Ahab and Machinery

I love tying Moby Dick to the technological age and see how the same principles apply. In class today we were encouraged to not worry ourselves so much with what the whale symbolizes. I wanted to analyze the story more on my own in regards to Ahab and machinery, inspired by today’s class discussion.

In his “Approach to Moby-Dick,”  Stephen C. Ausband states that “several critics of Moby-Dick have suggested that Ahab’s chief sin is his separation from humanity.” We have talked a lot about the machinery and why they serve a purpose, but I also started to think of what the character of Ahab symbolizes and suggests in terms of machinery. 

I think that Ahab symbolizes the one who over-indulges in technology and digital culture. Kristen gave a great blog post last week of needing to do all things in moderation. Then Brittany also gave a wonderful blog post that discussed the benefits of playing video games and how they help us. For me, Ahab represents the person who ignores these bits of wisdom and allows himself to be succumbed into the digital world so much so, that he separates himself from humanity. 

He withdraws himself so deeply from human connection then he is left to his own thoughts and desire for more power that comes with machinery. It begins with his leg, which we’ve established in class that it represent Moby Dick and it shows the end result of using machinery. He also has his crew which labor for him and his self-serving will. He relies on bits of machinery such as the quadrant and compass that he even will rebuild to give him what he wants. Even the words that Melville chooses to describe Ahab throughout the novel suggest a tint of industrialization and lack of human quality in his inability to feel emotions or empathy. 

Does Ahab represent what could possibly happen when we are too deep into the digital culture? Will we lose the ability to relate and communicate with other humans on a personal level? Will we lose our deep thinking part of our brain? Will we slowly be shedding from ourselves our capacity of intellect and ethics?

I don’t think any of these things will happen so long as we do what was mentioned earlier, and that is to do all things in moderation and not let the digital culture swallow us up. But just like Ahab, if we let even one thing govern our lives, then we can end up dazed and lost. 

The Humanity of Computers

I love learning about how things work. And I loved today's discussion in my Digital Culture class about Meaning and Machinery, particularly the idea about machines as humans--or humans as machines. When one of my classmates said that Amazon knew she was pregnant before her mom knew, I was shocked. As I began to think about it though, I realized that many sites knew a lot about me: Facebook knows exactly how to advertise to me, Netflix recommends movies to me based on what it thinks my interests are, etc. How in the world does the computer know what I like--sometimes before even I know it?

This blog is going to discuss three things.
(1) How does the computer learn things about us?
(2) What is the controversy surrounding this learning?
(3) Machines as humans--or, humans as machines

How the Computer Learns

 

There is a buzzword that encapsulates how a computer learns about us: Big Data. Watch this short video to get a quick overview about big data and then I'll expound.

As the video introduced, Big Data is everything you do online. "Everything" meaning clicking a link, sharing information about yourself on a social networking website, what your friends "like" on Facebook, how long your mouse lingers over a picture, how often you check your email, or even what you say in that email.

Yes, the computer reads your emails. It reads your status updates. It recognizes faces of people in pictures because you once tagged yourself or others in those photos. It recognizes your voice because you uploaded a video of yourself speaking. It doesn't only know what you like. It knows who you are.

But how does it do all of that? Computers only work because of a bunch of zeros and ones, right? It should only be able to do whatever we directly tell it to do, right?

Right. And Wrong.

Computers learn things because they are told to learn things. They learn because they are told to store Big Data and then to infer things about people from that Big Data. We tell it to learn and to infer given certain parameters. Within those parameters, the computer then learns whatever it can. It does this through things as old as cookies to tracking users through screen resolution (no I'm not kidding).

Usually, your information is just sold to data brokers who then turn around and sell it to advertisers. But sometimes, things you'd rather not be exploited can be without your knowledge or permission.

 

The Privacy Debate

This leads us to talking about privacy debates. Should computers be allowed to do this? Well, they already are. Is there any way to stop them? And if not, should we be worried?

This XKCD comic summarizes the various views on internet privacy nicely:

http://xkcd.com/1269/

I'm a Sage. My husband, a computer engineer, is the Philospher/Crypto Nut. He likes to frequently bring up his suspicions regarding Big Data and I like to tease him about being paranoid.

Is he being paranoid? Or am I being too carefree?

