Chapter 7: Evaluating and Controlling Technology CSE/ISE 312 Chapter 7: Evaluating and Controlling Technology

Outline Evaluating Information The ‘Digital Divide’ Neo-Luddite Views of Computers, Technology, and Quality of Life Making Decisions About Technology

Evaluating Information Expert information or ‘wisdom of the crowd’? Daunting amount of information on the web, much incorrect Search engines are replacing librarians, but Web sites are ranked by popularity, not by expert evaluation Search engines give prominent display to party who pay them Wisdom of the crowd - ratings of website by public, democratic journalism for news 3rd: Search engines give prominent display to content providers who pay them, libraries do not. 4th: Democratic journalism: readers submit and vote on news stories. Wikipedia - has more than 600 million words, compared with Encyclopedia Britannica at 40 million words Those on tech., sci., history, literature may be more reliable than politics and sensitive current events Most articles have high quality and are valuable because of the last bullet

Evaluating Information Wikipedia: Written by volunteers, some posts are biased/inaccurate Although anyone can write, most people do not Those that do typically are educated and experts 3rd: Search engines give prominent display to content providers who pay them, libraries do not. 4th: Democratic journalism: readers submit and vote on news stories. Wikipedia - has more than 600 million words, compared with Encyclopedia Britannica at 40 million words Those on tech., sci., history, literature may be more reliable than politics and sensitive current events Most articles have high quality and are valuable because of the last bullet

The Need for Responsible Judgment Wisdom of the crowd Problems of unreliable information are not new The Web magnifies the problems Rating systems are easy to manipulate Responsibilities of site operators Should identify user-supplied content Make clear which information has been verified False info, story in newspapers, book, radio, historical movies mix truth and fiction. Shows: bought votes for good shows, pay to cheer for show, pay to boo the rivals - Some say the Internet gratifies the mediocrity of the masses - Critics argue that the popularity, voting, and consensus do not determine truth One good step is to determine who sponsors the site - Ultimately we must find sites, reviewers, ratings, editors, experts, and other sources that we trust. For children (p355) : Basic social and legal forces help. - Freedom of speech to provide responses, corrections, alternative viewpoints. - Teachers, parents, competition, fraud and libel laws. - Ppl who care volunteer to write/review/correct online information

Narrowing the Information Stream The Web narrows information streams Some critics see the web as significantly encouraging narrowness and political extremes by making it easy for people to avoid seeing alternative opinions Searching online “puts researchers in touch with prevailing opinions, but this may accelerate consensus” and miss less popular but very relevant work People are seeing filtered information Search engines, social media services personalize results based on location, past searches, profiles, etc.

Abdicating Responsibility New tools have displaced skills that were once important Convenience of using a computer can encourage mental laziness Reading brief snippets replaces reading books and long articles Need to avoid emphasis of data over analysis, facts over understanding and evaluation 1. Mental laziness: Publishing software and web page design tools lead ppl to focus on layout, fonts, graphics at the expense of thoughtful writing, correct grammar, word usage, correct information that require hard mental effort. 2a. Writing: real research & writing vs. cut & paste from Web pages 2b. Thinking: emphasizes analysis rather than data, Understanding/analysis vs. fact Last bullet: I did what the computer program recommended, I did what my professional judgment and experience recommended If the former is stronger, doctors and other professionals my abdicate personal responsibility

Abdicating Responsibility People willing to let computers do their thinking Reliance on computer systems over human judgment may become institutionalized Fear of having to defend your own judgment if something goes wrong 1. Mental laziness: Publishing software and web page design tools lead ppl to focus on layout, fonts, graphics at the expense of thoughtful writing, correct grammar, word usage, correct information that require hard mental effort. 2a. Writing: real research & writing vs. cut & paste from Web pages 2b. Thinking: emphasizes analysis rather than data, Understanding/analysis vs. fact Last bullet: I did what the computer program recommended, I did what my professional judgment and experience recommended If the former is stronger, doctors and other professionals my abdicate personal responsibility

Computer Models A collection of data and equations describing, simulating characteristics and behavior of things Example models Population growth, Cost of proposed government program, Effect of second hand smoking, When we will run out of natural resources, Threat of global warming, Earthquake, flood prediction

Computer Models Evaluating Models How well do the modelers understand the underlying science? Models necessarily involve assumptions and simplifications How closely do the results correspond with those from physical experiments or real experience?

