pickledasparaguss

[pickledasparaguss]

Blog Post 5: Generative AI - Existential Threat?

"AI offers a glimpse into one of the biggest and most kind of existential threats to humanity. The question we're all going to be tackling, and the battle that's going to be happening politically and regulatory wise, and perhaps even between nations in the years to come is who owns the AI, who owns the models, what can they do with it and what are we legally going to be allowed to do with it?"

This is a quote from American entrepreneur and businessman David Friedberg and his thoughts on artificial intelligence and where we're headed with it. The reason why I chose this quote is because what stuck with me was the words "who owns the models."

The reason why I became particularly interested with this statement is because when we're discussing AI, at least in this day and age, what you hear a lot of is the topic of regulations. Who owns what and who is granted access.

This reminded me of a podcast I recently watched which included Elon Musk discussing the potential dangers of AI and goes on to talk about regulations, in this podcast he states. "Regulations are really only put into effect after something terrible has happened, if that's the case for AI. and we only put in regulation after something terrible has happened, it may be too late to actually put the regulations in place as the AI may be in control at that point." I love AI but don't get me wrong, I'm a bit uneasy. Whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not, AI is simply the next step in technological advancement. And although I don't think AI will be an existential threat on a physical or apocalyptic level, I think on a philosophical sense it can be.

What worries me the most in regards to AI is the amount of misinformation that can be so easily accessed and passed around. In an article by the Independent, Sankaran writes about how ChatGPT "cooks up fake sexual harassment scandal and names a real law professor." And it actually provided evidence for its claim in the form of a fake Washington Post article that created a citation, too.

Although we know misinformation can be a problem, we don't actually have anyway to measure how much of this misinformation is being accessed and how fast it's growing. Furthermore, how this misinformation is affecting the lives and wellbeing of others.

Going back to my quote regarding regulations, in an article by the Pew Research Centre 51% of the U.S public thinks that tech companies and AI should be more regulated, and it is highly likely that AI will indeed be regulated; the question is though, will it be like Musk had discussed and be too late?

Then it gets into if we did have regulations, would that create more of a divide between those who have greater access to AI versus those who do not? With that, how will people react to the new regulations, will there be backlash? Because AI allows us a quicker, greater search for knowledge, would it be unfair to ban certain things to the general public that was once available? I'm sure this would create some issues. To end it off though, do I believe AI is an existential threat? I believe it poses its threats, yes. But I don't believe allowing AI into our spaces is going to be the end all be all to our world. I don't believe it's going to be robots taking over the world but rather AI will have such an impact on our souls and minds, that it will alter the way we view ourselves and each other to the point where it can indeed become detrimental to our wellbeing by possibly degrading us of our human experiences and abilities.

[pickledasparaguss]

Blog Post 4: "Bitcoin is not a viable currency because it requires an unsustainable amount of energy to process each transaction." Look, when it comes to Bitcoin and the topic of cryptocurrency I'm truly not your girl for this as I require much more time to delve into the research of what cryptocurrency is and how it even works. Although it is a fascinating topic, it's not something myself nor those around me discuss very often so it feels rather foreign. Take everything that I am saying here more as just an opinion piece based on what I've been able to conjure up rather than something that's factually based, because when it comes to this subject, I'm about as useless as a glass hammer. That being said, in regards to the proposition I think it doesn't just come down to if bitcoin is a viable currency solely based on the fact that it requires an unsustainable amount of energy. But rather that it's not really much of a viable currency in general. After watching the video on what Bitcoin is and how it actually works as well as looking into my own research. The entire idea of Bitcoin feels extremely unsteady. This quote from economist Eswar Prasad pretty much backs this idea of potential instability: "While Bitcoin has failed in its stated objectives, it has become a speculative investment. This is puzzling. It has no intrinsic value and is not backed by anything. Bitcoin devotees will tell you that, like gold, its value comes from its scarcity—Bitcoin’s computer algorithm mandates a fixed cap of 21 million digital coins (nearly 19 million have been created so far). But scarcity by itself can hardly be a source of value. Bitcoin investors seem to be relying on the greater fool theory—all you need to profit from an investment is to find someone willing to buy the asset at an even higher price." Although this new idea of currency can be considered groundbreaking, there is no guarantee of longevity. Sure, you can say that cryptocurrency and Bitcoin specifically is not a viable currency because it requires an unsustainable amount of energy to process a transaction. But we've known that this type of cryptocurrency has concerning impacts on the climate. "Bitcoin price and energy use for Bitcoin mining are highly correlated. A 400% increase in Bitcoin's price from 2021 to 2022 triggered a 140% increase in the energy consumption of the worldwide Bitcoin mining network." What I want to argue is that cryptocurrency is not a viable source of currency at all. This is due to the fact that it's just straight up unpredictable. "who on Earth would use Bitcoin to buy a $5 latte when that same amount of crypto might very well be worth $50 a few days later? If a $20 bill could buy a pizza one day and steak and lobster dinner the next, it would be too unpredictable to be a practical medium of exchange — just like Bitcoin." It also just seems that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Now you may think, well couldn't you just say the same thing about the money we use right now? I would argue not fully. Because at least our Canadian dollar is backed up by the government, whereas Bitcoin comes from an unidentifiable source, how does that sound legit?

