Click here to listen to my final podcast discussing my Notre Dame memories.

Computer Science Education

Let me make my position clear from the start. Coding should not be a requirement in any schooling. However, let me also be clear that I strongly believe coding classes should be available at most (ideally all) schools. Although knowledge of a language like Java or Python is a very powerful tool, it pales in comparison to knowledge of mathematics or English (sorry CS majors!) While math and English are used in every facet of life and in every career and more basic job, computer coding is a specific skill necessary for a relatively small number of jobs. The point of general education at the K-12 level is to prepare students for life as successful human beings, not for life as successful computer coders. Indeed, even though coding and computer science skills can be valuable for all students, they simply won’t be necessary for most students later in life. The current class of computer science majors, 79 people in all, represent just 3.5% of the total Notre Dame Class of 2016. Even more telling is the fact that although the number of devices running computer code increases rapidly every year, the number of people needed to write code will not increase nearly as fast. The demand for software professionals simply will not increase to the point where every child will be encouraged to consider going into computer science or software development.

With all that said, it would be good to see computer science and coding classes available in every high school. As we’ve discovered in other readings, too many disadvantaged students are never even given the opportunity to code. Consequently, the professional ranks of software developers are too heavy with white males and foreign nationals and others descended from East Asia. The key to solving this diversity crisis lies chiefly in giving a wider variety of students experience with coding at the high school level so that they know what they’re getting into before choosing to become computer science majors. Students who are given the opportunity (not forced to, let’s be clear) learn even just a bit of C or Java before college are far more likely to choose coding as a way of life, both in college and afterward. However, students who are given such an opportunity are also much less likely to foolishly choose computer science as a major, only to drop out after a year or two. So, it’s very important to give students the chance to learn some coding at an age where they can cognitively handle it, but are not committed to doing it for the foreseeable future.

Although the readings give some good reasons why computer science classes should be a requirement, the truth is that such a development is not reflective of the reality on the ground. President Obama’s trademark idealism and optimism shine through in his push for widespread (and probably required) computer science education, but such is simply not necessary. Rather, it’s important to make computer science education an option at all high schools, especially ones which serve typically disadvantaged students. Only when students are given the choice to learn some coding before college will they truly be able to understand what might lie ahead within the nation’s computer science departments, and even more importantly, what might lie ahead within the world’s tech companies. Furthermore, once students know what they might be able to make of their lives by choosing to learn code, the diversity crisis within the tech industry will be solved. It’s clear that such a choice has to be given to every student during high school. 

Project #4

Click here to listen to the podcast covering Option #2.

Trolling

                Trolling is the deliberate usage of technology to harm others, typically through the use of hateful or manipulative words. Coming in many forms, trolling became widespread with the rise of social media and the inclusion of comment sections on most websites. Another key component of trolling has to do with the fact that online forums, social media, and comment sections are often anonymous. Anonymity enables people to say (type, in this case) things which they would not normally say in real life. YouTube is a famous playground for trolls. Since YouTube does not require users to supply their real names, people feel free to say whatever they want. Often one can find hateful remarks and insults in the comment section for just about any video. These comments are usually threatening toward the subject(s) of the video, the uploader, or the cause or idea associated with the video. Sometimes the comments are relatively harmless in actuality, other times the comments can be full-on harassment, potentially psychological and/or sexual in nature. In the case of GamerGate, these instances of harassment can destroy careers and ruin lives.

                Tech companies have the obligation to do their utmost to cut down on trolling. One would think that the simplest method to cut back on trolling would be to remove anonymity from the internet. However, as Slate mentioned, anonymity can be a crucial factor online. People who live in countries without free speech rely on anonymity to express their opinions to the outside world. Additionally, anonymity enables people to inspire change without allowing personal biases and prejudices to influence the situation. Although trolling very often technically falls under the category of “free speech,” it is harmful to the greater good just as often. As providers of goods and services, technology companies have at least some responsibility to ensure the safety and security of their customers. In order to do so, it is important for companies like Google and Twitter to work to cut down on trolling.