Why Models May be Inaccurate Why models may not be accurate We might not have complete knowledge of the system we are modeling The data describing current conditions or characteristics may be incomplete or inaccurate Computing power inadequate for the complexity of the model It is difficult, if not impossible, to numerically quantify variables that represent human values and choices Ethical responsibility of professionals/modelers to honestly and accurately describe the results, assumptions, and limitations of their models 1st bullet: corresponds to 1 in previous slide 2nd to 4th: correspond to 2 in previous slide

The “Digital Divide” Digital divide: Some groups of people have access to and regularly use information technology, while others do not. Focus of discussion shifts over time as more ppl acquire digital tech. In 1990s, on access for poor people, rural or demographic grps. Now on divide between developed and developing countries. Haves/have–laters, not haves/have-nots

Trends in Computer Access New technologies only available to the wealthy The time it takes for new technology to make its way into common use is decreasing Cost is not the only factor; ease of use plays a role Entrepreneurs provide low cost options for people who cannot otherwise afford something Government funds technology in schools As technology becomes more prevalent, the issues shift from the haves and have-nots to level of service 1st bullet: “haves and have-laters”, rather than “haves and have-nots” 3rd bullet: ease of use affects access by the general population. Software innovations: point and click graphical user interfaces, web browsers, search engines made computer more comfortable for ordinary people. Advocates of universal access see access as a positive right (claim right) - sth. Society must provide for ppl who can’t afford it. Those who emphasize negative rights object mandatory and tax-funded programs, it violates the liberties of business owners or taxpayers who must pay for them.

The Global Divide and the Next Billion Users Approximately one billion people worldwide have access to the Web; approximately five billion do not Non-profit organizations and huge computer companies are spreading computer access to people in developing countries Bringing new technology to poor countries is not just a matter of money to buy equipment; PCs and laptops must work in extreme environments Some people actively working to shrink the digital divide emphasize the need to provide access in ways appropriate to the local culture - One laptop per child, $100 laptops. Intel “World Ahead” $1billion over 5 years to push computer and Internet to developing countries. MS/Intel thousands of computer kiosks in rural India. - Farmers/fishermen use computers to learn better farming techniques, up-to-date pricing. Food production and economic well-being improve. 4th bullet: some say access can hurt the poor by loosening the bonds of tradition. In many countries, access is one-way, entertainment oriented, commercial. It may accelerate exodus of untrained unprepared young ppl from rural to cities.

Neo-Luddite Views of Technology Computers eliminate jobs to reduce cost of production Computers manufacture needs; technology causes production of things we do not need Computers cause social inequity In England in 1811-1812, ppl burned factories and mills (Luddite: 200 yrs ago in England) Many were weavers who had worked at home on small machines The most dramatic symbol of opposition to the Industrial Revolution Luddite: a derisive description for ppl who oppose technological progress To non-Luddites, it is to reduce effort needed to produce goods and services. While both statements say nearly the same thing, the first suggests massive unemployment, profits for capitalists, and a poorer life for most workers. The second suggests improvements in wealth and standard of living. A common criticism of capitalism is that it survives by convincing us to buy products we do not need. Luddites argue, similarly, that technology causes production of things we do not need. Luddites believe that advertising, work pressure, or other external forces manipulate buyers.

Neo-Luddite Views of Technology Weaken communities, thwart development of social skills Computers separate humans from nature and destroy the environment Benefit big business and big government the most Do little or nothing to solve real problems In England in 1811-1812, ppl burned factories and mills (Luddite: 200 yrs ago in England) Many were weavers who had worked at home on small machines The most dramatic symbol of opposition to the Industrial Revolution Luddite: a derisive description for ppl who oppose technological progress To non-Luddites, it is to reduce effort needed to produce goods and services. While both statements say nearly the same thing, the first suggests massive unemployment, profits for capitalists, and a poorer life for most workers. The second suggests improvements in wealth and standard of living. A common criticism of capitalism is that it survives by convincing us to buy products we do not need. Luddites argue, similarly, that technology causes production of things we do not need. Luddites believe that advertising, work pressure, or other external forces manipulate buyers.

Accomplishments of Technology Increased life expectancy Elimination or reduction of many diseases Increased standard of living Assistive technologies benefit those with disabilities

Making Decisions About Technology Discussion Questions Can a society choose to have certain specific desirable modern inventions while prohibiting others? How well can we predict the consequences of a new technology or application? Who would make the decisions?

The Difficulty of Prediction Each new technology finds new and unexpected uses The history of technology is full of wildly wrong predictions Weizenbaum argued against developing speech recognition technology. Mistaken expectations of costs and benefits Should we decline a technology because of potential abuse and ignore the potential benefits? New technologies are often expensive, but costs drop as the technology advances and the demand increases Can a society choose to have certain specific desirable modern inventions while prohibiting others or prohibiting whole technologies? How well can we predict the consequences of a new technology or app?

Future Computers Intelligent Machines and Super-intelligent Humans - Or the End of the Human Race? Technological Singularity - point at which artificial intelligence or some combined human-machine intelligence advances so far that we cannot comprehend what lies on the other side We cannot prepare for aftermath, but prepare for more gradual developments Select a decision making process most likely to produce what people want