88% of 865 Data Analysists (people that analyze Big Data for a living) think that "consumers should worry about privacy issues in the big data era, as more organizations stockpile personal--and often sensitive--information on all of us." Why? Well for one thing, there currently aren't any laws in the United States regulating Big Data. Some companies do put policies in place regarding Big Data that they collect (such as pharmaceutical companies), but they do not have to.

This has become a huge debate as far as the National Security Agency (NSA) and the public are concerned. There is something called the NSA PRISM. Author Al Mauer writes:

 "In the digital world of the 21^st century, all of our communications—other than face to face—are translated into a series of ones and zeroes, broken down into small groups called packets, disassembled,sent over a series of connected networks known collectively as 'the internet' and reassembled at the other end. Each of those little packets contains the routing information that allows the message to be reassembled and delivered . . . All of your communications go through gateways. . . Gmail, AT&T, AOL and many others . . .Using keyword searches, as Edward Snowden described, they can get to any information they have pretty quickly. They no longer have to capture and analyze the data as it comes in. They have it recorded and ready whenever they need it."

So...your medical history, your insurance information, your bank account locations, and more: the government now has access to all of this without a warrant which violates the 4th amendment to the Constitution. And in fact, the NSA has gathered this data without warrants from smartphones.

But, so what? If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear, right? In fact, it'll help us catch terrorists! The end justifies the means.

But really, how many times has the NSA caught a terrorist through PRISM? None, as far as I can tell. This guy agrees. Therefore they are using it for other reasons. 

These are the two sides of the big debate surrounding internet privacy, particularly regarding the NSA. I won't go anymore into it now, but if you'd like, I can write a longer blog post analyzing both sides later.

Humans and Machines

We, as humans,  have created machines to collect Big Data, analyze it, infer things from it, and give us results. We have taught it to do this because we want it to be a tool for us to use. Yet, the machine is learning on its own.

Now, I do not think that the machines are going to rise up against us like in I, Robot or The Terminator. But there are some similarities between us. Here is a very simple mathematical data graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory

There are three ways to interpret this graph:

1) As a Social Network. You are Circle 1. You are friends with Circles 2 and 5, who are also friends with each other. You are also connected to Circle 4 because Circle 5 is connected to Circle 4, even though you yourself are not connected to Circle 4. You are also connected to Circle 3. And Circle 6. All of these circles relate back to you because they are connected to you in some way.

2) As a Brain Network. The circle represent neurons. Neuron 1 fires off to neurons 5 and 2 which cna then fire off to 4 and 3. Neuron 4 can fire off to six. Neuron 4 can fire off to 3 and 5. Everything is connected to everything.

3) As a Neural Network. In other words, an artificial intelligence network (a computer's "brain"). Artificial Neuron 1 can fire off to artificial neuron 5 which can go to 4 and you get the point. This is a machine's intelligence. This is Big Data.

Machines think like humans. We learn from buzz words, collecting information on those buzzwords, analyzing, and then filling in the gaps. So do machines. You've heard that the brain is just like a big computer, right? We like to say that machines are inhuman because they lack common sense. Yet they don't. They infer things just like we do. I think I finally understand what the video "The Machine is Us/ing Us" from Dr. Burton's post is getting at.

Are humans essentially machines? Maybe. But I'm not so sure. Humans can feel emotions. Machines cannot. Humans can rebel. Machines do what they are told to do. Machines have elements of humanity and humans have elements of the machine, but we are still different. We are becoming more and more alike every day though.

Fascinating, isn't it?

Make Something

I went to the Blizzard guy's presentation today. I have to admit that I wasn't really expecting much. I know that he was an English major (like myself) but even that couldn't really excite me. My husband was so excited, he wants to get an internship at blizzard and has already been to one of the presentations this particular guy had given during the summer. I was happy to see him so thrilled, but I still couldn't muscle much enthusiasm for the presentation.

Which is why it completely blew my mind.

I'm not a huge fan of Blizzard. I like StarCraft, but other than that they have always seemed a little subpar to me. My husband loves them (as previously stated) but if everyone there has the same attitude as the man who presented today, then I take back every bad thing I ever said about them.

The presentation was not about Blizzard. It was about creation. It was about saving the world and doing what you love to do to make that happen. As he was talking, I felt the passion he felt for the topic, and I felt an old stirring within myself. I'm not really into playing or making video games. I'm probably not going to be the person that solves the energy crisis or finds a way to preserve our fresh water. No, the only talent I've ever been really passionate about is writing.