                Trolling of the GamerGate sort is perhaps the worst thing the internet enables us to do (except, perhaps, the ability to use Tor to anonymously buy illegal weapons and traffic people). GamerGate and similar trolling of Robin Williams’s daughter caused deep psychological damage to those involved. On the other hand, petty trolling within a YouTube comment section is relatively harmless. For example, there is one particular USC fan who consistently writes stupid comments under Notre Dame football highlight videos. This troll’s comments have not ruined lives, nor have they affected any real change in the world. Usually, one or two ND fans will simply tell him to stop trolling. For harmless trolling such as this, the only way to deal with it is to deny the troll the attention they seek. If no one engages with a harmless troll, said troll will usually go away. However, if a troll does make comments which cause genuine damage, it seems logical that some sort of prosecution should occur. When I browse the internet, I very rarely contribute to forums or comment sections. I am a classic lurker, consuming vast amounts of content without actually contributing much to the content. Aside from the occasional social media post, Reddit post, or Wikipedia edit, I don’t post online very often. So no, I am not a troll. 

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is the usage of transistors in a microprocessor to mimic the actions of neurons in a human brain. According to ComputerWorld, “artificial intelligence is a sub-field of computer science. Its goal is to enable the development of computers that are able to do things normally done by people -- in particular, things associated with people acting intelligently… any program can be considered AI if it does something that we would normally think of as intelligent in humans.” Over time, as the concept of artificial intelligence has matured, several sub-categories of AI have developed. These include general and narrow AI, and within each of those, strong AI, weak AI, and hybrid AI.

General artificial intelligence systems are those which are intended to perfectly and completely simulate human reasoning on any particular topic or task. Think “JARVIS” from the Iron Man movies or “HAL” from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Narrow artificial intelligence systems include those which are deigned to intelligently and efficiently carry out a specific task or train of reasoning. Such systems include Google’s AlphaGo and IBM’s DeepBlue, both of which were designed to carry out specific tasks (in both cases, board games) very well. Each form of AI can be implemented through strong, weak, and hybrid methods. Strong AI is a system designed to perfectly mimic the firing of neurons in the brain. A strong AI system, when the first one is built, will theoretically be a perfect replica of a human brain. Weak AI is a system designed to just get the task done, no matter whether a human-style pattern of reasoning is used. In between these two forms is hybrid AI, where the exact methods of human reasoning inspire but do not totally inform the methods of reasoning used by the computer.

AlphaGo, Deep Blue, and Watson are all proof of the potential AI has to become a permanent fixture of the world of the future. AlphaGo and Deep Blue are very effective implementations of narrow artificial intelligence. As The Atlantic points out, AlphaGo is able to “improve—and it is always improving, playing itself millions of times, incrementally revising its algorithms based on which sequences of play result in a higher win percentage.” Because AlphaGo is able to constantly improve its own algorithms, it is intelligent in a way that a static computer program could never be. By continually improving itself, it mimics very well the way in which humans practice sports and study for tests in an effort to improve their own algorithms. Watson is the first impressive implementation of general hybrid AI. While it does not come close to the level of JARVIS or HAL, it can perform a wide variety of logical and intuitive tasks very well. General artificial intelligence systems are currently very good at logic and computation. The key breakthroughs will come when such systems acquire intuition, as sense of morality, and the desire for self-preservation (the scary one!). Once general AI takes on these characteristics, it will be able to rival the power of the human brain.

The Turing Test is a good indicator for narrow AI systems, where the test can be adapted rather well to the specific task the AI system is meant to carry out. However, when it comes to general AI, the test doesn’t hold up as well simply because it cannot test enough variables to accurately determine intelligence. Since perfect general AI will work just like a human mind, it would follow that general AI should be able to beat a Turing Test every time. Once we reach the point where biological and electronic computers become indistinguishable, or perhaps even inseparable, we will have come to the singularity. Ethically, there is no problem with the singularity in general. On an individual basis, certain computers are bound to act unethically, just as certain people are bound to act unethically. Such a dynamic is necessary for the proper functioning of society. 

Net Neutrality

               As summarized by The Verge, net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) cannot charge customers different rates to receive different network performance and priority. For example, AT&T cannot charge Netflix higher rates because they push much greater amounts of data through AT&T’s (and others’) network. The Verge explains that:

“The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. ‘A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management,’”

When the FCC mentions “paid prioritization,” they are referring to the practice of configuring the network to favor certain traffic based on how much was paid for that traffic or how much its speedy transmission might benefit the network provider. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “the FCC produced rules that we could support… We want the internet to live up to its promise, fostering innovation, creativity, and freedom. We don’t want regulations that will turn ISPs into gatekeepers, making special deals… and inhibiting new competition, innovation, and expression.”

