explanation for their planned outcomes, which usually cause biases. The process and the solution are actually up side down in logistical procedure. To avoid this, we have to place our view in third person and sometimes need the peer-review process.

This source is from Wikipedia, providing general information on imperative programming. Imperative programming is a programming paradigm for software. It uses components that change the state of the program. Similar to the way commands are expressed in natural language, imperative programs consist of commands that are executed by the computer. However, I'm not sure whether Wikipedia could be used as a source in a formal print since Wikipedia could be edited by anyone.

I really like the way they describe programming by comparing it to cooking. Basically, both actions are sending a set of instructions for someone (or the computer) who doesn't know how to accomplish a mission. However, there's an additional internal process for programming, which is that the programming languages act like a bridge between human language and binary language that computers understand.

As a Chinese, I learned this old saying when I was in primary school. It applies to everyone around the world no matter nationality. However, it seemed that people on social medias were not following the moral rules they learned. People tend to revealing the negative side of human nature online since they don't even know who's they're talking to, and didn't need to take any responsibility for being rude online for the most of times. If we introduce an "online police" in social medias, anything should be checked before posting online, the rights to "free speech" might be challenged. Therefore, there's a long-term issue now we are facing today on the internet and should urgently come out an acceptable solution in the future.

I'm actually from the hometown of Taoism, Sichuan China. And there's a mountain called Qingcheng Mountain which known as the symbol of Taoism. I visited there and the core about Taoism was to be along with the nature, that's why they decide to build the main temple (called Laojun Ge) on the top of the Qingcheng Mountain rather than in the urban areas of Chengdu city. Many of the temples on that mountain were perfectly merged in the natural terrain, and lots of cat and other animals were living with the people inside of the temple. These architectures truly matched with the key concept of the Taoism, creating harmony with the nature.