In Ramadan 2020, Egypt sees its first science fiction series, Al Nehaya. The plot is set 100 years from now. It revolves around a computer scientist/engineer who lives in a dystopian world with cyborgs.

One situation that happened in the series is the cyborg clones. One of the scientists created a clone of another man’s wife to spy on him. The man has no idea that he is interacting with a robot, not his actual wife. This displays how realistic the robot looks and acts, since the man can’t tell if it is his own wife. Moreover, it shows us a glimpse of the future and white other generations might be living in.

The show also mentions the fact that educations is almost banned. Specific people are chosen to be educated, while the rest are treated like slaves.

The show has even reached an international audience due to the comments made about the alliance between the United States and Israel.

I highly recommend watching this series because it relates a lot to the issues we discussed through out the course and it overall very interesting!

Inspired by last class’ discussion regarding what is virtual and what is real, I felt I should clarify my point of view in writing.

With the emergence of new technology, I’m starting to realize that world’s we once considered to be virtual are not in fact virtual. Rather, I believe that virtuality should refer to immersions or platforms that are purely based on fiction, where there is no interaction with other individuals, rather just AI. Virtual worlds can include single-player video games where you undertake a character’s perspective and engage in a purely fictional world. Other examples may include, despite not being purely tech-based, but fictional novels. I believe fictional novels, especially those written in first-person, induce a sense of immersion which create a subconscious virtual world. However, with the advancement of our technology, we are now able to induce the same immersion into a virtual world in a more visual and auditory way. For future prospects, I think there is a very high possibility we will be able to control or induce dreams. The topic is already in development to help treat PTSD victims or those suffering from anxiety-related disorders. Therefore, in that future, I believe this would still fall under the category of virtual worlds.

Personally, I think that the phenomenon we were referring to should be classified as a virtual medium. When we were having a “virtual classroom” through Zoom, we were not immersed in a virtual world, nor were we virtual to one another, rather, we were in a virtual medium. If we were to consider that as virtual, then any form of none face-to-face communication from phone calls to passenger pigeons would be considered virtual as well. Instead, the presence of another human that is actively interacting with you is real, just through a virtual platform. The concept gets more complicated when we begin considering something like online video-games. There, two or multiple humans are in-fact interacting, however all the events occuring are absolutely virtual. After putting some thought to it, I have come to the conclusion that it should once-again be considered real through virtual mediums. The reason for which I state this is because of the purpose. The main reason people play together in online games is to develop their relationship through an enjoyable activity. The same applies to playing sports with people in real-life. Therefore, despite the purely virtual world and events, the presence of interaction between real-people makes it, real. However, the development of virtual mediums and their technology makes the line everso thin once more.

I’m pretty sure there are other perspectives to this, so please let me know what you guys think about this, I’d really like to know if anyone disagrees with this.

Orphan Black is a tv series about Sarah Manning who witnesses a suicide. It turns out the women who committed suicide is Sarah’s doppelgänger. She later discovers that she is a clone and that there are other clones of her spread around the world. All the clones are part of an illegal experiment of human cloning and there is someone that is trying to kill Sarah.

A bit similar to the concept of twins, human cloning is creating a copy of another human, which includes having identical genes. The difference between twins and clones is that twins have the same DNA as each other, and not their biological parents, while clones have the exact same DNA, as their host or parent. Clones aren’t necessarily going to be the perfect copy, because they aren’t born at the same time as their parent or host, so they might not look like them even at birth.

Even though no one was successful in creating a human clone nowadays, there are many conversation that revolve around the issue of human cloning. There are also multiple ethical issues regarding the subject, including identify theft, which is probably why in orphan black the experiment conducted is perceived as illegal.

In this article the author, Jennifer Robertson, studies the current landscape of robotics in Japan, and provides insights into how robots can embody ideas and notions of the relationship in humans between sex and gender roles, and how this embodiment can reflect back on society and social norms. This is of course one of many topics covered in the article but it is the one I will be reflecting on in this post.

She starts of by explaining that “gender is both a concept and performance embodied by females and males, a corporeal technology that is produced dialectically” i.e. it is simultaneously a characteristic of the material body and of the semiotic systems within which bodies exist. 

