Computer Science Education

How does Notre Dame’s computer science curriculum match up with the ACM guidelines and the ABET criteria? Does it mostly meet these learning goals or does it fall short?

From looking at the course titles of the ACM guidelines, it seems as if Notre Dame offers Computer Science classes that have similar titles or cover similar information as the ones listed in the ACM report.

As far as the learning goals listed in the ABET accreditation criteria, there seem to be a fairly strong match between those goals and the academic experience I have had as a Computer Science major at Notre Dame. We have been evaluated as students, have qualified faculty teaching courses, our education corresponds well with Notre Dame’s mission, the student outcomes from my perspective have been strong problem solving skills and a strong sense of ethics, and our curriculum has helped us reach these goals.

It was a nice realization upon reading both the ACM guidelines and the ABET criteria that we have been following along so closely here at Notre Dame. It has increased my confidence in my qualifications as a computer scientist as compared to the other students in my graduating class from other universities around the world.

What do you think of the ACM or ABET guidelines for a computer science program? What areas or topics need more exposure? Conversely, what areas or topics require less coverage?

I think both the ACM and ABET guidelines are pretty comprehensive for the most part, and largely cover what makes a qualified computer scientist that will further the field in an ethical manner. However, no guide can be either all encompassing or perfectly succinct, as are both the ACM and ABET.

Firstly, I feel like the ACM course catalog has an over-coverage of Artificial Intelligence and Human-Computer Interaction. I want to preface by stating that I do feel like these areas are definitely the next area where there will be an explosion of research and invention. However, this needs to be balanced with exposure on other areas of computer science that may be equally important like encryption and network security.

Secondly, I feel the opposite can be said about the ABET guidelines – they are too vague in parts, and thus almost too easy to be followed by institutions looking to cut corners. For example, the general guideline stating that “The program must have published program educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution”. It is one thing to publish objectives, and quite another to ensure these objectives are being achieved. Also, the strength of this guideline depends on the mission of the institution. I think this objective could be improved by ABET providing its own basic mission to ensure more uniformity in the institutions seeking ABET certifications.

Of course, these are very narrow suggestions, because I do think overall both ABET and ACM provide strong guidelines that will ensure that participating institutions will provide their charges with a quality computer science education.

Do you need to go to college to be a good computer scientist, computer engineer, software developer, or programmer? Do you feel Notre Dame has prepared you adequately for your future career? Do you know everything you should know (or want to know)? Explain.

I do not think that college is a hard and fast requirement to be a good computer scientist. But to quote one of my favorite comedians Chris Rock, “You can also drive a car with your feet, that doesn’t make it a good idea”. My point is that while it is possible to be a good programmer without college, college will make you a better programmer, or at the very least increase the chances of you turning out as a good programmer.

Notre Dame has definitely provided me with a lot of programming skills in many areas that will help me advance my career. However, what it has uniquely provided me was a melting pot of people with different points of views and given me experience in interacting with them. This will definitely help me in my career more than any programming skills will.

I don’t think I will ever know all I want to know, however I don’t view that as a negative. I look forward to learning new things in my career which will help me improve as a programmer. That being said, college has provided me with a solid foundation of knowledge that will make learning new things a lot easier.

Internet Trolls

From the readings and from your experience, what exactly is trolling? How does this behavior manifest itself and what are its causes and effects?

According to Wikipedia, an Internet Troll is “a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.” In other words, an internet troll is an unsavory person who is given licence to communicate his or her basest ideas that society has otherwise deemed unacceptable, due to the anonymity of the internet.

In terms of how this behavior manifests I think the quote from the theatlantic.com article The Imminent Death of the Internet Troll attributed to Margaret Atwood “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” Men tend to make threats that are threatening to women such as online harassment and threats, whereas women tend to make more biting comments about personalities and content.  The cause of this behavior is quite simple – in response to the rise of the PC (politically correct) movement that has hugely increased what is and what is not socially acceptable, people have identified the internet as an outlet to voice their now unacceptable views and behavior due to its anonymity. This is the reason that the comment sections of most articles and videos are filled with the vitriol and hatred that many of us wished we would have gotten past by now. The effects of internet trolling is the creation of a very divided online experience. There is a tacit understanding that if you are willing to share your thoughts through any format be it an article, a blog or a video, you must be thick skinned and willing to accept the most vicious criticism, for it is coming. I am fully ready and prepared to be skewered in the comment section on this blog post, and in fact I look forward to it.

What ethical or moral obligations do technology companies have in regards to preventing or suppressing online harassment (such as trolling or stalking)?

Companies definitely have a moral and ethical obligation to do their best to suppress and remove elements that harass people online. However, I feel this definitely comes with a caveat, for putting in place rules to regulate speech always have unseen and unwanted consequences. The importance of stopping online harassment must be balanced with the equally important interest in not suppressing ideas. I therefore believe that very rigid and narrow boundaries must be set for what qualifies as online harassment. In my opinion, simple criticism, and name calling cannot and should not be grounds for dismissal from the online service. Lumping in criticism with online harassment leads to a slippery slope, and inevitably leads to suppressing of ideas that the majority of people find distasteful or disagreeable. This is very harmful in a free society. However, this does not mean that all speech should be tolerated. In my mind, the line should be drawn at explicit death threats or threats of severe violence, as is mandated by the Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In this landmark ruling the Court found that any speech that promotes “imminent lawless action” is not protected by the First Amendment. I think the same standard should be applied to online forums.