[pickledasparaguss]

Humans are the weakest link in any cyber-security system: Blog Post 3

I think what’s crazy about this new digitalized world we live in is that because we’re moving so incredibly fast, my opinion is that we’re truly not equipped or have the in-depth understanding for what is yet to come. I think we as humans are the weakest link because I think we’re the most vulnerable, and I believe that stems from a variety of factors. A major one being that humans aren’t robots or machines, we are capable of making mistakes and errors, and as technology becomes more advanced, we become more defenseless.   In terms of social engineering, especially in the CNN and CBC videos, it can be incredibly easy to manipulate others into performing actions or revealing personal information. This is due to the fact that it’s a type of security attack that doesn’t focus on technical hacking techniques but instead focuses on psychological manipulation and vulnerability to pull targets in. This pulls me towards my next point and the reason why I believe humans are the weakest link in any cyber security system is because by nature, humans are relatively trusting, and we for the most part, want to see the positive in others, and to that is a fault. Furthermore, even if you aren’t the most trusting person, we as human beings have everyday routines we follow. We wake up in the morning, check our phone, check our emails, check our bank statements, and we really don’t think much of it. I think we also live in such an upkeep society, and what I mean by upkeep is fast paced, really. We get so caught up in our lives we pay very little attention to the small details. One thing that made me think about this was during the CBC video where they were interviewing people off the street. These people looked relatively busy with their day, were probably heading somewhere or heading home, that they were rather off guard when they were having these questions asked to them.  “Is your password for most things your dog's name would you say?”  “Yeah pretty much.”  “Oh that’s cool! What’s your dog's name?” “It’s _____”  At that moment, we think to ourselves “wow, what an idiot!” But when you look at it from a more wide scale perspective, just like the same video said, it’s not about if it could happen to you but rather when it will happen to you. Because we are becoming so heavily advanced, we need to be putting our guards up now more than ever, and I just don’t mean in terms of firewalls or technical protections, I also mean in terms of how trusting we decide to be.  Now obviously, you can still get hacked while being cautious. We know for example that in the CBC video it wasn’t the woman’s fault she got hacked, rather it was the Rogers customer service agent that gave out her information willingly. However, even in that regard, that’s where companies should and need to be held accountable. These representatives need to have the proper training to make sure they’re not just giving out random information to anyone.  What it comes down to in my opinion is educating yourself, educating employees, and really just creating a culture based on privacy and security. Because we do live in an age now where everything is rapidly growing, but with that comes an array of new problems and obstacles that we need to assess. The biggest threat to cyber security isn’t an astonishing hack, but human error.

[pickledasparaguss]

"The debate between techno-optimists and techno-pessimists is over -- Facebook is a doomsday machine.  Social media platforms created the conditions and provided the means to organize the only breach of the US Capitol building in modern history."

When I was younger, I used to watch a lot of war documentaries, not because I was a violent child by any sort, but because my grandpa would put them on and I would join and watch. While watching these documentaries, viewing the images of torn cities and the haunting graves of victims, I always thought to myself, “how are we as humans capable of uprooting such evil?” How are we able to create such destruction?  Growing up I always thought if there were to be another war it would be with guns and bombs. Although nuclear warfare and the takeover of AI are still quite high on my list, the BBC podcast as well as the Atlantic article I read made some extremely valid points. It made me recognize that if we were to all turn against each other, which we know through history, can happen without digital technologies and social media platforms. However, if we were to all turn on one another, the use of media, especially with how accessible it is nowadays, would curate action much quicker than we could anticipate. That in itself is quite an unsettling thought.  I keep going back and forth with this proposition. Because the thing is I agree that Facebook is a doomsday machine, my personal opinion stands that each major social media platform we have can all count as doomsday machines. Because although Facebook, and each digital media platform were created in order to bring a wide variety of individuals with different backgrounds together, as someone who has had the chance to grow up in a very digitized world, I can confidently say social media really has only placed people in boxes and have separated us due to these algorithmic systems put in place in order to show us only what we’re interested in rather than giving us all opportunities to witness opinions that may differentiate from our own personal biases. And I do believe that there is much harm in putting a person in a room with ideas that only benefit them, because from there, there is no room to grow.  A quote from the Atlantic article I believe states this part perfectly in my eyes, “Every time you click a reaction button on Facebook, an algorithm records it, and sharpens its portrait of who you are. The hyper-targeting of users, made possible by reams of their personal data, creates the perfect environment for manipulation—by advertisers, by political campaigns, by emissaries of disinformation, and of course by Facebook itself, which ultimately controls what you see and what you don’t see on the site.  10 times out of 10, the algorithm is faster and more powerful than a person. At megascale, this algorithmically warped personalized informational environment is extraordinarily difficult to moderate in a meaningful way, and extraordinarily dangerous as a result.”  Although you’re not technically coercing the masses into following a specific status quo through physical force, with mega social platforms like Facebook, you are able to manipulate masses with any kind of information you can conjure up, and manipulate those people into believing taking physical action towards something, even if it involves harming others, is the correct thing to do because you’ve been manipulated. Truly, I think if you can control the minds and opinions of others though, that can be just as terrifying as a nuclear bomb, and it can be just as dangerous.  So, I guess that does bring me to my conclusion. Although I believe humans are capable of horrific things without the use of some sort of digital communication. I think the fact that because this specific style of communication is so accessible and targeted proves why it can also be seen as extremely dangerous and a means to organize something as unhinged as raiding the US capitol.   