She goes further to describe that the relationship between genitals and gender attribution is reflexive. “The reality of a gender is ‘proved’ by the genital which is attributed, and, at the same time, the attributed genital only has meaning through the socially shared construction of the gender attribution process.”

This reflexive relationship combined with the prevalence of gendered robots in Japan means that through gender attribution, roboticists have a hand in constructing the social norms in Japan and can reinforce quite unprogressive notions of gender roles. The result of this “reality construction” is that the relationship between human bodies and genders – which is essentially a contingent one- is transformed into a rigid one. The robots they produce end up being a form of “retro-tech i.e. new technologies that facilitate the transcendence of ethnocentrism, paternalism and sexism, and their associated power relations.”

Robots are perceived by many Japanese citizens, especially the elderly and conservative politicians, as “eliminating the sociocultural anxieties provoked by foreign laborers and caretakers.” Humanoid robots are also preferred over immigrants as caretakers of children and elderly persons to assist housewives, thereby supposedly freeing them to stay home and have more children.

This assumption disregards the idea that Japanese women’s refusal to marry and their reluctance to have children, constitutes a form of protest against a social system that regards women as second-class citizens. This is evidenced in the fact that women’s standard of living falls dramatically once they marry since they are expected to do all the housework and also end up losing two-thirds of their disposable income. “It seems that this unprecedented exercise of self-interested agency, accompanied by a generalized antagonism toward migrant workers, has occasioned a societal environment facilitating the robotization of work, play and home-life.”

Robertson, J. (2010). Gendering humanoid robots: Robo-sexism in japan. Body & Society, 16(2), 1-36.

As many of you may be aware of by now, I am one of many who have been anxiously anticipating the airing of El Nehaya, the first Egyptian series to explore cybernetic futures and possibilities. Rather than explore the series itself, I wanted to initially explore the public response to the TV series. Regardless of production, script-writing, acting and other artistic features of the show. I am more interested in the public view of the technology and the concept of the show itself. Due to limited resources, my main tool for exploring this will be social media, which will include: a plethora of jokes with underlying implications.

The first major reaction I saw to the show was a lack of understanding. In fact, I do believe most people had expressed an inability to fathom the concepts the show depicted in its first episode. While I do believe this was a mistake on the show’s part as they introduced various sci-fi concepts which only appeared in Western movies or series, there is some extent of truth to how many concepts our culture can accept at once. Introducing the concept an energy core, cyborgs, merging biological life into technology to the Egyptian population all within a span of 40 minutes is a rather daring task. However, there was another underlying reaction I observed through social media, appreciation.

There was a significant amount of appreciation for the show’s daring undertaking. Many people expressed extreme interest in the show and praised the attempt to recreate Western sci-fi concepts. Many people compared concepts in the show to concepts from Blade Runner, the Hunger Games, and Terminator. Many using jokes to compare the qualities of both sides. However, many just admired the concept of the show. It also showed that a significant portion of the population does have some extensive knowledge on these sci-fi concepts, and could possibly be accepting to it. As opposed to what we might have thought (as per our discussions in class), I think that this series might just be a mass experiment to reveal Egyptian interaction and acceptance of technological concepts we explored in class.

This somewhat introduces my final point, self-awareness (or lack of in this case). The majority of jokes had criticized the show for trying to explain and depict complex concepts that Egyptians will not understand, due to the ignorance and stupidity of Egyptians. What I did realize however, was that very few individuals had been completely lost. The concepts as aforementioned were somewhat thrown at audiences in a rushed manner (likely due to the tight 30 episode limit). However, I realized that a significant portion of audiences were familiar with concepts from the show, and believed most Egyptians were not.

Now my observations are still very premature since this is still the first episode. Nonetheless, I think that this show will uncover some revelations that we never truly considered. I for one, I’m excited to see what else arises!

Generally people always refer to modern-technology when they look at their new smart phones or the mind blowing applications and software updates which companies like Apple and Samsung invent to these devices. People also think of technology that made their life easier by looking at their washing machines and other home / work appliances. On the other side, there is a remarkable percentage of people living their daily lives differently and they’re lacking the technology that would make it somehow easier than they currently are.

