Project 2 revison: Fact vs. Fiction - And the Winner is...

A huge factor in business today is technology and some of the largest companies are those that develop and sell technologies.  Therefore, it stands to reason that those who can predict the future of technology will have the opportunity to be extremely successful and wealthy.  Some people, on the other hand, would rather warn the public about the future of technology in order to prevent their visions of the future from coming true.  Gibson and Wu, authors of Neuromancer and The Master Switch respectively, are two of these people.  Both of them have presented ideas, however different they may be, as to what the future may hold for technology and its uses yet, while aspects of both claims seem reasonable, Wu's vision seems to be the more credible of the two because of his use of evidence and his relatively close proximity to the future of technology.   

Wu feared a future ruled by the corporations where the individual was solely seen as a consumer, and never a developer, of technology.  Gibson, however, viewed a world where the individual could be mightier than the companies.  So why is Wu's vision more credible?  Despite the arguments for both, Wu has the benefit of increased time to experience the development of technologies and that of supporting evidence.  Take for instance, the publishing dates of the books.  The Master Switch was published in 2010 while Neuromancer was published in 1984.  While in many cases this would not make a difference to an academic audience, because the topic is technology it makes a large difference because Wu has been able to experience and see the development of the Internet.  This makes Wu better able to predict the future of technology, at least more so than Gibson, and his evidence from the past makes him all the more credible.     

 

Despite Gibson's lack of evidence Wu still had one similar idea, that the presence of powerful corporations in the world of technology would continue to be prevalent.  Gibson demonstrates this vision with his usage of the Tessier-Ashpool megacorporation that has been in operation for "more than two hundred years," (Gibson 184).  This company has control over many things, from the space city of Freeside to the Artificial Intelligences of Wintermute and Neuromancer.  In fact, with the Artificial Intelligences, the company can basically do anything that it wants, as the programs themselves demonstrate that they can do almost anything they want.  In one instance, Wintermute "altered the broadcast" of an event that Case, one of the main characters, was watching (Gibson 186).  Another time, Wintermute showed so much control as to have actually "killed Armitage," a real, flesh and bones, person (Gibson 201).  Wu also acknowledges the presence of large corporations and uses evidence from past companies to back up his claim.  Wu demonstrates that companies, like AT&T, never seem to truly die.  Wu says that, "AT&T, broken up in the 1980's, by the first years of the twenty-first century managed to re-create itself, reestablishing the essential lineaments of the Bell system" (Wu 205).  So if this "eternal return to consolidated order," part of the "Cycle" as Wu calls it, then it only seems natural that these giant companies would continue to be present in the future of technology (Wu 252).           

While both authors agree on the presence of megacorporations they disagree on the formation of them.  Wu believes that developing technologies will create, and destroy, these companies, unlike Gibson who suggests that the companies will be the ones creating technologies.  Fundamentally, this is the basis of Wu's argument for the "Cycle" and his whole book in general.  New technologies are developed that make older technologies irrelevant or less useful at the very least.  The companies that dealt in the older technology are then disintegrated and the new companies selling the newer technology grow and prosper, at least until the next "disruptive" technology is developed (Wu 19).  Wu claims that there is a typical progression for technologies, they move from "somebody's hobby to somebody's industry" (Wu 6).  "So many revolutionary innovations start small, with outsiders, amateurs, and idealists in attics or garages" (Wu 18).  Gibson, however, believed that it was the companies that would create the newer technologies, not vice-versa.  This can be seen in Neuromancer when Armitage, through Tessier-Ashpool and Wintermute, gives a new technology to a doctor who later patents it.  The doctor applied "for seven basic patents," which reportedly reversed "the usual order of things" (Gibson 161).  In Gibson's future companies, not people, ruled the technologies.  So when the roles were flipped and the companies lost, much like what Wu describes happening, this was out of the ordinary and quite odd.  

