Imagine a case where a physician can receive visual aid and up-to-date information for treating any trauma without having to step aside from the immediate contact with the patient. Augmented reality (AR) could provide people with such and many other life-improvement options. It is an environment where computer generated images are overlaid on top of real-life imagery in real time and displayed through a screen. Such technology has found many applications across different fields, for example, Ikea catalogues that enable you to see how a piece of furniture would look like in your house before buying it, the Pokemon GO app that became a sensation all around the world as well as many other uses. In this paper, I wish to argue that AR will only become more common as the tech becomes more seamless and user-friendly, therefore, enabling humans to interact with the world in a way that transcends the current possibilities. Nevertheless, I also want to raise the alarm that equipping the environment with AR could leave physical objects at jeopardy and neglect as AR would provide a look on the reality that real life elements could not match.

From dumb to smarter: a revolution unfolding under our eyes

There’s nothing as consequential as a dumb thing made smarter”, says Kevin Kelly author of “The Inevitable”. The power of such a statement could be easily undervalued but whether you are a clearly inclined tech determinist or a skeptic of technology, that sentence should be enough of a wakeup call. To even show us that we haven’t yet caught up is that the term “cognify” is used daily in tech-heavy spheres but is not a term in the dictionary. Any text editor will underline the verb and its derivations to indicate a grammatical mistake. That is a hint of how hard it is to change paradigms: God gave intelligence to humans; humans do not have the ability to “cognify” things. Cognition and the ability to think rationally and evolve from a state of brutishness is a gift to humanity, and humanity alone; this is a mantra we most likely have been taught at one point in life and maybe still hold some belief into but that concept is being challenged nowadays on a daily basis as the taxonomy of minds keeps growing.

I am of the belief that human-to-human communication technology has reached its apex in “form”. I may be wrong a half-century from now, but here is my point. We went from sending travelling messengers to talking drums, the printing press, telegraphs, telephones, radios, television, wireless texting, live audio visual calls all the way to having the power to broadcast live from almost any spot on this earth with devices that can fit in one’s hand. This power to broadcast information in a one-to-many framework has enabled the emergence of a whole cornucopia of citizen journalists, scientists, new jobs, untapped collaboration possibilities across many fields if not all (i.e. medicine, science, aviation…) and revolutionized our day-to-day living. In pure form, what more can man-to-man communication tech achieve? The only gap that I see is for virtual one-on-one communication to not suffice anymore pushing the need to now having holograms or some technology that makes us literally feel the presence of someone we’re communicating with, regardless of distance. Simply put, instead of sending hugs via text or saying it verbally over a VoIP, can technology ever allow us to hug someone when we are at two different locations at a singular point in time. Can we reach the point where college students on a long-distance relationship are virtually able to feel each other’s touch? Can technology ever get us there? I do not reject the possibility of such an achievement because “impossible” is not a word in the tech lexicon, but I would hold my horses. Therefore allow me to change the narrative for this essay, I will look at communication technology not from the lens of cross-human interaction but from an angle of human to cognified objects communication.

If you were not already aware, social media comments and memes should have passed on the news to you by now: “they did surgery on a grape”. What? Where? Who is they? “They”, really should be replaced by “it”; a little robot named “da Vinci Xi” is the source of this entire social media storm. Doctors are working alongside robots already and getting better at achieving minimally invasive surgeries. Is this a snippet of what we ought to expect to be common in a few years? Will my coworkers be robots? Has my job in thirty-years’ time not been created yet? In this essay, I am attempting to pursue an in-depth analysis at how beyond artificial intelligence, we will be pushed to co-habit, collaborate, learn from, and maybe be emotionally be engaged with objects we insufflated intelligence to. A scary perspective ahead or an enchanting one? The bottom line is that it’s not only coming on its way, it’s here, dormant but well present.

Depending on which words are used to describe it, the idea of enhancing human intellect and physiology beyond their current capabilities are often met with rejection based on ethical grounds. Compared to other emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, human enhancement may seem distant and undemanding of our immediate attention, yet recent developments allude to the contrary. As of today, humanity is able to conduct reproductive enhancement via embryonic selection and artificial gamete generation. We can alter our appearance with cosmetic surgery, replace missing body parts with neuroprosthetics, and install medical implants. Every day, we are being mentally assisted by electronic devices – some of which are wearable – to store and manage information. Most of these current applications are used for the purpose of healing or remedying the body to a societally accepted standard, but humanity remains either fearful or cautious of going beyond that standard. That is what distinguishes current human enhancement from transhumanism; the philosophical notion that the human condition should not be restricted to its current limitations and instead be expanded with the use of technology. In an age of rapid developments in genetic engineering and neurotechnology, society might have to deal with the idea of what it means to be physically human sooner than anticipated. In fact, several enhancement technologies already exist: genes can be edited with the CRISPR/Cas system, neural implants have been used to treat movement disorders, accessible fabrication of biomaterials is made possible with 3D bioprinting, and researchers have figured out a method to connect implants to Wi-Fi. Whether society accepts anything more than treatment is becoming a more relevant discussion, with major backlash already occurring even towards well-meaning applications. One example is Genspace, a non-profit community biolab that was deemed unethical by many despite its advocacy for ethical biohacking. Another example is cochlear implants, which some in the deaf community view as an affront to their culture, feeling like a “minority threatened by the hearing majority.” Such conversations open up multiple avenues of nuance: the need to define a human standard, the cultural, political, and social ramifications, and the tangible repercussions of a resulting uneven playing ground between individuals, both physical and mental. With recent claims by Chinese scientist He Jiankui regarding the world’s first gene-edited babies and the ensuing outrage, this topic seems more pertinent than ever.

