Reading 13: The New Literacy?

As we’ve discussed at various points throughout the semester, computer science and other related fields are increasingly becoming the main drivers of the modern, 21st century U.S. economy. For this reason, President Obama and others are pushing for computer science education to begin at younger ages and be more accessible prior to the college level through programs such as Computer Science For All. While I certainly believe this is a valuable and wise proposition, I also realize that there exist some barriers to fully implementing widespread youth computer science instruction. While it may be a stretch to dub it the “new literacy” at this point in time, I do believe that sooner than many think, computer science will be an essential set of skills that spans across a variety of fields and disciplines – even those not currently associated with it.

The arguments for introducing computer science to everyone, especially in K-12 schooling, are fairly straight forward. While the number of college students majoring in computer science is growing year by year across the U.S., computer science programs still often have less students than other disciplines both inside and outside of the engineering field. Introducing computer science at a younger age in a higher number of schools would present the field as a viable study and career path to a greater number of students. Speaking from experience, my high school did not offer many computer science courses, and I never had the chance to take the few that it did. As a result, I came to Notre Dame with a complete lack of computer science skills and only found my place in the field after first going through stints as both an electrical engineering and then computer engineering major. I certainly feel that my education would have benefitted from an earlier exposure to computer science, allowing me to find my calling earlier without the struggles of going through majors that weren’t the right fit. How many other students would have loved computer science but never gave it a try due to their lack of exposure to it?

Of course there do exist some obstacles to widespread computer science education at the K-12 level. As one of the articles for this week’s readings mentioned, there isn’t really a pipeline for certified computer science instructors to teach at the grade school and high school levels. Currently, college programs that provide degrees in lower level education often don’t include computer science skills in their curriculums. As a result, the vast majority of instructors in grade schools and high schools across the country don’t have the ability to teach computer science themselves. Bringing widespread computer science education to America’s youth is going to be a time and resource intensive process as programs and mindsets change to accommodate the new expectations.

Whether or not computer science at the K-12 level should be an elective or a requirement is a difficult question. I think at least one or a few basic level courses that introduce computational thinking, logic, and fundamental programming skills should be required as additive courses to the standard one already required in schools. Beyond that point, I think more advanced level courses should be offered as electives, and they should be able to replace other courses that might not interest a student as much, even if these courses are typically required parts of the standard curriculum. For example, I was required to take several history courses in high school, stretching through my senior year. While I valued these courses, I was pretty certain after my first one freshman year that I wouldn’t be pursuing anything related to history following high school. I would’ve jumped at the opportunity to replace my subsequent history courses with more valuable skills based courses such as those pertaining to computer science, but because the history courses were mandatory, I had no choice. I certainly think it will be a difficult balancing act to add required computer science to curriculums that have largely gone unchanged for many years, but ultimately America’s youth will be better off if given more options for classes and coursework that fit their interests and career ambitions.

While programming and computer science might not be everyone’s cup of tea, I do believe that anyone can learn to program if they put in the effort and receive the proper instruction. I don’t think this necessarily means that everyone should learn to program however. If programming and computer science don’t speak to you as an interesting pursuit, then that’s ok. The important thing is providing students a real chance at figuring out whether or not that is the case through the aforementioned initiatives to introduce nationwide computer science education at the K-12 levels of the schooling.

 

 

Project 4 – AI In The Movies

Our group did a podcast on option 3 for project 4, and group member Zach Imholte emailed a copy of the podcast to the teaching staff.

Reading 12: Trolls

The internet has revolutionized the way people interact and communicate in today’s modern world, but it has also given a new forum to what are commonly referred to as “trolls.” It isn’t the only technological advance beleaguered by troll behavior – since the proliferation of the telephone, mischievous youth have engaged in relatively mild troll-like prank phone calls – but it has given trolls their most powerful medium yet. When combined with the seemingly intrinsic internet attributes of anonymity and widespread reach, internet trolling can pose a significant threat to safety and common decency.

From simple anonymous threats to intricately planned personal attacks such as the story of a troll impersonating a woman’s dead father across various sites from this week’s set of readings, internet trolling often crosses the line beyond the joking or “kidding around” that trolls themselves often try to pass their deeds off as. I’ve read countless stories of children being relentlessly bullied online by trolls and even their own classmates. It doesn’t always do so, but trolling can and does ruin lives.

Most commonly, internet trolling manifests itself on comment sections, message boards, forums, and sites designed for communication and dialogue between strangers. These places often give power to trolls through their voting features, where a comment gets more attention via community voting. The most controversial comments often rise to the top, creating a competition among trolls to see who can say the most outrageous, hurtful thing. And with anonymity nearly guaranteed on most internet sites that require nothing more than an email address to sign up, trolls often have little to fear in terms of repercussions in their own lives.