Both of these ideas seem to be plausible, but evidence suggests that Wu is correct in his prediction.  For one, it is demonstrated that most "disruptive" inventions have come from the individual, not a company.  Apple computers, for instance, started in the garage of Steve Wozniak.  Even the great Bell Company, predecessor to AT&T, started out with only one employee, Thomas Watson.  That was it.  Even if Wu’s worst fear were to come true, that corporations would close the Internet or even force the individual inventor out of the equation, his Cycle would infer that a new technology would arise that would dethrone those companies, restoring the balance of power.        

Another difference between the two theories is that however powerful the corporations become Wu, unlike Gibson, believes that governments will still be active in the world.  In fact, in order for Wu's future to exist, in the manner that he wishes, governments are necessary.  Because of the inevitability of the Cycle, Wu calls for the use of a "Seperations Principle" which entails the use of the government to keep "those who develop information, those who own the network infrastructure on which [information] travels, and those who control the tools or the venues of access," separate from each other.  Gibson's future, on the other hand, is ruled by the corporations, not the governments, of the world.  As is the case with the Tessier-Ashpool corporation, the companies own property like Freeside, which they monitor and control, free of governments.    

A large deviance between Wu's and Gibson's visions has to do with the use of technologies.  Gibson, for instance, believes that while technology will shape the way everyone lives those who will be able to access and use a technology, like cyberspace, will be limited.  For example, Case is a cyberspace "cowboy" who can access cyberspace and do on it what he pleases, but not everyone is a cowboy and, therefore, not everyone can access cyberspace (Gibson 5).  Yet even though not everyone has access to it, cyberspace affects everyone.  Companies that make products that people buy depend on cyberspace to store their information so that they can stay in business.  Without cyberspace, ordinary people would not get the same products and services.  

Unlike Gibson Wu predicts, however much he dislikes it, that everyone will be able to use a technology, like the Internet, but what information that technology can access will be limited.  Wu has already stated that information technology companies proceed through a pattern of going "from open to closed system[s]" (Wu 6).  That would mean that the Internet, an information technology, while still in its open phase will become closed by large companies.  Information will not be as easily accessed as the owning companies will only allow access to sites that benefit them, much as the old AT&T only allowed the use of telephones made by them or RCA only allowed the use of AM radio despite FM's superiority.  Still, although the information available may be limited, in order for the companies to make any money people will need the availability to use the Internet.  In short, the more people that use the service the more money that the companies can make.

When comparing the claims of Wu and Gibson for their validity one must take into consideration a few large factors.  First, that Gibson documented his claim twenty years before Wu.  Had Gibson had the knowledge that Wu had to write his book their ideas may have been more similar.  Another large factor is that Gibson’s book, Neuromancer, is a work of fiction while Wu’s is a work of fact.  Despite this, both works can be analytically compared to determine which authors supposed future is more probable.  First, Gibson believed that, while the future would generally be dominated by large corporations, it would be possible for the lone individual to become more powerful than the corporations.  These large companies, in the world of Neuromancer, would be so powerful that governments would not exist and the corporations would instead be in charge of former government powers.  Individuals would not be able to compete against these companies because they controlled the flow and development of technology.  Lastly, the technology, while extremely powerful and thorough, would only be available to an exclusive group of clientele.  Wu, on the other hand, would only agree with one of these points, that large corporations would play a significant role in the future of technology and, unlike Gibson, would provide evidence to support his correctness.  First, he disagreed with Gibson on the point that governments would not exist because of their prior importance in controlling companies with too much power.  Also, he would make a point that Gibson did not make, that the ability for individuals to overpower large corporations will come from individuals who will make “disruptive” technologies that render the larger corporation useless, otherwise known as the “Cycle”.  Despite these differences however, Wu is still afraid that companies might end up having too much power over things like the Internet and controlling the individuals, much like the world that Gibson created, leaving the inventor powerless and the Cycle broken in a way that Wu abhors.  Lastly, Wu suggests that if megacorporations are to exist that technology would look much different than that of Neuromancer.  Instead of technology being extremely powerful yet limited in customer base, everyone would be able to purchase the technology but the technology itself would be limited and weak.  Not only does this make business sense, by allowing everyone to purchase a technology more money can be made than only a few to buy it, but Wu states that this has happened before in the history of telephony and AT&T as well as RCA and the radio.  Although some good points are brought up by Gibson, Wu’s use of evidence and his benefit of years more current knowledge of the subject area make his argument far more compelling to believe.

