Posts Tagged: Lanier


Posts Tagged ‘Lanier’

Sep 30 2010

Human Obsolescence

Published by

In the second chapter of Jaron Lanier’s book, “You Are Not a Gadget,” the author brings up the concepts of Singularity and Rapture. Each term is a variation on the human apocalypse, as brought on by either robots or God. While Lanier discusses the topic in length, I want to probe further. Given theme of humans becoming obsolete, where do we stand as a society today?

“All of reality, including humans, is one big information system,” as Lanier describes the first tenet of a new technological culture. This concept, “that we’re all connected,” is far from merely a technological one. It is a philosophical one that stretches back as far time goes. Whether its Pocohantas singing with the colors of the wind, or Neytiri saying she sees you, many cultural philosophies theorize that all of life is a giant network. The difference today is that this network is scientifically measurable. Not only are there social networks like Facebook, we can also track dollar bills around the world or study trends in demographic data. Seemingly because of technology, our life is more systematic and connected  than ever.

By discussing this concept of a networked life, we must ask how this influences the obsolescence of humanity. Well I can see it being argued two ways: 1) the network empowers the individual for being part of a larger entity 2) the network renders the individual human insignificant within the grander system. Which argument you side depends on your perspective. Do we understand humanity through gestalt or detail? Do we consider a human being as a single person or a collection of atoms? My tendency is to look at these things as part of the whole. Therefore, each member of the network of life is empowered through the connections that it offers. Because of technology, we can find new friends and support groups, create and access more information, and form a stronger interdependence on our fellow man. While we can all do this in the pre-digital age, the methods to do so have never been as fast, effective, or efficient, as they are today.

Lanier infers that there is “a new kind of manifest destiny… making the digital system we call reality function at ever-higher “levels of description.” The issue is how and when computers surpass the human mind at these higher levels. It seems inevitable. What happens when computers can program other computers to be more efficient than themselves? What happens as this cycle continues to the point humans no longer matter? That would be the aforementioned singularity. While it seems obvious that we should simply not design technology like this in the first place, the human desire for artificial intelligence will only grow as we grow lazier and rely heavier on convenience. To ensure our own preservation, what do we do?

Consider Singularity’s counterpart, Rapture: the purported time when the evil are condemned to hell and the righteous are sent to heaven. Until then, we are recommended to follow a code of ethics towards our fellow man and to God. When developing increasingly sophisticated technology, we must also follow a code of ethics and not forget who the technology is being used for. If we create not for ourselves, but for humanity, than we can help ensure our own success. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are stronger as a society than as a group of individuals. Maybe if we all work together, we can stop the robot uprising and Arnold Schwarzenegger will never try to come back in time and kill us. Otherwise, we had better hope Will Smith is still around.

Sep 30 2010

Response (Week 5)

Published by

In response to my questions that I posted earlier…

1. Is it possible that we may be moving towards are more humanistic internet experience with a heavier focus on user customization and social collaboration?  Is it possible that we are in the process and making the internet into a more humanistic experience?

I have to disagree with the doom and gloom predictions of Lanier. Although in the early days of the internet, there was much more rigidity and control with the “small group of software engineers” making most of the decisions but I believe that the entity of the internet has evolved beyond that. Now, more than ever, each individual user has a voice and a say in how something is presented or discussed online. People are interacting and collaborating with people all over the world, people that they would never have interacted with in the past. The internet is taking the things that make us human and amplifying them over  a global network. I don’t see this as some form of insidious mechanization but rather an aid to bring us closer as a global human community. We are now able to build community, support causes, witness and report news, and build a better world through the collaborative nature of the internet. If this is not a more humanistic internet, I don’t know what is.

I feel that Henry Jenkins has a much better idea about what is going on. He compares our evolving internet culture of collaboration and mash-up “folklore” to going back to our roots as early humans who worked together and shared our stories for the purpose of others taking them and retelling them. In his view, we are becoming more “humanistic” internet users and the Web 2.0 ideas of collaboration are making it all possible.

2.) Although Wikipedia has its share of hooligans, is it possible that it is a site that is managed by a more or less “intelligent” crowd and can be seen as a more reliable source than some of the individual experts being “drowned out”? Is crowd sourcing really as negative as Lanier seems to believe? What about the positive effects of people putting their heads together to collectively solve problems?