Is anonymity on the Internet a blessing or a curse? Are “real name” policies useful or harmful in combating online abuse? 

I feel that anonymity on the Internet is neither a blessing or a curse – it is a necessary evil. While I do agree that “real name” policies will be effective initially in combating online abuse, it will eventually promote a different and in my opinion more harmful type of online abuse – the censoring of users with unpopular opinions. This may seem like a heartless attitude towards speech, but I truly believe that the right of a potential commenter on this piece to criticize my views and opinions, no matter how viciously or distastefully they choose to do so, are more important than my right not to get my feelings hurt. In a free society, it is important to give everyone a voice, especially to those you disagree with.

Is trolling a major problem on the Internet? What is your approach to handling trolls? Are you a troll?!?!?

Trolling is undoubtedly a problem. Ideally the Internet and indeed the world would be a perfectly welcoming place filled with nice people who never have feelings of ill will towards one another. However, this is not the reality that we must live with. It is a fact of life that there are racist, homophobic, misogynistic and bigoted people in the world. However, flagging and disposing of a user who is accused of being any or all of these things creates a worse situation – an Orwellian space where an unseen authority determines which thought or belief is allowed or not. This is truly scary, and antithetical to the ideals any liberal democracy such as ours is founded upon.

My approach to handling trolls is simply to either ignore them, or if I find their points of view interesting enough to respond to them. If someone truly writes something blatantly offensive or insensitive, I do not give them the importance they seek by taking them seriously. I brush them off and go on with my day.

I certainly do not think I am a troll, because I largely refrain from commenting on any online media unless I feel I have something constructive to say. However, I don’t feel like this is a question I can answer, only my fellow internet users can. So I guess in answer to the question, I hope not.

I would like to conclude this piece by sharing a video of one of my favorite shows South Park, that I feel is very relevant to this discussion. In this episode, the school creates a social media filter that doesn’t allow any negative comments about any of their users to be posted on their profile. All the children can see is the positive comments people have for them, leading to this very funny but thought provoking song:

Safe Space

 

 

Artificial Intelligence

From the readings, what is artificial intelligence and how is it similar or different from what you consider to be human intelligence?

According to the article in the readings What is artificial intelligence? on computerworld.com, artificial intelligence is described as “a sub-field of computer science. Its goal is to enable the development of computers that are able to do things normally done by people – in particular, things associated with people acting intelligently.” Artificial intelligence is similar to human intelligence in that it is supposed to enable a man made machine to make choices and do the activities humans routinely do in an intelligent manner, in other words not randomly but with reason and logic. They are often able to learn and adapt, two very “human” characteristics.  However, it is still not the same as human intelligence. Human intelligence stems from a natural living being, whereas artificial intelligence stems from a man made machine, and that difference is an important one to keep in mind.

Are AlphaGo, Deep Blue, and Watson proof of the viability of artificial intelligence or are they just interesting tricks or gimmicks?

AlphaGo, Deep Blue and Watson are immense strides in the field of artificial intelligence. They proved that artificial intelligence can be made to be so sophisticated at a particular task that it can perform that task better than a human. And not just any human, but the best human in the world at that activity. However, an important thing to keep in mind is that AlphaGo, Deep Blue and Watson were created to play Go, Chess and Jeopordy! respectively. While these are all impressive feats of engineering, two things are true: their human opponents came in to their game severely underestimating the opposition, and these games are basically one task – they don’t really mean that any of these computers can replace a normal everyday human. So, in my opinion, these three are still in the category of tricks and gimmicks. However, given the rapid and sharp rise in the abilities of robots, it is not inconceivable to see in the future there might well be a robot that could replace an intelligent human being. So I think these three robots are at the same time proof of the future viability of artificial intelligence, but are right now just interesting gimmicks.

Is the Turing Test a valid measure of intelligence or is the Chinese Room a good counter argument?

I think that the Chinese Room is a great argument and I think that it is true that just being able to execute a program to carry on a conversation does not mean that the computer executing the program has intelligence, understanding or consciousness. However, the Turing Test is still a scary test for a computer to pass. Even if the computer cannot truly understand what it is doing, the fact that it is able to fool humans into thinking it is a sentient being is harm enough. The potential for abuse in this situation is very high. We are seeing some of the side effects programs that can carry on a conversation with a person are having on the public. For example, there have been numerous cases of people cheated out of money or personal information by such robots on online dating sites like Tinder. Hence, I believe that the Turing Test doesn’t quite meet the standard of a valid measure of intelligence but certainly meets the standard for cause of concern.

Finally, could a computing system ever be considered a mind? Are humans just biological computers? What are the ethical implications are either idea?

I do not think a computer system could ever be considered a mind simply because of the Chinese Room argument. I believe that it is truly impossible for a Computer to gain true understanding and consciousness. True understanding and consciousness would imply awareness of self and surroundings, and a questioning nature of the meaning of life and existence. Because no human has the answers to these questions, or indeed a detailed understanding of how the human mind works, it is impossible for us to replicate that onto a man made machine.

The ethical implications of considering a computer a mind are quite considerable. Most importantly, we would have to consider a computer a sentient being, and hence treat them as such, which would drastically change our way of dealing with computers. It is conceivable if computers have understanding, they would be aware of their rights, and we would have to reward them for doing tasks. They would have the ability to feel bored, sad, happy, angry and so on, so we would have to choose the tasks we assigned to them carefully. These are important things to keep in mind on our quest to make computers think like humans.