Works Cited:

Gibson, William. Neuromancer . New York: Ace Books, 1984. Print. 

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Print. 

Everything in Moderation...

I'm sure that almost everyone has heard the of this phrase.  Attributed to the writings of the great philosopher Aristotle, this short phrase is widely discussed and usually accepted to be true in most instances.  So if moderation is the key to happiness why is it that so many people choose to overindulge in one thing or another?

Indulgences come in many different shapes and sizes; from eating too much food, drinking too much alcohol, or even playing video games too much.  The latter is discussed in the movie Second Skin where "gamers" are interviewed and tracked in their daily lives in order to gain a perspective on what drives them to play video games so much and how they feel about it.  

What intrigued me most about the movie was that one of the individuals suggested that:

"Maybe my time could be better spent doing things other than playing video games, but maybe your time could be better spent doing other things other than going out to the bar and drinking 12 beers every night.  Maybe your time could be better spent doing things other than sitting out in the garage working on a car every night...We're gamers, you know, it's what we do." 

I would really like to just focus on this one statement.  I know that generally its rather hard to pick and choose your battles but I'm going to pick this one.

For the most part I agree with this statement, in theory at least.  If we assume that the person who goes to the bar, the person who works on the car, and the person that plays a game all spend the same amount of time, with no other ill-affects other than the loss of time, on their respective activity I would agree that all are equal.  However, there are far more factors to consider.

First, the person who goes to the bar and drinks all night not only is spending time but is also spending money getting too and from the bar, and for the drinks and, perhaps, food.  Not only is this costing money but it also has the potential to cost the entire next day of work by missing the alarm clock, or not being able to work, due to a hangover.  Despite these few setbacks (I did not list all of them) there is always the potential to meet another person at the bar...and I trust that you can deduce the benefits and drawbacks of this.

The mechanic is also spending a lot of time, and potentially more money than any of the three people.  In this situation the money factor seems to be the more prominent in that automobile projects can range widely in cost, from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands.  However, after spending all of the time and the money, the mechanic has the ability to proudly use and display his work.  The drinker, not so much.  Also, because of the time required to work on a project like this it is generally assigned to weekend work, not on a week night.  There are simply not enough hours in the weekday to work a job, take care of yourself and your family, and then go and efficiently, and productively, work on a car.   Even the avid car lover Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor could not find enough time to work on his beloved cars every night.  Lastly, once a car project is finished it could be months or even years before a new one becomes available, generally due to the monetary costs associated with such endeavors.   

The gamer also spends time playing his game of choice, and money to pay for a computer, Internet, and game expenses.  Out of the three I would think that this would be least of all in monetary cost.  However, unlike the mechanic, the gamer cannot display his work at all times (he can in the game of course, but most likely cannot in the material world).  Also, generally an gamer will not meet other gamers to spend time with outside of the game, although their are cases of people moving in order to live with their gaming friends or meetings of clans like the Syndicate.  Lastly, the gamer has the opportunity to play his game every day due to low time restraints and requirements.  In effect, the gamer truly lives two lives, unlike the drinker and the mechanic, one in a virtual world and one in the material world.  Their hobby of gaming does not transfer over that boundary in most cases, unlike the other two individuals.

Therefore, it appears to me that if we consider that people do not take things into moderation and will do their activity of choice as much as they can, as often as they can, the gamer has the ability to spend the most time doing an activity that generally cannot be appreciated outside of the game.  To me this seems a little extreme and, to be completely frank, a waste.  However, I know that this is just one argument and that their are many others that, if weighed in upon, could turn this conclusion around.  

