I know what you mean, I’m a bit of a control freak so having to adjust to being told to do things in a certain way particularly with the lifestream blog, it just goes against the grain with me because it’s not premeditated and pre-designed for maximum user experience but maybe that’s a good thing, maybe I need to be pushed out of my comfort zone so that I don’t keep looking through the same lens.
After all, if I won’t be open to things, how can I expect colleagues to be open to my suggestions?
from Comments for Colin’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2j9gtzw
Is the only difference that humans can control their environment, apes can’t?
This, in turn, led me to think about the new movie versions of “planet of the apes” and I do genuinely wonder, if apes could communicate across their species and mobilise, would they compete against the human race if the situation arose? Give an ape a gun and let them see a human use it, I bet they’d use it to become dominant in their tribe/group. So how different from humans are they really and what is special about humans, or were we just lucky that we progressed onto technology first?
This week I have been challenged in my thinking of digital culture and I’ve been genuinely scared by AI.
The challenges have been two-fold, challenging my perceptions and memory and in making me reconsider technology for teaching. Making me relive my eighties childhood by remembering the counter-culture around the early web, the excitement of a new group of people challenging the status quo in a whole new way, a group of people who had a superpower, the superpower of being able to control computers.
In all my time working with technology for teaching and learning I have never thought back to those early perceptions of computers or the belief that they would somehow “bring down” the government. I have merely accepted the technology we have as a tool to assist. Now I’m considering the counter culture and the rocking of the status quo again and thinking of MOOCs and the media hype that launched them into public consciousness, the promise that they were the technology that would “bring down” traditional education.
And then there was a genuine shake-up, google translate’s AI taught itself something that it hadn’t been programmed to do which massively improved its translations, but… was this the first step of an AI becoming sentient? Is twitterbot going to steal our jobs?
What was good about our twitter feed where the interactions of classmates sharing the google news articles with me and joining in my fear of Skynet’s birth.
During the film festival we all commented on how there is always a corporation behind any “future tech” and I wondered, do we consider Mark Zuckerberg and facebook as matching this corporation image of do we not see him as sinister enough?
This random thought came about as we were playing with IFTTT to get our blogs running, I noticed the stream of tweets which merely shared something relating to technology and wondered if we were all falling into a trap of just posting to twitter so that it was shared, but without any real reason or in-depth thought about what we were sharing? This is pertinent to me as I blog and vlog and to me, it’s important to give thought to the content you share, have a purpose that the content aims to achieve rather than just a constant stream of randomness which could be perceived as digital muttering.
@c4miller Also the influence of lifestream. Posting for the sake of posting rather than coz we have something valuable to share. #mscedc
The 2.0 part of this is what struck me the most with this title and indeed the film. In general, the clip felt very similar to a film I saw a few years back “Sunshine of the spotless mind” which I didn’t rate as a particularly good film but the idea of controlling memories about a relationship was a theme in both. In “Memory 2.0” however rather than erasing memories, it was about replaying them and reliving them.
The 2.0 was intriguing, what did the film makers mean to imply by 2.0, and what have the viewers implied by looking at this through their perceived lens. Straight away for me, 2.0 means content generated by the user, so for me, the virtual reality aspect where the protagonist experienced the memories was also where, possibly because of over exposure, where he also contributed to the memories.
Again viewing with lenses, and relating to my own work experiences with digital education, virtual reality and memories were a keen “take home”. We do have a virtual reality set up in our office at work and the educational implications of this as a way to engage students in an immersive learning experience is my focus but pushing this one step further into the boundaries and looking at this through the perspective of the film clip, what if students could “relive” classes, not just watch lecture capture, but relive and possible contribute to the content of the memory after the fact? With the chance to learn more, create a greater understanding of the subject matter and then go back to the memories of a lecture and correct or enhance, could this take education and learning to a higher level? Super education or education 2.0?