As we discussed in class, Wikipedia is often a hotly debated topic. It’s an encyclopedia of knowledge that almost anyone can contribute to. It relies on the “wisdom of the crowds” and this can make many people, like Lanier, uneasy about its reliability. Lanier talks about how many of the voices of true “experts” are being drowned out by the influx of everyday people inputting information in such sites as Wikipedia. However, as we saw in class this “crowd” of people who create a page on Wikipedia is more reliable than we may think.

As we went through the evolution of the umlaut Wikipedia page we observed that even when one person tried to sabotage the information, other people (many who probably could be considered “experts”) were able to repair the damages with minutes. It is this global team of experts, in countless different fields, that keeps Wikipedia as reliable as possible. Instead of drowning out the experts, sites like Wikipedia are giving voices to experts who may not have had an outlet before. This team effort can often be much more reliable than simply depending on one so-called “expert” who may be nothing more than a Wikipedia saboteur himself.

Sep 30 2010

Response (Week 5)

Published by

1. Lanier talks about anonymity in the online world quite a bit in his book “You are not a Gadget.” One of the first instances he cites of trolling is Usenet, which was a drive-by site where people could post whatever content they wanted. We see sites like this all over the place online today: Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, the list goes on and on. It’s on many of these sites that we see the worst trolling. Slanderous words, defamation, blasphemy, blatant lies, and why? Because no one has to take responsibility. No one is being held accountable for anything that goes on throughout the web. There are severe cases, the mother who bullied a girl from her daughters school to the point where she committed suicide, but for the most part, people don’t have to take responsibility for anything they say or do online. So yes, it is partially because there are no consequences, but another reason is because everyone is buying into the hive mind mentality. One person starts trolling and the rest follow. These malicious attacks won’t stop until reporting users is actually taken seriously.

2. We might not be venturing into a holodeck like they have on the starship Enterprise anytime soon, but I think this kind of technology is not a long way off. Video games are currently the closest thing to telegigging and gaming in general could possibly see something like this in the future. In the last decade, video games have become much more immersive, with deep story lines, character development and even one on one interactivity. Advances have also been made with how we play video games. Microsoft is releasing the “Kinect” which is able to read body movements and interpret them into game data, manipulating the in-game character to make the same movement. This technology doesn’t use any kind of controller. As the Kinect moves forward along with 3-dimensional gaming, we could begin to see something that resembles Lanier’s “telegigging.” If the visual soap operas were per household only, not allowing interaction with multiple users in different areas, trolling would not be an issue. But, if there was an extremely large area for the “telegigging” to happen, trolls would definitely start to emerge, wreaking havoc among users.

3. I think what Lanier is trying to say is that we are becoming much simpler in our vocabulary, so in a way yes. Polysyllabic words don’t fit well in our 140 character lifestyle. In the same way, we use small words to quickly convey to friends or family what we mean in any number of instant messaging chats. The more I read what Lanier had to say about speech, the more I thought about the book 1984. In it, one character refers to a new language they are working on, “Newspeak.” He says, “Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year.” It’s scary to think that George Orwell actually saw this coming, but in some ways it has become a self-fulfilling prophesy. We are limiting ourselves in our speech to speak quicker, and in smaller words. Big words aren’t necessarily sexy, as Lanier poses, instead we sometimes think big words are snobbish or pedantic. Although our language won’t be slashed up as much as in 1984, Lanier brings up an excellent point, one that will make us watch ourselves and our language through the years.

Sep 30 2010

Week 5 Response

Published by

In my first question this week I was confused about Lanier’s discussion of the “Fourth Quadrant.”  He talks about this quadrant, but in a roundabout manner such that I am not sure what he means.  In addition, if this is the fourth quadrant, what are the first three?  I was still unclear about this concept, so I did a little research.  Lanier is referring to an idea posited by Taleb.  Lanier is discussing the idea of the “wisdom of the crowd”– the intelligence of a crowd.  Taleb’s Fourth Quadrant comprises of “problems that have both complex outcomes and unknown distributions of outcomes” (59).  What Lanier is saying here is that the wisdom of the crowd can be dangerous when they are asked questions that are too complex.

In my second question, I asked about the circle of empathy, and if people really do change drastically when their circle is expanded or contracted.  I think that Lanier gives a harsh statement on the subject, but it also has a lot of truth to it.  So much of who we are as human beings is made up of our environment and those in it.  Those we associate with do have a strong impact on us.  However, I also think that there are parts of us that will never change based on those around us.  We are all programmed a certain way, and specific things cannot be changed.  When technology enters the equation, our circle has the ability to grow exponentially.  This could be a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on if this expansion leads to an adaptation for the better or for the worse.  But, there is know question that our circle will change parts of who we are, especially with such a drastic change in our circles’ diameters.