                Basically, The Verge, the EFF, the Reddit community, and millions of other entities and individuals argue for net neutrality because they believe that the internet should be an open and unencumbered medium for the transmission of ideas, knowledge, and entertainment. Supporters of net neutrality suggest that prioritization, throttling, and suppression of certain packets traveling through a network will result in the loss of the freedom of ideas and data which is so critical to their vision of the internet. Detractors of net neutrality, including the woefully misguided Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorfman, suggest that net neutrality flies in the face of free-market capitalist economics. Dorfman gives this analogy: “This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different.” Although I too am a staunch supporter of the free market, Dorfman’s argument makes absolutely no sense to me. Just because content creators and consumers might be willing to pay for better and faster transmission of data doesn’t mean that ISPs should make this an available feature.

It has become increasingly clear in the last decade that computing is becoming a utility commodity, much as the same as electric power, natural gas, or water. Electric companies aren’t allowed to charge certain people higher rates because they draw more current from the grid, nor are they allowed to charge (x) dollars for 120 volt service and (x*2) dollars for 240 volt service. Rather, electric companies simply charge customers a single rate based on how much power they draw from the grid. Users of electricity know that as long as they pay this one rate, they will receive the electric power they need. Similarly, water providers are not allowed to charge higher rates for “more pure water.” This would be an abomination as it would directly and negatively impact the health of people with fewer means. If net neutrality didn’t exist, the sound operation of the economy would be in jeopardy. Modern free-market economics assumes that consumers behave at least somewhat rationally. Central to consumers’ rationality is their reasonable access to all potential information before making consumption decisions. Net neutrality protects reasonable access to all potential information. Clearly, since computing is becoming a public utility and since it allows sound operation of the economy, net neutrality is necessary. The internet is indeed a public service and fair access should be a basic right. 

Project #3

Click here to view a letter to Congress regarding encryption.

Reflections:

Is encryption a fundamental right? Should citizens of the US be allowed to have a technology that completely locks out the government?

Insofar as privacy is a fundamental right, encryption is also a right. As I pointed out in my letter to Congress, encryption is both a human and a legal right. It's easy to demonstrate that the Fifth Amendment proves that encryption is a legal right. It's a bit more difficult to prove that encryption is a human right. The proof lies in the fact that a lack of encryption would very likely lead to human suffering, as I explain in the letter. Anything which, when lacking, leads to human suffering is a human right. Consequently, US citizens should be guaranteed encryption. As the Declaration of Independence stated, "all... are endowed... with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Removal of encryption would go against all three supposedly-inalienable rights since unprotected data could lead to loss of life, suspension by law enforcement of certain freedoms, and financial or other personal loss: a removal of happiness.


How important of an issue is encryption to you? Does it affect who you support politically? financially? socially? Should it?

Encryption is important to me not from an ideological standpoint, but from a legal and logical perspective. The U.S. Constitution very clearly grants American citizens various rights, the maintenance of which, in the modern digital age, necessitates encryption. Politicians who are anti-encryption will generally not receive my support in the future, as encryption will be central to my career in the finance industry where secure data and trade secrets are very important. It seems reasonable to expect politicians to support encryption since so many people's lives and careers depend on it, as I've explained above and in the letter.


In the struggle between national security and personal privacy, who will win? Are you resigned to a particular future or will you fight for it?

It's unfortunate that the 21st century has been defined by issues of "national security." Regrettably, the political climate is one in which it is easier to see politicians moving away from encryption rather than towards it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bill not unlike the fictitious one I laid out appear within the next few years. The question will be whether my predictions of significant personal and financial loss due to the lack of encryption will actually come true. If they do, it will be incumbent upon politicians to reinstate encryption immediately. Ideally, however, politicians will recognize that it's very close to, if not actually, illegal to remove encryption from consumer and corporate electronics in the first place. I'd be willing to fight for a world which includes encryption, and I'm sure my future employers will be willing to bring their resources to bear in the fight as well.