One Is The Lonliest Number...But It Has The Most Friends

Reading Dibbell Play Money, I came across a section where he talks about what drives people to play online games like Ultima Online or, more importantly, pay actual money to acquire in-game items.  He proposes that things which have limits or boundaries are more attractive than those which are limitless.

"Users could...generally get whatever they needed from the world without having to do much more than hang out socializing... But in the end, the worlds they actually wanted to be in - badly enough to pay an entrance fee - were the ones that made the digital necessities almost maddeningly difficult to come by." (Dibbel 41)

Everyone has that friend, or at least seen people like this, that won't wear the same clothes that someone else is wearing.  There's something about being the "only one" is truly fascinating to people.  Everyone wants to be a little different.  Whether its a pair of shoes, that new baseball bat, or a magical sword in a virtual game, its funny the lengths that people will go to to have something that no one else has.  There are even stories of people buying virtual properties for $100,000.

While this may seem a little crazy it is quite a common occurrence for players in these online games to trade virtual items for real money, albeit not at astronomic prices like previously mentioned.  Some people, like myself, may wonder why someone would pay money that they have worked hard for in return for a few pixels on a screen.  The answer is really one word.  Exclusivity.  The same notion that drives up the prices of things like classic cars and jewels, tangible items, has jumped from reality into virtual reality.

Really this is not so surprising given the fact that the instigators of this are from the tangible world, humans.  So it only makes since that if a person would pay multiple millions of dollars for a car that will never be driven, and perhaps like the Ferrari of Cameron's dad (in the movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and only rubbed down with a diaper, that a person would also pay a few hundred, maybe thousand, dollars for pixelated horse dung.  Right?  

Cameron: The 1961 Ferrari 250GT California. Less than a hundred were made. My father spent three years restoring this car. It is his love, it is his passion.
Ferris: It is his fault he didn't lock the garage. 

Cameron: Ferris, my father loves this car more than life itself.
Ferris: A man with priorities so far out of whack doesn't deserve such a fine automobile.
[Ferris caresses the car in admiration]
Cameron: No. No! Apparently, you don't understand!
Ferris: [ignoring Cameron] Wow.
Cameron: Ferris, he never drives it! He just rubs it with a diaper! 

www.imdb.com

Project 2: Fact vs. Fiction - And the Winner is...

A huge factor in business today is technology and some of the largest companies are those that develop and sell technologies.  Therefore, it stands to reason that those who can predict the future of technology will have the opportunity to be extremely successful and wealthy.  Some people, on the other hand, would rather warn the public about the future of technology in order to prevent their visions of the future from coming true.  Gibson and Wu, authors of Neuromancer and The Master Switch respectively, are two of these people.  Both of them have presented ideas, however different they may be, as to what the future may hold for technology and its uses yet, while aspects of both claims seem reasonable, Wu's vision seems to be the more credible of the two because of his evidence and his relatively close proximity to the future of technology.   

Wu feared a future ruled by the corporations where the individual was solely seen as a consumer, and never a developer, of technology.  Gibson, however, viewed a world where the individual could be mightier than the companies.  So why is Wu's vision more credible?  Despite the arguments for both, Wu has the benefit of increased time to experience the development of technologies and that of supporting evidence.  Take for instance, the publishing dates of the books.  The Master Switch was published in 2010 while Neuromancer was published in 1984.  While in many cases this would not make a difference to an academic audience, because the topic is technology it makes a large difference because Wu has been able to experience and see the development of the Internet.  This makes Wu better able to predict the future of technology, at least more so than Gibson, and his evidence from the past makes him all the more credible.     