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, he predicts a society with immense government surveillance, where everyone is constantly being watched by a higher authoritarian figure. This fictional storyline is not too far off from China’s upcoming “social credit” system, scheduled to be implemented in 2020. As we enter a futuristic world succumbed by robots and artificial intelligence, our society is becoming more and more data driven. For our every action, our movements are already being surveilled and recorded into a database that has a complete profile of each individual. In China’s “social credit system,” each individual has a social score that is controlled by the government, and can affect their ability to buy plane/train tickets, to access the internet, to register for schools or jobs, and many other daily life interactions. This is all done in the name of a better and more civilized society. Yet, we must ask ourselves, how much control is too much control? How will this impact our daily life interactions? Do we want our government to have a record of our every action? Will this one day create a society that mimics Black Mirror’s social rating system? High-tech surveillance is an imperative topic that needs to be discussed on a global scale.

One thing I sometimes enjoy more than just mindlessly scrolling through social media is reading the comment sections – overly dramatic, funny, intelligent, sad, the comments are essential for my media consumption. Yesterday, while again going through a random comment section I got a pop up message and was presented a different interface, pictured below. I was encouraged not to simply like the comments, but also appreciate whether they were civil and relevant. Upon additional research, it seems that the option has been available in certain markets since as early as April this year.

Given the network’s tumultuous past, including it being accused of unrest in Myanmar and inability to stop hate speech fast enough, it looks like this might be  an attempt to crowdsource what the platform is still unable to do. However, if this function will ever become an actual option on the platform it is likely that the input from the millions of people, provided that it is of good quality, will be used for machine learning, so that in the future “uncivil” and “irrelevant” content can be automatically blocked as early as possible.  Naturally, Facebook is not the only company exploring the ideas of automation and machine learning. It is inevitable that machine learning and automation will be huge parts of our lives in the future. How and when is less clear. What I suggest will happen is that couple of years from now machines will accumulate so much data that they will be effectively better at social interactions than most humans. I can imagine the future motivational speakers at self-growth conferences just providing big data analysis to all the attendants’ questions. Naturally, this will cause a guerrilla response – the poor management of the new technology will drive thousands underground in an attempt to sabotage machine learning. Young and old will mark millions of relevant comments as uncivil, civil comments as irrelevant, adding heart and angry emojis here and there. Big companies will respond to this by democratizing the online space. No moderation. No curation. No sanitation. This is where the actual machine learning will begin. The essential argument here being that the trade-off of our privacy for comfort is  being a less tolerable option, and the extent to which the companies will go to collect information will surpass many expectations as more people grow aware.

With the advent of technology, we have managed to facilitate our lives in every aspect of life. From smartphones to virtual assistants, new forms of communication technology are constantly being developed and released as we speak. 

One example is a self-driving car, which has been equipped with radar, computer vision, GPS and other features to perceive its surroundings and safely navigate its way to a certain destination. Introduced to diminish cost, increase customer satisfaction and reduce crime, automated cars can also lead to better traffic flow and lower fuel consumption. Even with these benefits, however, ongoing experiments show that their efficiency and safety are still quite debatable.

Just last month, The Washington Post published an article reviewing Waymo, an autonomous car company which started out from Google’s self-driving project. After testing out a 24-7 robo-taxi service with over 400 volunteer riders, it has identified several challenges that will take years to solve. These include complications like making informed judgments, which can take a while and slow down the journey.

In my paper I want to talk about the virtual reality, and its possible positive and negative effects on our real life.  

Nowadays it takes very little to get into a virtual imaginary world – you just need to wear special glasses or a helmet. The VR technologies are most widely used in the gaming industry, but they certainly have a potential for being used in other spheres. For example, VR has already been trying to enter the art sphere: it can change the traditional cinematography, with film-makers producing 360 movies, or the visual art industry with artists painting something which the audience can literally enter and experience in 360 format. This can transform not only the artworks themselves, but also the venues that display them, such as galleries and museums.

The effect of virtual reality can be used in many spheres where it makes sense to immerse one in an imaginary reality. For example, it can also be used in education, helping learners visualize the images, or for professional training purposes – thus presumably making these processes more effective. In fact, VR might also be used for live broadcasting of anything that’s happening anywhere on the plant – be it a football match, a concert, or even a public protest.

As businesses start incorporating VR more actively, they would want to make VR present in every life aspect, making living without it seem impossible (as it is the case with smartphones). Thus, they will try to plunge as many people as possible into it, which will make life easier in some aspects, but create new problems as well. For instance, the habit of getting into another reality might disrupt our relationship with actual world and other people, making us want to escape it for the alternative reality. Another example could be the situation where we would lose the feeling of danger and the need for self-protection in the real world, forgetting about things that cannot harm us in VR but exist in reality. Thus, VR can in fact decrease our awareness of the surroundings and make us more vulnerable.

