Analyzing My Own Assumptions

Gaining an Understanding of My Own Cultural Assumptions 

In this post, I will assess my own beliefs and values on artificial intelligence and developmental research of advanced technology in general. This post is written somewhat in response to my previous post, in which I discussed how Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" speaks to a cultural background.

geralt, "Woman artificial intelligence" December, 2014 via pixabay.com.
CC0 Public Domain License.

1. I do not believe that I share the specific cultural fear of artificial intelligence addressed by Tilli in her text. I do not subscribe to the idea that artificial intelligence that humans create could become like Hal from 2001: Space Odyssey, a fear Tilli specifically mentioned in her article. However, I do have a fear of what humans could potentially do with such a technology, because as Tilli stated, such a powerful technology could legitimately shift global power if not developed probably and if programmed with arbitrary values that could target a group of other people in the world. Additionally, I honestly have to say that I identify with the evaluative cultural mindset that our society has toward technology, which emphasizes the value of utility. While I might try to appreciate technologies that don't have explicit purposes yet in their development, I simply appreciate scientific progress more when I can examine it through a utilitarian lens, and because of that I think I hold the very value that Tilli appeals to in her article. I think the prevalence of this value of usefulness mostly stems from the widespread presence of technology is today's society in which nearly every person has a personal computer, or a cell phone.

2. As stated above, I do not share the specific cultural value of distrusting the technology of artificial intelligence itself. While I do not think that the technology itself can be harmful or threatening, which many of our culturally-beloved films discuss and depict, I instead have a fear of what people can do with such technology. For example, the use of the discovery of nuclear fission is not dangerous, but what it was used for was destructive and worthy of fear, even (especially) today.

3. This piece was written in our own time and culture in the United States, and I think it accurately reflects the cultural values of utilitarianism in technology, as discussed above. However, I think this text uniquely examines artificial intelligence with a grander scope in mind than most would use in today's society. The article is part of a project, "Future Tense," which seeks to assess how technological discoveries made today will affect our society decades and even centuries in the future. Thus, I think this text does not reflect the mindset of immediacy that is so prevalent today, since most people are so concerned with the "now" in our fast-paced lives in which distance is minimized through technology. Rather, this piece seems to maintain a distance in its view of the development of artificial technology that leads to a unique perspective that otherwise may not be as easy to understand in our culture today.

4. This piece was written only seven months ago, so it is still very recent and relevant. I do not think that the cultural values referenced and addressed in the piece have changed in any significant way since then, although technologies using narrow artificial intelligence have grown, as self-driving cars are becoming realized now, indicating that the topic of Tilli's article is only becoming more and more important today.



Reflection

For my reflection, I read the works of Kelly and Trey for their analyses of their own cultural assumptions. In reading what they wrote, I noticed that they had varying degrees of agreement with their chosen texts. Kelly generally seemed to agree with her piece, but had specific points that she had different opinions on, such as the real effect of ice bathing for athletes' recovery. Trey, on the other hand, seemed to agree with his piece and had little against what it had to say on government spending in the military (Department of Defense).

What I learned from reading these analyses was that it's perfectly okay to disagree with your chosen text, and although I don't think this lesson will apply to my writing, I think it is an important one. In my case, I honestly agree to an almost complete extent with what my text's author had to say. but it may be helpful in my writing to stress qualifying points that I concede in agreeing with my chosen piece.