 

Despite Gibson's lack of evidence Wu still had one similar idea, that the presence of powerful corporations in the world of technology would continue to be prevalent.  Gibson demonstrates this vision with his usage of the Tessier-Ashpool megacorporation that has been in operation for "more than two hundred years," (Gibson 184).  This company has control over many things, from the space city of Freeside to the Artificial Intelligences of Wintermute and Neuromancer.  In fact, with the Artificial Intelligences, the company can basically do anything that it wants, as the programs themselves demonstrate that they can do almost anything they want.  In one instance, Wintermute "altered the broadcast" of an event that Case, one of the main characters, was watching (Gibson 186).  Another time, Wintermute showed so much control as to have actually "killed Armitage," a real, flesh and bones, person (Gibson 201).  Wu also acknowledges the presence of large corporations and uses evidence from past companies to back up his claim.  Wu demonstrates that companies, like AT&T, never seem to truly die.  Wu says that, "AT&T, broken up in the 1980's, by the first years of the twenty-first century managed to re-create itself, reestablishing the essential lineaments of the Bell system" (Wu 205).  So if this "eternal return to consolidated order," part of the "Cycle" as Wu calls it, then it only seems natural that these giant companies would continue to be present in the future of technology (Wu 252).           

While both authors agree on the presence of megacorporations they disagree on the formation of them.  Wu believes that developing technologies will create, and destroy, these companies, unlike Gibson who suggests that the companies will be the ones creating technologies.  Fundamentally, this is the basis of Wu's argument for the "Cycle" and his whole book in general.  New technologies are developed that make older technologies irrelevant or less useful at the very least.  The companies that dealt in the older technology are then disintegrated and the new companies selling the newer technology grow and prosper, at least until the next "disruptive" technology is developed (Wu 19).  Wu claims that there is a typical progression for technologies, they move from "somebody's hobby to somebody's industry" (Wu 6).  "So many revolutionary innovations start small, with outsiders, amateurs, and idealists in attics or garages" (Wu 18).  Gibson, however, believed that it was the companies that would create the newer technologies, not vice-versa.  This can be seen in Neuromancer when Armitage, through Tessier-Ashpool and Wintermute, gives a new technology to a doctor who later patents it.  The doctor applied "for seven basic patents," which reportedly reversed "the usual order of things" (Gibson 161).  In Gibson's future companies, not people, ruled the technologies.  So when the roles were flipped and the companies lost, much like what Wu describes happening, this was out of the ordinary and quite odd.  

Both of these ideas seem to be plausible, but evidence suggests that Wu is correct in his prediction.  For one, it is demonstrated that most "disruptive" inventions have come from the individual, not a company.  Apple computers, for instance, started in the garage of Steve Wozniak.  Even the great Bell Company, predecessor to AT&T, started out with only one employee, Thomas Watson.  That was it.  Even if Wu’s worst fear were to come true, that corporations would close the Internet or even force the individual inventor out of the equation, his Cycle would infer that a new technology would arise that would dethrone those companies, restoring the balance of power.        

Another difference between the two theories is that however powerful the corporations become Wu, unlike Gibson, believes that governments will still be active in the world.  In fact, in order for Wu's future to exist, in the manner that he wishes, governments are necessary.  Because of the inevitability of the Cycle, Wu calls for the use of a "Seperations Principle" which entails the use of the government to keep "those who develop information, those who own the network infrastructure on which [information] travels, and those who control the tools or the venues of access," separate from each other.  Gibson's future, on the other hand, is ruled by the corporations, not the governments, of the world.  As is the case with the Tessier-Ashpool corporation, the companies own property like Freeside, which they monitor and control, free of governments.    

A large deviance between Wu's and Gibson's visions has to do with the use of technologies.  Gibson, for instance, believes that while technology will shape the way everyone lives those who will be able to access and use a technology, like cyberspace, will be limited.  For example, Case is a cyberspace "cowboy" who can access cyberspace and do on it what he pleases, but not everyone is a cowboy and, therefore, not everyone can access cyberspace (Gibson 5).  Yet even though not everyone has access to it, cyberspace affects everyone.  Companies that make products that people buy depend on cyberspace to store their information so that they can stay in business.  Without cyberspace, ordinary people would not get the same products and services.  

