CRITICAL SELF-EVALUATION (2)

Given the progress that we have each made in our DA project, I decided to take a new angle while writing my comments; by asking questions that could direct the rest of their DA projects! Indeed, for all three of my responses, I put forward interrogations that could be interesting to address depending on the framework in which they wanted to challenge the future. In addition, I attached to these questions several articles and theoretical concepts seen in class that could be useful to answer these. Finally, I also proposed to all my peers to not to be shy to promote their DA project on their personal social platforms in order to get more engagement given the little feedback they received so far.

First of all, I commented on Taylor’s BETA presentation. I find that my contribution in a DA project like Taylor’s was very relevant given that we both deal with AI technology. Indeed, I noticed that she was facing the same problems as me in terms of lack of engagement with her audience, so I suggested her to redefine her audience as it is very broad, based on past, present and future data, which will allow her to adjust her angle and approach in her video series, but also to propose futuristic predictions of AI issued in a foresight way to reassure her chosen audience. On the other hand, I mentioned to Taylor to change the order of her subtopics in order to increase her possibilities to include theoretical concepts seen in class, but also to better introduce her subtopic “the future of AI at home” following “How AI is perceived in popular movies” through the main idea of Csicsery-Ronay Jr., “it is from science fiction’s thesaurus of images that we draw many of our metaphors and models for understanding out the technologized world, and it is as science fiction that many of our impressions of technology-aided desire and technology-driven anxiety and processed back into the imagination” (Moore, 2020, Week 2). Finally, using several guiding questions, I propose to Taylor to address the different definitions shared by robots, cyborgs and Android seen in the lecture of week 8, namely “a robot is a programmable cybernetic machine controlled by a computer and its term comes from the Czech word ‘robota’ which means ‘forced labour’” and “an android is still a robot and therefore a programmable machine capable of autonomous and complex action. Androids have a clear [humanoid] form and design” to explain what future forms of AI will look like at home (Moore, 2020, Week 8).

Secondly, I commented on the progress of Paris’s DA project that addresses the future of the environment which is considered by Terry and “New York City-based futurist Gray Scott as the number-one future trend worth talking about is the changing environment” (Patel, 2017). In order to further emphasis the fact that she challenges the future in the next 10–25 years with her DA project, I suggested to her to add two articles’ topics whose direction highlights the future of the environments 10–25 years from now if we keep the same habits and the future of the environments 10–25 years from now if we opt for a change in our habits as proposed in the previous articles of Paris. This direction would allow her to address Bell’s concept that she highlights in her BETA presentation, that “futurist ask what would the future be like if we continue to behave as we do right now”, but also Masini’s main idea that “there is not just one future, they are many futures” and Gidley’s proposal that “the warning signs and predictions are dire it is not too late for us to meaningfully contribute and transform the present to improve the predictions of the future” (Moore, 2020, Week 5). Finally, I encouraged her idea to include “call-to-action” in her articles to generate more engagement, but also to highlight the fact that “the future is now”. Overall, I thought her project was a great reflection of the seventh purpose of the Futures Studies elaborated by Wendell Bell, where it presents “the integration of knowledge and values for designing social action” (Moore, 2020, Week 4).

Finally, I commented on Cooper’s BETA presentation on the future of electric cars in Australia. A subject that is full of data on the past, present and future, which makes it easy to make predictions about the future. Since Cooper hasn’t released his first podcast yet, and we don’t know what kind of engagement he’s going to get, I suggested that he uploads his trailer or glimpses of his upcoming podcasts to create this craze around his DA project and to tickle his audience’s attention. However, after watching the BETA presentation I didn’t completely understand how he wanted to challenge the future, so I put a series of questions that could be interesting to address in his podcast for a close, medium or long-term future. Therefore, I proposed to him to answer these questions according to what futurists do which is “to analyse data from the past, identify the current trends, and offer prediction in both factual and fictional forms” as well as the sixth purpose of Futures Studies by Wendell Bell “the interpretation of the past and orientation towards the present” (Moore, 2020, Week 6) (Moore, 2020, Week 4). In addition, I have provided several links to scientific articles that address the past, present, and future to help him undertake this process. Furthermore, I suggested that he pays particular attention to the predictions of different futurists as Wendell Bell mentions, “there are many types of futurists. Some are innovators and inventors, some are CEOs and entrepreneurs, while other futurists aim to educate and communicate, there is also an important category of futurists who are also activities” (Moore, 2020, Week 6), such as Elon Musk the head owner of Tesla or Mitchel Joachim seen in the reading of Week 6 to answer these questions and to challenge the future of his topic. To conclude, I suggested a new direction to address his main question he raises in his BETA presentation “why is there a lack of electric car use in Australia”.

In conclusion, I think it was very relevant to comment again on the progress of each other’s DA projects, as we have all had different experiences in terms of engaging and feedback, so it is possible to be more congruent in our advice. In addition, I find that the fact that our DA project is concrete allows us to better guide the other person in the evolution of his/her DA project and also increases our interest in exploring the project of others. Furthermore, I am able to detect a clear improvement in my integration of theoretical concepts in my comments which seem to be more coherent and relevant for the others. In brief, I think that the layout and the content of my responses offer a nice continuation of the feedback loop.

References:

Moore, C. (2020). Cyberculture: Cyborgs, Androids and Robots. Week 8 Online Lecture, University of Wollongong, viewed 7 May 2020.

Moore, C. (2020). Futurists. Week 6 Online Lecture, University of Wollongong, viewed 23 April 2020.

Moore, C. (2020). Futures Thinking: Science Fiction. Week 2 Online Lecture, University of Wollongong, viewed 12 March 2020.

Moore, C. (2020). Multiple Futures. Week 4 Online Lecture, University of Wollongong, viewed 12 March 2020.

Patel, N. (2017). Futurists Grade Blade Runner 2049’s Vision of the Future. Fyfywire. Retrieved from: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/futurists-grade-blade-runner-2049s-vision-of-the-future

Publié par gariepymaude

Future Cultures Blog (BCM325)

Un avis sur “CRITICAL SELF-EVALUATION (2)

Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s

Créer un nouveau site sur WordPress.com
Commencer
%d blogueurs aiment cette page :