Blog Post #8: Artificial Intelligence and the Diffusion Theory

 Artificial intelligence has evolved very quickly to become one of the most potent technologies of the 21st century, transforming industries, altering communication, and upsetting traditional work patterns. To understand why AI has gained ground so quickly, and why others remain wary, the diffusion of innovations theory, which was outlined by Everett Rogers, provides an useful framework. The theory outlines how new technology diffuses over time through societies, categorized by types like innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.

AI diffusion began with an influx of innovators: researchers, developers, and tech-forward companies eager to tap its potential. They were later joined by early adopters — professional organizations like marketing, education, healthcare, and finance — that recognized AI's potential for automating mundane tasks, enhancing decision-making, and generating insights at scale. For these buyers, the promise of increased productivity, efficiency, and competitive edge outweighed risk concerns.

The rapid uptake can also be accounted for by the minimal barrier to entry: most AI software, such as

chatbots, and writing aids, are extremely easy to use or integrated into preexisting systems. One of the most popular AI tools, ChatGPT, can be used by simply visiting the website and asking freeform questions. That ready availability facilitated the early majority's utilization of AI, sometimes unknowingly.

However, not everyone has embraced the technology. Late adopters are likely more prone to skepticism, perhaps due to fear of job displacement, fear of data privacy, or general unease with rapid technological change. These people end up using AI, but only later on once it has become the norm.

The laggards are the people who refuse to use. These people may see AI as a direct threat to their jobs and a threat to productivity. This leads us to the idea of a tug-of-war game between the power of AI and the need for human creativity. Laggards are likely to be afraid that AI will become the dominant force of the world, and that humanity has a bleak future if we are not careful with AI.

There are downsides to AI. Its use can promote greedy decisions in the workplace or replace human effort. AI can reduce creativity in problem-solving. To the user considering adoption, then, the question is: are rewards worth costs? If AI can enable me to communicate more effectively, work more efficiently, or achieve new insight, that's powerful incentive. But if I could over-rely on hidden computer decisions or trade off what counts, then the reward is less clear.

Ultimately, the adoption of any communications technology, including AI, is an ongoing cost-benefit calculation. Diffusion of innovations theory cautions us that individuals use technologies not because they perform, but because they are compatible with social norms, address actual problems, and are accompanied by accepted endorsements. With further development in AI, so too will the range of adoption, influenced not only by what the technology can achieve, but by what individuals will accept.

Blog Post #7: Anti-War Messaging

Prior Restraint and the Spiral of Silence

The Spiral of Silence is the phenomenon in which individuals tend to silence themselves when they believe their opinion goes against the majority. Prior restraint is when the government prohibits speech or expression before it happens. Prior restraint is almost always unconstitutional; however, the government is still interested in controlling what is said, whether or not they do it outright. The spiral of silence allows the government to effectively prevent people from speaking out against the government by influencing the mass media.

                                    

Prior Restraint Exceptions

As stated before, the government, while constitutionally limited, has a desire to silence minority opinions. One of the exceptions to the prior restraint rule is the idea that threats to national security, especially during times of war, are able to be restrained without being unconstitutional. This prompts the government to stay in war. War gives the government more power to silence minority opinions. War gives people something to stay focused on while the government does what they want. It can seem cynical to claim that the government actively searches for ways to violate our constitutional rights, but the rights were put in place because they would otherwise be infringed upon. Without the protection of these rights, our government has genuine interest in creating narratives and silencing minority opinions that speak out against government action.

Desire for Comfortability

It is human nature for people to want comfort. The mainstream media needs to give people what they want in order to maintain ratings. One side effect of this idea is that the mainstream media is reluctant or unwilling to present controversial stories under the threat of public backlash. Anti-war messaging is often viewed as "extreme" or "isolationist" or as a threat to the government, so the media tends to avoid those stories. Outlets like CNN or Fox News have consistent and thematic news cycles and brands of stories, so these stories that challenge the status quo are generally left out in favor of comfort and stability through consistency.

These outlets are also in the business of controlling narratives, and anti-war messaging muddies these narratives and complicates what could be simple. They take the simple "good guy vs. bad guy" idea and complicate it. Anti-war protesting and journalism also shows people they are not powerless against the government and they don't have to be passive. This is not something corporate sponsors of the mainstream media want you to think.

Blog Post #6: Technology (Netflix, Google, and Carrier Pigeons)

 Netflix

The ancestors of Netflix were Blockbuster Video and Redbox. I remember Redboxes growing up, but I haven’t seen one in years. Netflix was founded by Marc Randolph, and was originally made for renting DVDs by mail. 10 years later, in 2007, Netflix started offering streaming services. Like so many other innovations, Netflix was considered a joke by its competitors. Netflix eventually eclipsed Redbox, Blockbuster Video, and all other DVD rental services.

Netflix’s Negatives

One major issue that has resulted from Netflix and other streaming services is the common cultural issue of Binge-Watching, or watching a series for hours on end, overloading our senses.  Addictive behaviors around streaming services can also cause sleep deprivation and isolation from friends and family. Netflix can also lead to a major decrease in productivity.

Google

Early search engines, before google was introduced, looked for how many times your word appeared in a website. For instance, if I searched for The Great Gatsby, I might find websites that say the words “The Great Gatsby” fifty times before I find the actual book somewhere. Google revolutionized the search engine game by using an improved PageRank algorithm based on the number of citations your website has. Funnily enough, Yahoo funded Google early on. Google also started the business model of getting paid to display targeted ads.

Bonus Round- Famous Carrier Pigeons

Easily one of my favorite parts of the EOTO, these pigeons were a blast to learn about and somehow, these birds are far more heroic than I am.

Cher Ami

Delivered a message that saved soldiers and lost its leg in the process

G.I. JOE

Flew 20 mile in 20 minutes to save lives by preventing a bombing

The EOTO presentations helped keep all this content engaging and fresh, and I was happy to learn what my fellow classmates had presented.

Blog Post #5: TED Talks and Privacy

 The TED Talks I watched were eye opening. I felt naïve, in a way, for not realizing the severity of my lack of privacy. From the discussion about the “electronic tattoo” to the topic of invasive police surveillance, I was shocked to see just how much I didn’t know.

The idea of the “electronic tattoo” presented by our social media habits and the internet in general shows relevance to everyone’s daily life. In my hand I have access to social media outlets that could ruin my career and reputation in seconds if I decide to post something that affects my image. This is a relatively new thing, as in past generations, there was much less permanence in the world. But your online presence is never truly erased.

The mass surveillance technology used by police has
reached the point of invasiveness.  One of the most shocking technologies I was exposed to was the police license plate scanners that provide photos to a database of pictures and location information. While helpful in the fight against crime, these databases are invasive and unfair to the average person who has done no wrong.

The idea that “there’s no real harm in mass surveillance because only people who do bad acts should feel the need to hide” is a bad argument. This assumes two types of people, good and bad. It also forgoes the idea that privacy is an important right of all people.

The fight for privacy is a difficult one. My only goal to fight against privacy is to make sure that I am mindful and conscious of my actions online. There are battles being fought over privacy today, but I believe our job is to keep ourselves safe first. For example, I rarely post online, and I use a VPN regularly. By keeping my posts to a minimum, I hope to limit my exposure to the invasive nature of the internet.