Bostrom And Yudkowsky: Article Analysis

He uses words such as “dramatized” (para.1), “purely science fiction” (para.3) and “philosophical” (para.7) to invoke the irrationality of the fear of machines such that they would agree with his view. The use of Pathos is also observed in Tufekci’s article where she gave the anecdote of the call center worker being worried of losing his job. This further contradicts her purpose as it directs her readers into relating to the feelings of the worker. Furthermore, the constant re-emphasis of points such as “workers already feel like they are powerless as it is” (para. 17) due to the fact that “technology is used to “automate” the jobs and to take power away” (para. 16) does not provide any sense of reassurance to the readers  and cause them to waiver away from her

In this article, J. Holt, R. Blevins and B. Kuhns used the rational choice perspective through the article to explain how johns/ offenders adapt to law enforcement pattern to avoid being detected of committing crimes. Even when law enforcement makes measures to prevent offenders from committing crime, that does not stop the offender, rather, it makes the offender(s) change the way they are going to commit the act in a way that they would not get caught. Offenders can continue to adapt to these law enforcement changes that are constantly being made which also include police patrols around the neighborhoods, and grow more aware when to do something and when not to do something. Prostitution is usually categorized as a low risk crime but lately

In their article “Infection, Media, and Capitalism: From Early Modern Plagues to Postmodern Zombies” Stephanie Boluk and Wylie Lenz analyze the development of early modern plagues to postmodern plagues and reveal connections and impacts between the different forms plagues. The authors usw two early modern plagues narratives (The Alchemist and A Journal of the Plague Year) and contrast them with their analysis on two postmodern zombie films (Romero’s Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later) to show a development. In general, Boluk and Lenz explain plagues as common metaphors and expressions of unspoken anxieties,

Bromberg, S. E. (2011). The evolution of ethics: An introduction to cybernetic ethics. Retrieved from http://www.evolutionaryethics.com

In order to make an artificial intelligence (A.I) program the most human, it must include deontology in its framework, because the robot would have a clear sense of right and wrong, its actions would have both positive and negative effects, and it would emphasize its value as a human being. Deontology based ethics are “concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions” (BBC Deontology). Because the A.I would have a strict moral code, it would not stall in the limbo of “it depends”. Deontology provides certainty, so the A.I would always know what is a morally right action and what is not. This could yield positive and negative effects because some people would agree with the A.I’s reasoning when it came to making a decision,

Lately there have been more and more smart machines that have been taking over regular human tasks but as it grows the bigger picture is that robots will take over a lot of tasks now done by people. But, many people think that there are important ethical and moral issues that have to be dealt with this. Sooner or later there is going to be a robot that will interact in a humane manner but there are many questions to be asked like; how will they interact with us? Do we really want machines that are independent, self-directed, and has affect and emotion? I think we do, because they can provide many benefits. Obviously, as with all technologies, there are dangers as well. We need to ensure that people always

When dealing with humans everyone will have a different opinion on what is ethical, and robots will simply follow what programming they’re given, so the ethics will still be up to humans. Going back to the self driving car example, someone has to program what that car would do, and not everyone will agree on what they want. It may be possible diferent cars could have different programming depending on what the owner believes, but that would take away one of the greatest benefits of the self driving car, predictability. If all cars have the same programming, people can always tell what they’re going to do and act accordingly. If not it would be the same guessing game we have now. Next you have to think about error, since just like humans, robots make mistakes. This isn’t quite as important in daily activities where robots are much less likely to make mistakes than people as it is when considering those robotic weapons. What if a citizen happened to be near a battlefield? The robot may have no programming telling it not to attack, unlike a human who could see its a civilian. These are the thoughts we must be thinking and the questions we must be asking ourselves as the technological revolution

After watching the movie I, Robot, I find that many ethical issues come about from the technology shown in the movie. The movie takes place in 2035 and is about robots that are programmed with Three Laws: First Law-A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any harm to come to a human; Second Law-A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law; Third Law- A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws. Humans use these robots to do common tasks for them. Some of the ethical questions arisen from this movie include do robots have the ability to make emotional or ethical decision, are they entitled to the same rights as

I found Bourdieu’s article extremely difficult to understand. Although I read it in its entirety multiple times, I was still unable to comprehend what it was he was trying to say with his writing. Perhaps the text would have made more sense if I had read the Panofsky text it is responding to. However, I feel that even this exposure wouldn’t have been too helpful, for the majority of my frustration came from the lack of cohesion and long, convoluted sentences.

interact directly with the machine, or how they use the machine. However, with the advent of autonomous technologies like self-driving cars, the debate has shifted from the ethics of the human behind it, to the ethics of the intelligent machine itself. Ryan Tonkens writes, in an article about ethics and information technology, that “As machines become increasingly sophisticated, their ability to act out in the world becomes more pronounced, to the point where they will be able to (or already do) perform autonomous actions” (Tonkens 139). Technology is advancing so much that machines are entering

“First Law: A robot may not injure a human being…” is the passage from article that was written by famous scientist and author Isaac Asimov, who was first to bring the issue of software ethics to the public. From identity thefts, privacy issues, cyberattacks, cheating cars today this passage seems to have more meaning and power. I will explain how duty-driven ethical system can give a right framework and code of ethics that will set clear rules for making decision that will benefit society instead of harming it. Lenovo’s case with Superfish adware will be an example of ethical issues that organization could face. I will explore issue in detail and give set of paths that Lenovo could take to resolve it.

I assert that for a moral system to be necessary and applicable, there must exist a moral agent who possesses both the desire and the ability to choose. By denoting certain actions or ways of being as better, a moral system implies that there are also other potential actions and ways of being that are worse. The individual must choose between them. Without this element of choice, an action has no moral qualification. For example, a computer acts, but it does not choose its action. Consequently, while a computer can be judged better or worse in its ability to carry out an action, it cannot be judged responsible for the action. Rather, the person who uses or creates the computer is in fact responsible, for it is that person who chooses for it to act in a particular way. In a moral system, choice, responsibility, and the viability of judgment are linked inextricably.

The next consideration to distinguish a machine is one having a fault in their thought process, or one revealing that they are programmed to think and feel. Granted, this point isn’t very reliable for new “updates” as shown in the movie can be done to the software or the machine’s “brain,” leading to these un-human like qualities, to be fixed. These inhumane qualities are also a point of concern, for how do they define human qualities? Is it for someone to have the ability to empathize, for that quality can be lost to someone who is a mass-murderer. Does this make a very human being not human

In the past several years, technology has become so ubiquitous that it can now be found in parts of our lives that we once believed it would, and could, never play a part in. While the growing presence of technology in our day to day lives suggests a high compatibility, in certain instances, our lives, specifically our ideologies and moral beliefs, seem to conflict with technology. The development of the autonomous car and the ethical and moral dilemmas that can arise from this technology’s use, perfectly exonerate the incompatibility between our current moral and ethical beliefs and technological innovations. While our present view of morality may conflict with certain aspects of this technology, all in all, this struggle is desirable as it forces our society and community to think as a collective, solving the problem now in order to work towards the betterment of the human race.

There are different types of artificial intelligence that many institutes and companies believe in. However, they all share the same belief of a self-aware, conscious, human-like, computer system, the type of AI people fear. Disregarding that an AI is a computer much like a phone or laptop, one must consider that if something is sentient like a person or animal, should they be treated like one? And if not, is it discrimination or racism when it is treated like an item? Slavery treated people based on race or social status differently, the bottom being slaves. Some might argue that machines don’t have a “soul” or aren’t alive. There are hundreds of questions and ideas that have no clear