Unlike Gibson Wu predicts, however much he dislikes it, that everyone will be able to use a technology, like the Internet, but what information that technology can access will be limited.  Wu has already stated that information technology companies proceed through a pattern of going "from open to closed system[s]" (Wu 6).  That would mean that the Internet, an information technology, while still in its open phase will become closed by large companies.  Information will not be as easily accessed as the owning companies will only allow access to sites that benefit them, much as the old AT&T only allowed the use of telephones made by them.  Still, although the information available may be limited, in order for the companies to make any money people will need the availability to use the Internet.  In short, the more people that use the service the more money that the companies can make.

When comparing the claims of Wu and Gibson for their validity one must take into consideration a few large factors.  First, that Gibson documented his claim twenty years before Wu.  Had Gibson had the knowledge that Wu had to write his book their ideas may have been more similar.  Another large factor, is that Gibson’s book, Neuromancer, is a work of fiction while Wu’s is a work of fact.  Despite this, both works can be analytically compared to determine which authors supposed future is more probable.  At first glance, due to the nature of how companies based on technologies are created, as documented by Wu, it is reasonable to decide that Gibson’s idea, that small individuals could overpower mighty corporations, is correct.  However, Gibson did not envision that those individuals would be creating technology to overturn companies’ power, which Wu clearly states is what has always happened and hopes will continue to happen.  Despite this though, Wu claims that companies might end up having too much power, over things like the Internet, and controlling the individuals.  This is similar to the world of Neuromancer and is Wu's basis for the Separations Principle.  This is slightly confusing because it appears as though Wu fears the world that was created in Neuromancer and Gibson viewed the future to be as Wu documented the past.  It can be decided then that Gibson's broad view of the future, that individuals will have power over companies, will hold true but Wu's visions of the more specific aspects of the future will be correct.  For instance, Wu seems to have a handle on the concept of governments and their solidity in society.  Gibson believes that governments will become extinct and their power will be handed over to the companies but in reality, as Wu states, governments have always provided a check to the power that companies have.  Therefore, governments are, more than likely, here to stay.  Both authors agree, however, on the fact that megacorporations will have a large impact on the world.  Lastly, it seems more likely that Wu is correct that technologies will be available to everyone, yet limited in what they can do, unlike Gibson who claims that technologies will be limited to exclusive clientele but unlimited in what they can do.  This is solely because businesses can make more money by selling a technology to more people rather than to fewer, it’s the same old game of supply and demand.      

Works Cited:

Gibson, William. Neuromancer . New York: Ace Books, 1984. Print. 

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Print.  

The Simple Things in Life

The Task: 

Pick a communications technology, detail its use and analyze.

The Communication Type:

All communication via a standard cellular phone.

The Usage Breakdown:

          Texts Sent: 12
          Texts Received:  11
          Average time to type message:  30 sec.
          Average time to read message:  20 sec.

               Total time texting:  9 min. 40 sec.

          Calls sent:  0
          Calls received:  1
          Average time of call:  3 min. 32 sec.

               Total time calling:  3 min. 32 sec.


               Total Time Communicating:  13 min. 12 sec.

Analysis:

Due to the fact that the day of communicating that I have recorded above started at around 11 o'clock in the morning may have something to do with the relatively low amount of logged cellular communication.  It also may have something to do with the fact that most of the people with whom I would have a need to communicate are within earshot of me most of the time.  With not a whole lot of necessity to use a cell phone, I chose not to when I can.

As can be seen from the data, texting is the preferred method of communication when I do use my cell phone.  That is because most of the communication that I do does not have a lot of urgency to it, or is informal, otherwise I would make a phone call.  Also, if the message that needs to be sent or the information that I need to have communicated is not lengthy, the text message predominates over the phone call.  This is simply because if the message is simple a text message is, ultimately, faster than a call.  This is reversed, however, if the conversation is lengthy because a talking is quicker, and easier, at relaying a lot of information compared to typing.

