1) “The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that is not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience… says that even the adult mind is very plastic… “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”

On paragraph 2 of page 4, Carr gives insight into how the human brain is constantly molding and changing, even throughout adulthood, as it was a common misconception that the human brain became static after adolescence. I agree strongly with this central theme, especially as it pertains to the text. The mind must be an ever-changing processor if we are to keep up with the modern, technological, way of life. For example, as it relates to my own experiences, I remember when my mother made the decision to go back to school to obtain her DSP licensure. As part of her learning, it was required that she take online courses. Since the last time she had been to school was throughout the 80’s, it was quite tricky for her to become accustomed to the newer ways of learning online. However, with much effort, she was eventually able to navigate her course and complete her program. This specific scenario exemplifies how she was able to mold her brain to learn two different things—her DSP coursework and how to utilize technology in an entirely new way.

2) “More than a hundred years after the invention of the steam engine, the Industrial Revolution had at last found its philosophy and its philosopher. Taylor’s right industrial choreography—his “system,” has he liked to call it—was embraced by manufacturers throughout the country and, in tine, around the world. Seeking maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output, factory owners used time-and-motion studies to organize their work and configure the jobs of their workers.”

On paragraph 5 of page 5, Carr discusses the progression and rapid popularity of Taylorism, which is meant to capitalize on efficiency throughout the workplace– embodying an algorithmic system. My viewpoint on this central idea is quite complicated. The reasoning behind this complication of thought is: while efficiency and effectiveness within the workplace is understandably desirable, I am quite unsure if an algorithmic approach is the best method. This specific model of industrialism, while very strong for business, may not be great for the wellbeing of the workers themselves. If they are expected to function similarly to that of a machine—upholding a calculated standard of completion, then how is this beneficial for their mental faculties. Especially when it comes to hard labor, you must consider both the mental and physiological capacities of your employees. It seems quite demanding and very capitalistically driven to require your employees to work themselves to the bone, metaphorically speaking, to fulfill a desired quota. As a prior center store associate, I found this system of capitalizing on employee time to be draining. This type of system not only minimizes your lunch breaks, but also diminishes remotely any time to tend to your needs, as the guidelines require you to be standing 100% of the time throughout your work shift.

3) “Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured and optimized. In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.”

On paragraph 6 of page 6, Carr discusses how developers of artificial intelligence assume that the human population would be more prepared for life if our human intelligence was supplemented for that of artificial intelligence. He later goes on to discuss how there is little to no room for inquiry. Although I do not believe that human intelligence will ever “be supplemented” or “replaced” by artificial intelligence, I do agree with the ideology that this implication is unsettling. While AI and technology is quite a useful tool for human benefit, there is an ethical threshold which in my opinion, should not be crossed or even contemplated. This type of content relates heavily with the content currently being taught in my philosophy class, as we are currently discussing the differences between weak and strong AI, as well as the Turing test. When there becomes a point when strong AI becomes virtuous, and AI begins to capacitate its own thoughts and motives, is when we should be strongly worried. AI should rely, or mimic that of human behavior—not only for the safety purposes, but for strengthening humanity with essential tools significant in daily life.