In my last question, I asked how grassroots fan productions fit into corporate media convergence.  Upon further reading and contemplation, I can easily see how the two are related.  The Star Wars fan productions added to the already large amount of Star Wars content available.  Star Wars fanatics had more content to interact with, which can get them excited about the professional Star Wars content.  If someone likes a fan production, they are more apt to buy the official DVDs, T-Shirts, and everything else that is associated with Star Wars.  The corporate media, especially in regards to Star Wars, has converged to include just about any trinket that you can think of– figurines, clothing, toys, etc.  Fan content can only add to the hype.

Sep 29 2010

Death of Creative Culture

Published by

This week, I asked about how the current system of doing things affects the future of technology. I wondered how we can avoid being “locked-in” to certain systems and structures of technology. The answer, according to Lanier, is that we can’t. We have already built too much on top of what was already created. To go back and unlock the system would mean that we’d have to rebuild the Internet, and even then, we would just lock ourselves into other ways of doing things.

Lanier uses the example of MIDI in his text. He says that Dave Smith created MIDI “casually” as a way to “represent notes.” Now it is the very foundation that music in software is built on. This was never Dave Smith’s intention– he was only creating something for his specific use and purpose; but the system stuck, and in order to get rid of it we’d have to recreate all of the software that uses the system– a feat that would be nearly impossible.

I also asked about whether the mob wisdom we discussed last week can co-exist with the individual wisdom Lanier favors. According to Lanier, no it cannot. However, I don’t know that I necessarily believe Lanier’s extreme side of the argument. Lanier believes that the collective culture will eventually make information seem like it belongs to one big book. He says that creativity and knowledge is better shared by an individual who does not have to prescribe to preconceived structures like a Facebook page or Wikipedia article. I, however, believe that the truly creative and intelligent will break free of these molds and make something that doesn’t fit into the standard notions of what a Web page should look like or what information an article should contain. Whereas Lanier believes that mob wisdom is the death of creative culture, I believe that it is only a bump in the road– and that great minds will overcome.

Finally, I wondered about Jenkins’ theories of media convergence and participatory culture in relation to the consumption and creation of media. Jenkins believes that pop culture has largely replaced folk culture and that fans are applying age-old responses to pop culture. Thanks to the birth of the Internet fans have a medium full of endless possibilities. It is important to be able to have fair use of content in order to be able to foster creativity. Participatory culture makes fans, the biggest consumers, want to comment on their favorite media. Commentary breeds creativity and the cycle continues. These are obviously very important elements in the creative process and may be the kinds of actions we need in order to stay away from the inevitable death of creativity for which Lanier argues.

Sep 29 2010

Original Music Today.

Published by

“One good thing about music—when it hits, you feel no pain.”

Bob Marley said it, and it’s true.  Music defines moments in our lives and gets us through the good and bad.  It’s everywhere, and there are more genres than we can count.  The question is, though, in today’s technology-obsessed society, do people still produce ORIGINAL sound?

Jaron Lanier doesn’t seem to think so.  In his book, “You Are Not A Gadget,” Lanier claims that nothing original has been created in music since the 90’s.  He says that all we do now is steal sounds and songs from previous artists.

A lot of the weight behind Lanier’s claim comes from amateurization in music, or the opportunity for anyone with the right equipment to create and share songs.  He argues that, because of today’s techno-savvy population, new artists come out and steal the work of others.  The music industry is so saturated now that it’s easy to overlook the original producer, and someone who has “borrowed” a sound may get discovered before the creator.

This DOES happen from time to time. It’s most commonly seen in hip-hop, where artists often sample hooks and chord progressions from songs that have already been produced.  We also see it when artists cover other artists.  And, sadly, true theft of sound occurs sometimes too.

Now, none of this means that there are no longer any new forms of music being created!  I’d argue that, if anything, new music is INFLUENCED by past music, not stolen from it.  Different outliers pave the way for genres, like The Beatles for rock and roll and Marvin Gaye for R&B, but even those guys were influenced by people and musicians before their time.