Writing. It was amazing how people were getting different messages from what he was saying. Every word resonated with my husband. I could see it in his face. I could see his desire to create and make a difference in this world. He wants to make art, he wants to make beautiful pieces that touch the souls of his players, the way that he was touched when he was a child and the way he is touched now when he plays his games. He wants to inspire people the way he was inspired, and every word hit him with the strength of a meteor. But it's different for me. When I write, there is no art to make it shine, there is no music, no graphics, nothing besides ideas and words. But I felt the power of this idea as well.

To clarify, what he was talking about was that each and every person in that room (and on byu campus/the world) has a particular talent. Because of the internet, we can connect to people in a way that was never possible before, and find people that have our same talents and interests. Obsessed people, he called them. And obsessed people can accomplish much more than just the random bum that's been hired to do it. These people, the people who really care, are the ones that will solve all of the problems in the world. These people, us, are the ones that will take that talent and make the world a better place. Make true art. Make beautiful things simply for the sake of making something beautiful. His eyes filled with tears as he was talking about this. His passion for it filled the room, and I think it moved everybody.

So, as I sat there, listening, I felt a desire stirring within myself. The desire to create. Almost instantly all of the doubt that always comes when I think I can do something started to resurface. Who are you, it asked, to think that with words, with a story, you could change anyone? Who are you to be self centered? And I realized that I don't need to move or touch anyone. I don't need to please anyone with my words and my ideas except me. I need to create. Not because people will tell me how wonderful I am, but because I will feel wonderful. Not because anyone will appreciate what I do, but because I will appreciate what I do. Creation, connection, art, beauty, it's within the ability of all of us. And by doing what we want, we might just accidentally make the world a better place in the process. And isn't that amazing?

All Things In Moderation

This post was inspired from Brittany's post Seeing Video Games Differently. I really appreciated Brittany's honest insights and research. I remember talking to her and Victoria after class about our take-away messages from the class discussion.

I have never been one for video games. I think this is because my parents also don't really like video games and so they were never around when I was growing up. I would play them occasionally at friend's houses and they were fun, but I never really got addicted to any. My friends did get addicted, however, and that was a major red flag to me.

I hate addictions. I hate how they make someone lose control of themselves. I hated the Pokemon craze in second grade for this reason, and I hated video games later on for the same reason. I hated that they were all my friends could talk about. I tried to get into it with them sometimes, but couldn't because I was afraid of becoming addicted.

There are sites dedicated to warning others about video game addiction. Check some of them out:

Video Game Addiction
WebMD: Video Game Addiction No Fun
Psychology Today: Are Video Games Addictive?
How to Avoid Video Game Addiction
Video Game Addiction and Other Internet Compulsive Disorders Mask Depression, Anxiety... 

Here's the thing though: anything can be addicting. Movies, social media, certain foods... even reading books can be extremely addicting! The thing is, we don't really hear about reading addictions because of the stereotypes surrounding reading. If a person reads too much he or she is generally considered "studious," or "smart," or at the very worst a "bookworm" (which can be considered a compliment). It is rarely seen as a problem.

There is sooo much out there about both the pros and cons about video games. Just do a Google Search. Plenty of stuff will pull up. It can be confusing to know the right thing to do. So, here's my two cents:

I think it all comes down to moderation and your personal standards. Everyone is different so different things work for different people. My husband and I talked about video games that evening after the class and we decided that we won't ban video games from our house, but that we'll be selective about which ones are allowed. I'm still not a fan of violent video games (even if I can set the settings to have the shot person burst into flowers rather than bleed or squirt slime). I just don't like seeing people get shot--I won't even watch Westerns with my husband because I hate it so much. It doesn't work for me. Other people can handle it. I just get sad.

We ban R-rated movies in our house. We get rid of books with too much language, sex, violence, or drugs. Games with certain ratings will be banned too. That's what we've decided because that's what we feel good about and what works for us.

That's my two cents. Now go have fun! Just moderate it.

Seeing Video Games Differently

 After class yesterday, I was impressed with the discussion generated by the topic of video games. I guess you know it is a good lecture when students can't stop talking about it after class (Dr. Burton is great)!

This is one of the reasons I took this class. The world we live in is advancing at such a rapid pace and I think it's important to know what's going on and how to navigate these changes. 

Admittedly, I have always had a bad taste in my mouth for video games/online gaming. I picture this one episode of "The Big Bang Theory" where Penny... well you'll see.