There are many more potential threats and benefits that I want to explore in the paper.

“Alexa, make me smile”- is only one of the multiple requests one can make to Amazon’s echo assistant. In the present date, one can command multiple instructions to Amazon’s Alexa. These can range from normal requests such as “Alexa, tell me the weather forecast for today” to eccentric food and drink recommendations like  “Alexa, ask what beer goes with ramen”. There is one word that constantly reappears when describing the rise of the virtual assistant: ubiquitous. It came out of the blue, and suddenly it was everywhere. The first Alexa was launched in November 2014, and from then until 2017, it has sold around 20 million devices. Competitors such as the Google Assistant have started to make significant appearances, and Apple has started to leave its footprint. Needless to say, the home pods are under heavy demand. The virtual assistant market was valued at $627 million in 2015 and is projected to reach a value of $7.9 billion by 2024 . Given the large sales figures and increasing valuations, one can conclude that this technology is forecasted to become a commodity in a relative future. Therefore, it is important to consider that its widespread adoption could have potential implications on our own human development. How will kids change the way they learn their communication skills when they grow up talking to an algorithm? How will small businesses grow when humans start to rely more and more on gatekeeping recommendation systems? How much will we depend on these assistants when trying  to make a choice, whether it’s buying a new house or buying next week’s groceries?  These are all questions worth exploring in order to see who are the winners and the losers, and will help shed light on who are the players pushing the growth agenda for Alexa and her friends.

My essay topic focuses on the emergence of earbud devices that attempt to translate conversations in realtime, working to eliminate language barriers. 

In 2018, Google unveiled a new device attempting to tackle language barriers: a pair of earbuds designed to produce real-time translation to the wearer. The product boasts that the wearer can speak and have their phone recite the statement to a receiver, and the receiver can respond and have their words translated in real time back to the wearer’s earbuds. Currently, there is clear clunkiness to the overall design and functionality that limits the device’s readiness for universal usage, and it is by no means the first of its kind to attempt to tackle language as a communication obstacle. But Google’s initiative is clear: one day Google hopes to unveil a device that can, with almost complete accuracy, translate a conversation between two individuals instantaneously. Google has not made any bold manifestos to universally remove language barriers, but the technology certainly hints towards a future where technology, too, can supersede language classes and Rosetta Stone courses.

But translating devices could pose a risk in oversimplifying a communication problem. If people lean too heavily on communication devices, they may no longer feel the need to try and learn new languages. This is problematic considering the underlying cultural significance of language as a form of expression. A device that attempts to oversimplify the work of translating between languages risks removing the intricacies that lie behind language as a form of expression within cultures. The devices will also be only accessible to those who can afford it, which further blocks out a huge part of the world from achieving this proclaimed universal communication.

Google translation holds some merit when translating a few words or phrases, and can be considered an appropriate supplement to an individual studying a language. But the nature of a language in all its components (as an oral, auditory, and literary form of expression) could not exist in a single translation device without a language losing some form of its distinctiveness. If we are to dedicate technological research to removing language barriers, our efforts should focus more on encouraging immersion and efficient language learning programs, not developing a device that will attempt to eliminate all language barriers. Learning a language is not just about removing a communication obstacle; it’s about understanding how other individuals articulate thoughts, ideas, and forms of expression. 

Current sources for research 

Kroulek, Alison. “15 Powerful Translation Apps and Devices for Travelers in 2018.” K International, Alison Kroulek Https://Www.k-International.com/Wp-Content/Uploads/2018/09/Weblogo-V7l.Png, 26 Jan. 2018, www.k-international.com/blog/translation-apps-2016/.

Metz, Rachel. “Google Pixel Buds Misunderstand, Translate a Great Idea into Horrible Design.” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 15 Nov. 2017, www.technologyreview.com/s/609470/googles-pixel-buds-translate-a-great-idea-into-horrible-design/#comments.

The advancements in technology have exceeded a lot of expectations in just a short period of time. Over the past two decades, technological developments managed to shape the world in a way that only a few would expect. Today, we are witnesses of the rapid development of smartphones and internet use that ‘make life easier for everyone,’ such that we are all connected 24/7. In near future, we will live in smart cities, where everything would potentially be wireless; this way we can establish connection to people from areas where it is hard to have internet communication. Out of all the advancements, I have personally been amazed by the development of Sophia AI Robot – the first humanoid robot to hold a passport, talk to people and travel the world. Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays an important role in shaping the way we live as well as promises for future research and development. However, there are many implications from AI – controversies about safety, human existence, and many benefits and harms to the society.

In this paper, I would try to focus on analyzing some of the benefits from AI as an emerging communication technology. I will emphasize the developments of humanized robots and their role in communication between humans. Furthermore, I will try to examine the shifts of economic and political power on a global level, if any,  that would happen from the implementation of AI in one’s everyday lifestyle.