After the last three paragraphs, it should be clear that I dislike the activities of internet trolls and consider their widespread internet reign a problem. Despite this, I still don’t believe that elimination of online anonymity is the solution. Anonymity is both a blessing and a curse online, but the benefits outweigh the negatives for a great deal of people. As evidenced by the reading from this week that discusses online anonymity for Google Plus users, anonymity can often be a good, vital tool for the oppressed. Activists and other individuals who would otherwise be in real danger for voicing their views require anonymity to continue using the internet as the powerful means for change that it is.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that the burden falls on technology companies to go through extraordinary measures to curtail internet trolling. Besides providing the already standard measures of blocking other users, filtering out profanity, etc., companies shouldn’t be responsible for constant vigilance over the free speech of the people who use their products. I certainly admire a company that sticks to sound morals and chooses to enforce conduct guidelines on its site, but unless the site/service is actively promoting bad behavior, the words of its users shouldn’t be an indictment of the company itself. We don’t expect phone companies or retailers like Apple to constantly monitor phone calls to weed out and report trolls and others who make hurtful comments over the phone, and we shouldn’t of internet companies either.

Trolling is a major problem on the internet, and I don’t have an easy solutions to it. Some people are always going to behave poorly, and for all the good it provides, I think the internet is still going to have its blemishes and negative spaces. Personally, I try to stay away from the common hotbeds of trolls. I frequent Reddit, but rarely dig too deep into comment sections. I watch videos on youtube, but hardly ever read the responses of other users to a video I may like. And I rarely ever post comments or replies myself. But staying away from comments doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Whenever I see another story about truly harmful online trolling, I’m convinced that perhaps the most affective – and admittedly hardest –  method of counteracting this problem is to look to the source. The people trolling and their mindsets are the real problem. If prevented from trolling online, they would simply find another method of negatively affecting others. Parents, educators, and society itself need to do a better job showing people, from an early age, that online trolling is no laughing matter.

Reading 11: Automation

As technology continually replaces jobs in almost every imaginable market – especially labor intensive manufacturing industries – society constantly faces the ethical question of whether or not automation is ultimately a good thing for society as a whole. Do speeding up the pace of production and lowering the cost outweigh the potential harm of increased unemployment that would likely result from near full automation? These aren’t easy questions to answer.

As it turns out, the debate over automation is nothing new. Even 19th Century Luddite textile workers feared the impact of new production “technology” such as spinning frames and power looms that would lower the need for their previously in demand skills. But should the advance of technology be halted to maintain the status of jobs that would be rendered obsolete otherwise? In my opinion, no. While groups like the Luddites may experience temporary issues related to new technology potentially replacing them in the workplace, society as a whole benefits when the free market is allowed to dictate how new technologies are employed. If new technology was prohibited from interfering with already existing job markets, we likely wouldn’t have a variety of modern conveniences and advancements. For example, commercial airplane travel wouldn’t have been allowed to supersede ocean liners and trains as the preferred method of long distance travel. Certainly ship and train companies experienced a decline in passengers and employees as a result of the rise of airplane technology and travel, but society as a whole has benefited from it. While this isn’t a direct correlation to our question of automation, it does exhibit the impact of new technology on a variety of industries and how it can have immediate negative aspects, but ultimately displays a net benefit over time as people adjust to a new normal. Someday, automation itself may even completely replace pilots in the airline industry, but a little immediate discomfort will be worth it for the likelihood of increased safety and other benefits.

In my opinion, people should look at automation as something that frees humans for other endeavors. With less people needed to man steps along an assembly line, more can spend their time creating, inventing, and pushing society forward at an even faster rate. Today’s youth would be wise to plan for an ever more automated future, making decisions on college majors and career paths that reflect this eventuality. This will prepare them for a world with less blue-collar, manufacturing jobs. The people who will be most negatively affected by more automation are those already entrenched in jobs that will be affected. One potential solution that has been proposed is a universal basic income. This idea seems a little too socialistic for many Americans to embrace, but we have to be open to all potential options in a future where there might not be enough jobs to go around. I’m still uncertain how I feel about the idea myself, but it might be worth considering, at least in the interim until society has adapted to increased automation and the workforce has been able to retrain for other roles. One does have to keep in mind that automation won’t be an overnight sensation. As evidenced by our discussion of the Luddites, automation has been an ongoing process for a long time, and thus far, everyone has been able to successfully adapt given enough time. We don’t still see Luddites on the local street corner protesting power looms.

Ultimately, I think automation is a good thing for society. As I touched on at numerous times previously, there will certainly be pain points along the way. But increased automation frees up society for expanded creative and intellectual work beyond the production line and service oriented jobs. I don’t think the developers and utilizers of automation should feel bad for pushing technology forward.  Who knows how many diseases we’ll cure or inventions we’ll think up when we aren’t spending our time driving busses or building mass produced cars.