What are the arguments in these two articles? Do these sources overlap or diverge? 1. Cramer, Florian. "What is 'Post-Digital'?", in Berry, D., and M. Dieter, eds. Postdigital Aesthetics: Art, Computation And Design. 2015 edition. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015: https://aprja.net/article/download/116068/165295 2. Vincent, James. “The Invention of AI ‘Gaydar’ Could Be the Start of Something Much Worse.” The Verge, September 21, 2017

Florian Cramer's article examines the complex idea of post-digital culture and finds that it is remarkably similar to digital culture in its aspirations and assumptions. James Vincent looks at the potential for artificial intelligence to be used for sinister and intrusive purposes, such as discerning someone's sexual orientation without their consent. Both articles examine the confusion caused by the ways in which technology and its applications are frequently misunderstood.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In "What is Post-Digital?" Florian Cramer attempts to define post-digital culture, concluding that it is essentially not very different from mainstream digital culture. Both are based on ideas (which, in the author's view, are illusions) of free will, agency, and the potential for individual self-expression. The various forms of post-digital culture claim to be rebelling against the stifling conformity of digital culture, but digital culture itself is engaged in a similar rebellion against non-digital and pre-digital mainstream culture. The author says that rejection of and close identification with digital culture have the same origin, which he defines as a systems crisis, " not a crisis of this or that system, but rather a crisis of the very paradigm of ‘system’, as defined by General Systems Theory."

James Vincent's article "The invention of AI 'Gaydar' could be the start of something much worse" examines claims by researchers at Stanford University to have created a facial recognition system which can discern whether a subject is straight or gay. The author notes that these claims are not yet substantiated, and the main purpose of the researchers was to raise awareness about the sinister possibilities of artificial intelligence, which might be used to find private and sensitive information, such as political beliefs and IQ, as well as sexuality. Vincent expresses concern that prejudice and pseudoscience may be accepted as scientific when incorporated in AI systems, which will generate results without explanation or accountability. This could be particularly dangerous if AI systems can claim to discern, for instance, who is a pedophile or a terrorist.

The two sources are of different types (on is an academic article, the other a piece of journalism) and cover different areas. However, their approach is somewhat similar, showing the misapprehensions people often have about technology, and the confusion these can cause when they are not examined and corrected.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team