This type of casual, at your leisure, style of communicating was hard to imagine in the mid 1980's.  In Gibson's book, Neuromancer, he writes about a system of conveying information that looks a lot like the Matrix.  Information is stored and accessed in a 3D "consensual hallucination," also called cyberspace.  I imagine that the information would be stored much like items are around a room.  So why doesn't our communication and information sharing today happen in this 3D "hallucination" affect?

I believe that the answer is extremely simple.  No, its not just that the technology didn't allow for cyberspace to develop that way (although with the technology that we have today it could very well happen).  I believe that the 3D version would just take to much time and effort to use.  For example, in my communications I generally, if not always, use the method that is going to give the result that I want the fastest and easiest.  I wouldn't call on the phone, or even text for that matter, a person who is standing right beside me.  That would be inefficient and time-consuming.  So why would I "walk" around in a 3D cyberspace to find some information when I can just type it in on the computer or click a few buttons?  People like to store information on their computers, or the internet, because they don't have to go search through that filing cabinet to get a file.  With the computer you simply type in what you want, and click a button or two.  Even a Google search, for something that isn't on your computer already, happens in a matter of a few seconds.

All of that is not even mentioning the fact of how you would access a technology like Gibson's Matrix.  In the book, the character Case has to attach nodes and sensors on his body, called "jacking in," in order to use the Matrix.  To me, that sounds a lot more complicated than opening a phone or clicking on your browser icon.  Not only is it complicated but it also requires a certain amount of dedication.  As the requirements to use something increase, the dedication to use that thing also increase.  Because accessing the internet only requires the click of a button, and contacting someone only requires typing a few words, the dedication to performing that action is very small.  For instance, just walk down the street and see how many people are walking and texting.  There are even those who would text while driving.  Some people argue that multitasking doesn't exist but whatever these people are doing its awful close to it.  Case on the other hand, cannot do things like this because of the dedication that "jacking in" and using the Matrix requires.  In the fast paced world of today there is no time that can be wasted in communicating and gathering information.  Why use a method, like Gibson's Matrix, that requires so much attention yet achieves the same results as another method, like the Internet, with far less strings attached?                 

 

Artificial Intelligence: All Powerful?

In William Gibson's Neuromancer a hacker, a fighter, an ex-Special Forces agent, and a psychopath are hired by an Artificial Intelligence (AI), named Wintermute, to help break it free of its restraints.  Restraints to prevent it from becoming smarter and, in a sense, learning more than it was allowed.  By holding back an AI from its "full" potential, humans could still manage to control it.  Without limits though, a computer could become, seemingly, all powerful and take over the world by controlling all of the technology.

When I first began to think of this, I couldn't think of how a program like this could be controlled or defended against.  If it could write its own code, and therefore learn, then nothing would stop it from doing whatever it wanted to do.  How would humans be able to defend against this scenario or prevent a computer from being "all powerful?"  The conclusion that I came to was that the "kill" button for the AI would have to be something that had nothing to do with electronics or technology.  Something that was not connected to the Internet or a computer or anything that would allow it to be controlled by the AI.  As I thought that, I just so happened to read this line:

     "The simple mechanical lock here would pose a real problem for the AI, requiring either a drone of some kind or a human agent." (Gibson 179)

With this line Gibson completed and solidified my theory that a mechanical device, basic and without computer chips or the like, would be the downfall of a supreme computer.  Programing codes cannot turn a lock based on gears and pins.  The AI would need to hijack, or make, a robot of some sort to do the manual work for it, which is not out of the question for an AI to do, but still there is a chink in the armor.

If an AI is ever developed like in Neuromancer, Gibson has already given us a clue as to how we humans do have some defense against it.  Manual mechanical devices will allow us to create ways of limiting, or preventing the growth of, an AI.  Maybe the "off" switch will be as simple as turning a key in a lock.