Ding-dong the witch is dead. Psych, her name is Facebook and she’s still kicking (probably puppies).
In “Network Effects vs. Switching Costs” Doctorow briefly explains the development of the internet as we know it today. Back in the day, the internet wasn’t quite so interconnected until Gopher came along and started to change things. Doctorow then moves into an analysis of interoperability in technology. Specifically, Doctorow writes, “Computers work because they are interoperable,” (32) explaining why interoperable technology and software are so successful. It is at this point that Doctorow’s article begins to list a number of Facebook’s ethical failings. I found the many assides about Facebook kind of distracting, especially when the author admitted to being biased, “It may seem like I’m picking on Facebook, and in truth, I am.” (36) I just kind of ended up a bit confused by the reading because we were talking about one thing which went into another and then another without really connecting them: at least not in a way that made sense to me.
The next time someone calls you stupid, just ask them to define intelligence…and laugh in their face when they can’t.
Our readings from The Atlas of AI covered a lot of ground. So I’m just going to cover the highlights. First of all, if you’ve heard of Horse in a bookcase or Lil’ Sebastian, they pale in comparison to Clever Hans. Crawford uses the story of Clever Hans (a horse who was able to read body language in order to cheat on math quizzes) to introduce a discussion about what intelligence really is and how it’s made. This is specifically discussed in relation to AI.
In a later section, Crawford compares the development of AI to an atlas. AI contains seemingly limitless amounts of scientific, historical, and political information. However, this information will inevitably be influenced by the initial creator and/or the creators of contributing information. I’m not going to pretend that I really understand AI, but after this reading I think I’m on my way to kind of getting it.
What is content? It’s stuff.
Ok, I chose to end with this reading because it actually made sense to me. Basically, Eichhorn explains that content is something that exists inside something else. While a very simple concept, when we consider how content relates to the internet, we see that content can be informational or meaningless. The one trait that pieces of internet content seem to share, is that they exist.
Eichhorn goes on to cover the content industry. This is an interesting discussion as content is something which seems to have always existed. Painters, authors, musicians, and more are all content creators. If you think about “content creators” in the context of the internet, the term includes the previous groups and still more. Advertisers, influencers, and others are suddenly added to the pool. The way content is currently produced, comodified, and circulated is further explored, though, from my understanding of the reading, this is done more for explorations sake than to make any one specific point. It’s just interesting for me to think about how content has developed so far and how this might expand in the future.
Comments
4 responses to “What do you get when you cross Mark Zuckerberg, a horse, and AI? This”
I really want you to know that your post made me laugh more than a few times.
Doctorow’s reading and following discussion really did fold into one thing, which folded into another thing, and so on. I can comfortably admit that I didn’t follow at all times, but I still think the discussion was engaging.
Eichorn really made me think about how I define content as meaningless most of the time. It’s hard to think of the word without immediately thinking of clickbait YouTube videos for children (Don’t Drink The Among Us Potion at 3AM!) or silly TikTok skits. Despite my own jaded nature, content is more than that. It’s like a consumable in an RPG, it might bolster my intelligence stat, or my enjoyment stat, or something else, but it should be considered to be a boon.
Li’l Sebastian is a god compared to Hans. Argue with a wall.
I love your intros into each topic. It immediately grabs you and pulls you in, along with being hilarious. Definitely my favorite part about your post.
Doctorow was really biased and while the information she was giving was interesting and full of facts to back her up, it still just felt like her just getting her anger out about Facebook, like one big rant. I think, in a way, it is essential to consider why Facebook’s practices are a focal point in discussions about technology today. People need to learn about Facebook’s mistakes and not to do what they did.
The horse Han’s example at the beginning really opens our eyes. It highlights how our understanding of intelligence can be skewed by our interpretations and the context in which we evaluate it, especially when it comes to AI.
There’s so much content today on the internet, it’s hard to think of all of it defined by one simple word, even if that word’s definition is straightforward. Especially when it comes to ‘content creators.’ Like you said there are “Painters, authors, musicians” but now “Advertisers, influencers, and others are suddenly added to the pool.” The content industry just seems to keep expanding.
Oh my goodness, this was funny. I love how you used comedy to introduce something so idiotic, over the course of years, it has felt in a way, hysterical. I really liked your viewpoint on the facebook bash as something more of a bias outrage, presenting why it is awful, and stepping away from how computers are and will continue to be interoperable.
I think your viewpoint on content, describing in the context of its usage within internet as meaningless, and used by everyone and can be anything. I think that is such a valid point, especially since it can be justified as a very vague word to begin with.
This was such an enlightening post. I enjoyed all your witty humor when regarding Doctorow’s reading, which I also found to be an extremely biased perspective on Facebook. Not that I am a diehard Facebook lover, but it felt like beating a dead horse. Speaking of horses, I loved that you mentioned the horse that finessed a community of scholars and people alike. The story of Clever Hans in the reading was so random???, but also a great point was made, that intelligence is a lot harder to define. For me, I thought about how for a horse Clever Hans was a prodigy and extremely intelligence, but in regard to the human brain it’s… mediocre at best, which I feel diminishes how clever Clever Hans truly is. I think for a horse to learn all that it still means the horse is intelligent, but I felt the article made it seem as though Clever Hans was like every other horse, which to me threw me off. Anyways, I am on a rant now, so I will conclude this by restating how much I enjoyed your post. You were witty, yet informational. Overall, great post, and I can’t wait to read more from you!