In this video, Ryan; a handsome young man, who is on autism spectrum was fortunate enough to have his grandfather building him a hug machine; yes you’ve read that right. Apparently in the end of the video it turned out to be not just a machine, but a wonderful creation which enhanced Ryan’s life that he even got a job that he’s good at just like anyone else is good at something in their lives. Regarding his mental health it was clear that his mother stated was getting much better since the invention of the hug machine, it is something that makes him feel in control, stress-relieving, creates a sense of calm and simply makes him happy.

His grandfather knew how to utilize the models he found on the internet to come up with the hug machine. Understanding the model’s design plan, modifying it according to the person’s needs and then building it should be an example for the definition of technology. When it comes to the broad base word of technology, I personally think that it’s all about comprehending how to utilize rather than being productive in general to accomplish the objective of making people’s lives easier. The idea for the machine at first came when the only thing that could calm Ryan and release his stress was getting a hug from his mother, however with years passing by and Ryan’s physique changing to become bigger and stiffer than his mother it wasn’t possible to receive the same hug as he used in the past.

Therefore I think we should not only to refer to technology when looking at smart devices and appliances, there are still other hand-made panels and inventions that were designed for some people and basically eases their living situations on a daily basis such as this hug machine. “It’s his life now, it has meaning and purpose and it’s not just trying to grow out of autism or trying to do better at every moment.”

This video is about a robot who has the intelligence and capability of riding a bike. It is programmed to calculate how far to turn the handle of bicycle in order to balance itself. However, the robot doesn’t really know which direction to go to, so you can choose which direction the robot can go to using a remote control, but he is able to balance himself while turning. The robot is able to stop and start waving. This robot proves how advanced technology has become. It is true that the robot can’t completely operate alone, however it can still balance itself. In the future, I believe that, with the constant development of technology, this robot will be able to drive a bicycle on its own, with the use more advanced censors that will help the robot detect its surroundings.

There is a prevalent notion that in the future, machines will replace human labour and humans will become “not just unemployed, but unemployable” since we won’t be able to compete with machines’ productivity levels. The videos I’ve linked below present different views about the future of work and how it may be shaped by technological advancements and A.I.

The first video by Vox holds the stance that despite the fact that many jobs will likely die, work will still persist. They describe how it’s really easy to see the jobs being replaced by machines but it’s a lot harder to visualize what happens next i.e. job creation. Replacing human labor with mechanical muscles frees people to specialize in better jobs thereby increasing the population’s standard of living. Another common argument is that humans have gone through this before during the industrial and agricultural revolutions yet we still have most jobs available to us.

There is also an issue mentioned briefly of there being a gap between the jobs replaced by machines and the jobs created as a result of the increased productivity in terms of time, geography, and skills. The new jobs will in fact be created, but only after a long time and they will likely require much more highly skilled labour which inflicts irreversible damage to the low-skilled people who lost the jobs. So while automation is raising the standard of living for some, it is likely forcing many others into poverty. 

The video named “humans need not apply” pokes holes into these arguments, and emphasizes that this time is fundamentally different because machines don’t just mimic physical work; A.I has given them the power to replicate mental tasks as well. They discuss many different fields where machines are rapidly improving and how they easily have the potential to replace human workers not just in menial jobs but also in professional and creative fields. All of this gives reason to believe that machines can overtake humans as the superior laborers and so the question shifts from can machines replace us to should they replace us?

The 2-part documentary Automation -also linked below- uses the example of self-driving cars to illustrate the devastating effect automation can have on the low-skilled majority of the population if it becomes the norm and gives examples from America’s rust belt to show how labour-saving technology can be harmful. A lot of emphasis is placed on the fact that technological advances aren’t stopping any time soon. In fact, they are increasing exponentially and underestimating this advancement is ignorant at best and catastrophically dangerous at worst. 

However, while the Vox video doesn’t dispute that machines are improving at an unprecedented rate, it presents the case the results of  automation aren’t so straightforward. They site studies that show that labour productivity has been decreasing over the past couple of years and explain that if jobs were truly being taken over by machines, it would correlate with an increase in labour productivity i.e. we would be producing more with less workers. So analyzing the data makes us skeptical of the idea that machines are fundamentally changing our economy.