[pickledasparaguss]

Virtually all marketing strategies seek to take advantage of human psychology.  "Dark Patterns" in web and software designs are no different and need no regulation. - TECH BLOG POST 1

Before this class I would have never second guessed the information I was putting out online. There was one part in Woellner’s Ted Talk where she discussed how sometimes you don’t even have to type out your information when you’re signing up for something, sometimes it just automatically inserts the information in there for you. Allowing ourselves to become easily accessible to whatever form takes place on the other side of our screen has become a normal part of our everyday life in this day and age. I believe this has to do with the fact that digitalization and technology are here to make our lives easier in some capacity, so in order for our lives to become a bit less complicated, there’s a trade, that trade is our privacy. For some reason when I think about this idea the first thing that comes to my mind is Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote 

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." 

I guess the reason why this quote comes to mind when I think about this topic is because although we are free to make our own choices, we are free to have such easy access to online browsers in order to alleviate stress and burdens in our everyday lives. We are also condemned to bear the responsibility of the consequences of these choices. We are condemned to understand that if we do take the risk of putting our private information out there, we must recognize the risks that accompany that. 

The article I decided to check out from the list was the one about DoorDash and how the food app is now warning people that if they don’t tip, then their food may be cold. I decided to take a look at this article because I’ve BEEN having issues with DoorDash prior to reading up on this. Although I have always tipped with DoorDash, a part of me wants to order something right now as I’m writing this blog just to see if the apparent “Orders with no tip might take longer to get delivered — are you sure you want to continue?” message will pop up if I input a $0 tip. 

As someone who works in the restaurant industry though, I understand where they're coming from. Personally, I make my living off my tips. However, I would never make someone feel bad for not tipping me, or deliver worse service. It’s not the drivers I have questions about with this but rather DoorDash itself considering I have tipped well and still have received my food an hour and a half later, on multiple occasions. 

This reminded me of what Woellner was saying about how these designers, you know, trick you in a way to make you feel bad or manipulate you. I think this example with DoorDash hits a few, if not all of the 4 points Woellner was talking about when it comes to dark patterns. I would say misdirection and the trick question are the closest ones. DoorDash will add the service fees and taxes after the initial price, PLUS you’ll be asked to tip on top of the already pretty high price. Then the “trick question” being “well are you sure you don’t want to tip? Your foods gonna get cold if you don’t.” So even if you don’t feel bad for the driver, they’re putting the onus onto the person ordering the food. 

Returning to the proposition, I would agree that yes, marketing strategies are known for taking advantage of human psychology because at the end of the day that’s what sells, may not be completely ethical, but if you can target a certain amount of people in order to gain profit and you can do that through algorithms and other dark pattern strategies and marketers have that option then it’s going to happen whether we like it or not. 

However, I think because we’re entering a whole new space in regards to technology, our world is becoming much more digitally advanced, far more than I think anyone, at least anyone I know, can comprehend. Saying that these software designs don’t require any regulation would be naive, because really, how can we be so sure that something so easily and globally accessible yet difficult to grasp is safe? We can’t. But that does bring up the next question which is even if we could get a hold on everything and create regulations, how would those regulations look? Would it even be possible especially with such algorithmic yet extremely popular websites like tik tok or instagram. 

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." 

We have the freedom to do and say and post what we’d like, but we must be aware of our digital footprint and the complications that may arise with it. I believe regulations, especially with how advanced technology is becoming is important, but the truth of the matter is there’s bad people everywhere that will try and continue to scam, belittle, and manipulate you, and hey, they could be in person or online. The most important thing is to be conscious about what you are viewing, what kind of information you’re giving out, and who there is to trust.

[pickledasparaguss]

why do you like asparagus

it’s yummy

[pickledasparaguss]

Hello Comp 301