1) Take a stand in regard to the author's position. First—what is the author's position and do you agree or disagree with his premise? Why or why not? If you agree with the author, what about his argument do you find compelling? Offer supplementary evidence from your own observations or experience that would further support the article. If you disagree with the author, explain why his position is over-stated? Do you feel that the benefits of the internet outweigh the losses? How so?
2. What are the ethical or cultural issues related to the development of artificial intelligence?
3. Write your own argument based on a topic (or related) topic discussed in the article.
Is Google Making us Stoopid?
For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they've been widely described and duly applauded. "The perfect recall of silicon memory," Wired's Clive Thompson has written, "can be an enormous boon to thinking." But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.
I'm not the only one. When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they're having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media, recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. "I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader," he wrote. "What happened?" He speculates on the answer: "What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I'm just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?"
Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. "I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print," he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a "staccato" quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. "I can't read War and Peace anymore," he admitted. "I've lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it."
Anecdotes alone don't prove much. And we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition. But a recently published study of online research habits , conducted by scholars from University College London, suggests that we may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think. As part of the five-year research program, the scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited "a form of skimming activity," hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they'd already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would "bounce" out to another site. Sometimes they'd save a long article, but there's no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it. The authors of the study report:
It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of "reading" are emerging as users "power browse" horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.
Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it's a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. "We are not only what we read," says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. "We are how we read." Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts "efficiency" and "immediacy" above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become "mere decoders of information." Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.
The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that that's not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience who directs the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, says that even the adult mind "is very plastic." Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. "The brain," according to Olds, "has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions..."
...The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition. In a paper published in 1936, the British mathematician Alan Turing proved that a digital computer, which at the time existed only as a theoretical machine, could be programmed to perform the function of any other information-processing device. And that's what we're seeing today. The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It's becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.
When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net's image. It injects the medium's content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we're glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper's site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.
The Net's influence doesn't end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people's minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience's new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets. When, in March of this year, TheNew York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts , its design director, Tom Bodkin, explained that the "shortcuts" would give harried readers a quick "taste" of the day's news, sparing them the "less efficient" method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles. Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules.
Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that's been written about the Net, there's been little consideration of how, exactly, it's reprogramming us. The Net's intellectual ethic remains obscure.
Google's headquarters, in Mountain View, California—the Googleplex—is the Internet's high church. The company has declared that its mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." It seeks to develop "the perfect search engine," which it defines as something that "understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want." In Google's view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can "access" and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.
Where does it end? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains. "The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter," Page said in a speech a few years back. "For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence." In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, "Certainly if you had all the world's information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you'd be better off." Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is "really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale."
Such an ambition is a natural one, even an admirable one, for a pair of math whizzes with vast quantities of cash at their disposal and a small army of computer scientists in their employ. A fundamentally scientific enterprise, Google is motivated by a desire to use technology, in Eric Schmidt's words, "to solve problems that have never been solved before," and artificial intelligence is the hardest problem out there. Why wouldn't Brin and Page want to be the ones to crack it?
Still, their easy assumption that we'd all "be better off" if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google's world, the world we enter when we go online, there's little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.
The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network's reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. Most of the proprietors of the commercial Internet have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind as we flit from link to link—the more crumbs, the better. The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It's in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com December 24, 2021, 11:31 pm ad1c9bdddf
SOLUTION This solution is FREE courtesy of BrainMass!
First, to answer the questions, we will need to find the author's claim and how he (Carr) supports his argument.
Because the author begins by stating that he now has a hard time concentrating due to time spent online and then uses evidence to support that the internet is affecting people's thinking, we can know that his claim is about how the internet changing the way that people think. After nailing down the claim, we move onto summarizing the supporting evidence.
Author's claim: The internet is making it so that people can no longer think, focus, or read in the same ways they used to.
1. Scott Karp, a blogger, admits that he once studied literature and now does not read many books. He wonders if the internet is to blame. (paragraph 2)
2. Bruce Friedman, a blogger and University of Michigan Medical School professor, can't even hold focus to read a 3-4 paragraph blog post anymore, let alone a long text. (paragraph 3)
3. Carr admits above stories are only anecdotes (stories), and many of the effects may not be seen until further research is done. An early study from University College London noted rapid skimming behavior from participants, who would "'power browse' horizontally" rather than read full articles. (paragraph 4-5)
4. Developmental psychologist at Tufts University Maryanne Wolf believes "we are how we read" and states that people are no longer engaging with texts but simply decoding them quickly and efficiently. (paragraph 5)
5. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience at George Mason University, explains that the human brain is very moldable and can reprogram itself. (paragraph 6)
6. Carr states that the internet is now fulfilling many functions in our lives from alarm clocks to TV and everything in between. (paragraph 7)
7. Carr explains that the internet is designed to be intentionally distracting and diffuse our attention. (paragraph 8)
8. Carr notes that the internet has influenced other media like TV and print that now include pop-ups, shortened articles, etc. He states, "Old media have little choice but to play by new media rules." (paragraph 9)
9. Carr adds that we (the public/internet users) are not sure HOW the internet is reprogramming our thinking, which raises some ethical issues. (paragraph 10).
10. Google creators Sergey Brin and Larry Page want to make a search engine that is smarter than a human. Brin believes we would be "better off." Carr explains the ethical issues as he sees them - see part 2. (paragraphs 11-14)
11. Carr concludes that corporations have an interest in keeping us distracted as well as collecting the information that results.
So, to answer essay question 1, you need to decide whether you agree or disagree that the internet is negatively impacting people's ability to think, read and focus. If you agree, state why. Include which of the above points you believe are the strongest in Carr's argument. Add any stories or information from your personal life or research that help prove that it is true that the internet is negatively impacting people's ability to think, read and focus.
If you disagree, explain why Carr is wrong. It would be wise to select a few of his points from above and utilize your background knowledge or research to explain why they are not correct. Then, explain why the good points about the internet outweigh any negatives. Some possible positives could be ease of finding information, sharing content, connecting the world, ease of communication, etc.
Carr raises a number of ethical issues surrounding artificial intelligence. These appear mostly in paragraphs 11-16.
He believes the following problems are present:
1. It is problematic that intelligence is viewed as a series of concrete steps.
2. There is no room for thought or contemplation
3. Ambiguity (gray areas in our thinking) is seen as an error, "a bug to be fixed."
4. Artificial intelligence casts the brain as "outdated" and in need of an update
5. Corporations are collecting information about our habits, which can then be used for their own purposes.
To answer this portion, I would begin by saying, "Carr raises a number of ethical issues surrounding artificial intelligence" and explain what he believes. Then, add a few ideas of your own. To think of some, ask yourself, what would be bad or wrong about using computer intelligence rather than our real brains?
To answer this section, you simply must make a claim of your own. Anything from this article that sparked your curiosity will work, but here are a few ideas:
1. Are people "better off" with the use of artificial intelligence? - Take a yes or no stance and include 3 brief reasons that support your belief.
2. Is it positive or negative that other media (TV, print, etc) have started adopting elements of the internet (like popups and shortened articles). Take a stance and include 3 brief reasons that support your belief that this change is good or bad.
3. Is it okay that corporations track how we use the internet? - Take a yes or no stance and include 3 brief reasons that support your belief.