 

 In the clip, you'll notice how it fully addresses the stereotyped characteristics of a  gamer. I'll have to admit that this is what I thought of when video games came up and I didn't want any part of it. My husband is not interested in video games aside from Mario Party at a friend's house once in a while and that is fine with me!

However, I want to change my attitude toward the gaming world. And conveniently, I think studying English literature gives one an open mind.

I found an article online about the positive effect of action video games.  Dr. Markman concluded that overall, those who play action video games process visual stimulants faster and come to quicker conclusions. My only question is whether or not that is a useful skill.

Personally I am much more satisfied with Dr. Burton's opinion that sophisticated modern games can broaden your perspective of the world and of philosophies within, like Bio Shock Infinite.

Although I do not intend to start personally playing video games, I am learning and open to the positive aspects of gaming, especially gamification. Who knows what video games will be like when I have kids and maybe I'm destined to raise the next Ender. 

Maybe not... but regardless, I'll be on the lookout for good articles/media promoting video games to increase my understanding.

Hipsters and Long Tails

I just read Professor Burton's post about long tails, and it fascinated me in a lot of different ways. I guess I have never thought about how prominent this idea is in Internet culture. The one that immediately entered my head while reading through the post was hipsters. I don't know if a lot of people came to that same conclusion, but all I could think of while Professor Burton was talking about going through the iTunes store and going deeper in deeper is how useful this must be to hipsters and others who like to listen to really obscure, unknown music.

For the sake of clarity, a hipster is someone who likes things that nobody else likes. The idea is that if people like it, then it must be bad, and the more obscure something is then the better it is. This goes right along with the long tail idea, because they go for the things that are "never hit." A few years ago, this would be impossible. If a song didn't get on the charts, it stopped circulating, stopped being produced and might as well have disappeared forever. Now, however, people can go deeper and deeper into a song library to find more and more interesting songs. Some of them are real gems too. Of course, this also means that the deeper you go the more likely you are to accidentally make something that was obscure become really unknown. This is what I like to call the bane of the hipster.

The Long Tail can work in both directions. It can help people find really obscure things and enjoy them while nobody else does, or it can help something that might have never been discovered make it really big. Social Media helped to make "The Strike" a local band from Utah big enough to perform at the Stadium of Fire this year. I was there and they were amazing! Something like that never would have been able to happen without social media (granted there was a contest involved, but it wouldn't have spread as far if social media hadn't been a part of it) You can check out their facebook page here.

I guess the point is that the long tail has already influenced our subcultures in more than just getting more people to buy different things. It's also helped to inspire an entire way of life, and a hate group (there are plenty of people who hate hipsters.) I think that's pretty amazing.

The Long, Musical Tail

After reading Dr. Burton's latest blog post about "The Long Tail" and its effect on the market, I immediately clicked over to Chris Anderson's article and found it fascinating. 

The "Long Tail" addresses the digital wave of appeal to larger audiences by widening the variety and availability of selection. Anderson specifically mentions that success is only found where companies accommodate to the long tail, but also work with major vendors to access the entertainment "hits." Some popular  companies you might recognize associated with this theory include Netflix, Ebay, and Amazon.com.

Music is tricky because apparently record and label companies feel threatened and aren't the friendliest bunch. They think they should get more profit. So that begged the question... how is Spotify doing? 

Spotify is my music lifesaver. However, as much as I enjoy using Spotify to stream music I enjoy, I'm just a "freemium" user, meaning that I don't pay for it experience 10 second commercials every once and a while. Premium users experience streaming on-demand music on any device, any time.

 So if Spotify doesn't require pay, is it benefiting from obscure downloads for less-popular genres like Netflix? I found an article from the New York times, addressing Spotify's falling revenues (Spotify Losses Grow) and unfortunately the answer to my question was no. Spotify does not seem to be thriving as iTunes or Rhapsody.

What most interested me most from the article was "the music industry’s continuing struggle to reinvent itself in the digital age."

How does the availability of music, or lack thereof, influence music's identity and create distinct musical cultures in this digital age? Just like print versus digital books, how do we view CD's versus exclusively digital music? 

I don't think we have fully adapted to the realm of digital culture. As Spotify demonstrates, there are still many questions to be asked about profit, popularity, and demand. Consumers don't want to pay, but label and record companies still have a tight hold on what they allow into the market at what rates.

The musical realm of the digital market seems to be another whale to chase down because of its long tail.