The question that comes to mind is, what if machines do in fact take over all jobs across all industries? Would that be a bad thing? On one hand people who aren’t business owners, i.e. most people, will no longer have a source of income and will become a burden on society . However it is arguable that automation will afford us freedom from having to “work for a living”; freedom that can possibly allow us to evolve as a society. At first glance it seems that this can’t be anything but good however I find it difficult to imagine such a future. We are all so used to measuring our success and often our value based on our job or how productive we are. In most cases, our jobs can even become an integral part of our identity so without work, what would our purpose be? 

The video starts by clarifying the difference between the reverse image search of both search engines Yandex ( a Japanese search engine) and Google. When you use Google to search for a photo, using the reverse image search, the results would be websites where this picture had been used along with visually similar images (images that have similar coloring). However, Yandex’s reverse image search “does not look for visually similar images, if look for similar faces, ir even the same face.”  This difference in the reverse photo search in both engines shows that, unlike Yandex, Google has not turned its facial recognition feature on. On Yandex you can basically search for someone’s name by looking up an image of their face. The video then shows an example in which a person on the metro is trying to take a photo of a girl’s face (who is sitting in front of him) in order to look her up later. The video then moves on to discussing the algorithm behind facial recognition, saying that it basically detects faces in images and fixes any rotation of the head and then starts to take over a hundred measurements (including: the width of the mouth, distance between the eyes, the length of the nose, and so on) to identify that specific face and link it to a name tag. However, what exactly the algorithm is measuring still remains a mystery. These algorithms store the data in databases. For example, in the iPhone there’s only one database, meaning that it can store only one face (the face which you volunteer to have stored on the iPhone’s database) in order to make it easier to unlock your phone. Additionally, Google and Facebook also store the database of their users. Governments, however, have the largest access to databases of people’s names and faces. The government collects images for passports and other reasons but lately they’ve been using these images “without our consent” for the purpose of facial recognition . One scary example is presented by Aric Toler, a journalist from Bellingcat (which is an investigative journalism website), where he utilizes the Russian social media network “VK”. He trims out a square of a picture which included a large crowd, keeping only one person’s face and then searches that face on this social media network. Not only did VK give results of that person’s face from his own social media page, but it also gave results of images, which included him, from other people’s pages. This video shows how technology now makes it easier for governments to store information about people that have committed offenses and felonies and how they how they sell them to banks and other entities that would want to recognize these felons in order to avoid serving them. Not only is this an eye opening video about how our images are being utilized by social media networks and search engines, but it also makes us think about what apps we’re using when it comes to taking pictures of your faces (such as the app that makes you look old, or the website that sees who your celebrity look alike is.)

At the first glance at Miquela, one would instantly think that she is a living being. She takes mirror selfies, her hair has flyaways, she has a shadow, she complaines about she has a voice, thus, it took the world sometime to realize that this influencer is actually computer generated.

She debuted on Instagram in April of 2016 – the world was already tech savvy, but definitely did not expect that we’d reach this far. With her debut, many questioned her existence, and theorized that she is a marketing plan for the videogame Sims. Due to the nature of editing your photos on Instagram, the way she looked unhuman actually made people question that she is real, since this is what many are doing today. However, as she posted photographs of herself and friends eating at some of the hot spots in LA, with celebrities, and wearing some of the biggest brands in Milan Fashion Week, her follows were simply confused.

“In selfies, you can see the freckles on Miquela’s face; her gap-toothed smile. But up close, her brown hair, often pulled into Princess Leia–esque buns, looks airbrushed (Twitter users have noted that her flyaway frizz always falls in the same pattern). Her skin reads as smooth as the glass screen that separates us. And when you peer into Miquela’s big brown eyes, she fails the ultimate test of humanity. No, Miquela isn’t real — at least not like you and me. She is an avatar puppeteered by Brud, a mysterious L.A.-based start-up of “engineers, storytellers, and dreamers” who claim to specialize in artificial intelligence and robotics.” said one reporter.

After she launched her music, the controversy around her blew up. She then revealed that she is not a human, and blamed Brud, the company that created her, into lying to her and her follows to believe that she is human. Although it is an obvious PR stunt, she paved the way for other CGI models and influencers, who seem to be taking over the internet.

People today are idolizing a “person” that they could easily create on their laptops. Are these digitally created beings the future of fashion advertising? It seems that they are slowly going to take over a market specifically designed for humans and their desires. Here are some of the other digitally designed influencers:

• 

• 

• 

•