My opinion is that new music is created all the time, and that amateurization is HELPING with these new sounds.  Yes, it saturates the market, but it also widens the spectrum of material being created.  Of course there’s shit, but there’s also GOLD.  Giving the Average Joe a chance to make music opens a whole new WORLD of possibility for the overall sound.  The industry will adapt to these new artists, and as always, for everyone one new musician discovered, thousands will be left behind, but with new technology, millions more will get the chance to follow their dreams and change the music world.

So Lanier is right to the degree that old sounds are used for new music, but it’s more of an influence thing.  Amateurization opens up new possibilities for sound, and gives EVERYONE a chance to make something new.

Sep 29 2010

Response – Post 4

Published by

This week I thought I’d answer one of Charlotte’s questions: Look at any newspaper website and you can see that trolling is an issue in the comments section. Lanier believes that the design is mostly to blame. On many sites you have to sign up in order to leave comments, but with the ease of making a new email address and leaving a fake name it is easy to become anonymous. How do we design these sites better so that there is interactions between users but not the constant lack of respect that takes place online?

I think this is a really interesting question that calls into play a lot of issues surrounding user privacy and how we can best utilize the Internet for public good, rather than harm. Currently, it’s simple for users to create fake email accounts, names and ways of identifying themselves for sites that require some sort of log-in in order to comment; however, many sites still allow anonymous, free-flowing comments where user identification is not required at all. I agree in part with Lanier that it is website interfaces and designs that make anonymity effortless and thus encourage and promote trolling, however, as we continue down the path of interactivity, new methods must be put into place in order to protect all users and direct conversations into meaningful areas. I don’t think “directing” a conversation can be considered censorship if the goal of doing this is to simply eliminate unhelpful, unnecessary or abusive comments. However, where the issue becomes tricky is HOW to best direct conversations. Right now a lot of websites have someone who monitors comments and deletes any that are inappropriate. Some websites also have software that flags comments that use specific words (like swears) for review. These are all good steps in the right direction, however, there needs to be more. Maybe one solution is not necessarily changing the website design to require all users to identify themselves, but to have a way to track comments back to users and be able to hold them accountable. This way users who want to comment anonymously can continue to do so and keep a certain level of privacy, but also know they will be held accountable if their comments are inappropriate or harmful.

I think as we continue to explore this issue a lot of new ideas and innovations will begin to pop up as to how to best “track” users and continue to improve everyone’s web experience. However, we must be cautious that we do not stifle people’s voices or censor them in a way that might devalue the interactive experience.

Sep 26 2010

Framing Week 5

Published by

1. Lanier believes that some of the ways in which program and use computers today could be updated. How can we do this without changing the foundation that the modern Internet was built on? By changing one feature of programming, how would other features/websites/technologies change?

2. How are mob wisdom and individual wisdom at odds as Lanier suggests? Can the two co-exist? For example, can we retain the power of the individual even with sites like Twitter and Wikipedia?

3. How do media convergence and participatory culture affect the way we view and create media? Jenkins is arguing that they are somehow related to the Star Wars phenomenon in that we are able to create commentary, spoofs and satire relating to the film. How does this cross over into other genres and examples?

Sep 26 2010

Week 5 Framing Questions

Published by

  1. Lanier talks about a “Fourth Quadrant.”  I am unclear as to what this quadrant system refers to, and specifically what are the other three quadrants in regards to crowd schemes?
  2. Lanier spends a large part of the first chapter talking about a Circle of Empathy.  He says that when you change your circle, you redefine your self.  This seems a little strong to me.  Are we so wrapped up in who we associate with that we are redefined completely when we change our circle of empathy?
  3. Jenkins talks about convergence in both grassroots campaigns and in corporate media.  I understand how fan productions are part of grassroots convergence of media.  But, how does grassroots Star Wars fan productions fit into corporate media convergence?

Sep 26 2010

Media convergence and “Hive Minds”

Published by

Jenkins talks about media convergence, or the overlap of content into several different forms of media, as a major corporate strategy of today.  How does the ever-evolving world of fan fiction affect this system, and how does it influence what new content is professionally produced?

Parodies and fan-made films are popping up everywhere. Based on this, as well as the fact that almost anyone can pick up the technology needed to produce a film, how do you think amateurism will affect the future of digital cinema and the film industry in general?

Lanier’s take on the “hive mind” that Web 2.0 and technology are creating is pretty unsettling and cynical. While his opinions are over-the-top, he makes some decent points throughout. One the stuck out for me was his stance on music, and how nothing original has been created since the 90s.  He claims that all we do now is steal from previous artists.  How accurate do you think his statement on music is, and how is amateurism affecting the production of music today?